Religion and pleasure

[Esquilax]

Well, even if you do, I'm not sure you'll persist when faced with a choice of sacrificing your own "simple pleasures" and whatever greater purpose you've taken on. It is the impression I've gotten from the lot of the atheists I know.

Blanket statements are dumb. (Yay! )

And I stress the term "atheists" because the term seems to be your primary means ot self-identification before anything else, so I will continue to use this term until the discussion sees its final words.

It's my primary means of identification here, where religious beliefs are generally the centerpiece of conversation, and during conversations of a religious nature, as I imagine it is for most other atheists here. But it's not what we're all about; I generally go by Ryan, whenever I'm not specifically wearing my atheist hat. The point is, I have many others.

I'm like a haberdasher.

The thing is, due to the fact that you believe that upon death, it's all over for you, you don't really see much of a point in participating in things that exceed your lifetime.
If there is a certain reason for you to do so, tell me.

Because we all have a responsibility to future generations; my life might end, but I have people I care about who will persist after me, not least of which the children I intend to have, and I owe it to them, and to the rest of my species, to leave the world in a better state than I entered it.

But let's flip the script: you believe in an afterlife, that this world is merely a pitstop on the way to eternity. What reason do you have to care about this transient world? There are actual US politicians that have used this exact argument with regards to why we shouldn't care about the environment, so it's not like I've got no basis for any of this.

But please note, I'm not actually putting these questions out there seriously, because I'm not presumptuous enough to claim knowledge about entire groups of people based upon the few of them that I know and my own biases.

I know this from my own parents. They'd love to think they care about politics and the way the country is going, but when I decide that I wish to be more active in political life, in pursuit of a definite ideal, they come to tell me that I ought to forget about these things and live my life.

Great! And so from those two people, you decide you know what every atheist ever is motivated by. Awesome. Ever think that maybe this "problem" is yours? That maybe you should get that massive self important stick out your ass and stop appointing yourself the arbiter of everyone else's self worth?

At the very least, the issue you have is with your parents, not with atheism.

What form of evidence do you really expect from me? I'm telling you about the impression I've gotten from the atheists that I've known in my lifetime, including the people here.

Did you actually ask before you proclaimed these things, or were you just collecting opinions based on pre-existing biases you already had? Because factual things are demonstrated, not just asserted; you've essentially denigrated an entire class of people based on nothing but... what? A swing round a forum- let's all remember that the internet is a bastion of class and serious conversation, all of the time- and interactions with your friends.

Clearly, a wonderful sample, with which to make your broad, sweeping statements.

No, it wouldn't, because there is a difference, else I'd obviously not choose the greater joys over the smaller ones, while persevering through periods of sadness and pain, which means, patience.

Maybe you're just a joyless groundswell of gloom, hoarding your sacrifice like it's your ticket into heaven.

However, atheists generally do not show this patience too much, since they think that their time is limited, they rush things, they are impatient. This is why they lose faith in things very easily.

Do me a favor: in your mind, replace the word "atheist" with the words "black people," or "Jews," or "gays," or "women." You see how much of an asshole you sound, there?

I'm not an atheist, I'm a university student that has faced expulsion from school for my views, threats of violence from fellow students and monetary problems just to print a magazine.

Yes, I didn't think I'd be the only one to find you to be an insufferable, self righteous jerk.

If I were as you, bent on enjoying myself, I'd certainly quit. I'd go through university just like the other guys, and perhaps end up in America or Europe some day.

Before you peg me as "bent on enjoying myself," I have to ask, do you know me? Have we met?

Yeah, I didn't think so.

Legitimate, yes they are. But I've never really judged you for that.
I simply have stated why I think that atheists as I think they are.

And the fact that your fundamental assumption about what atheists "are" is wrong never bothered you when you did it, which is the problem I have.

And don't give me that crap about not judging, that's all you were doing: you were putting whatever actions you've chosen on some pedestal, calling it a greater cause, while accusing atheists of not having the fortitude or wherewithal to do the same. Don't compound idiocy with dishonesty.

I never expected such a thing. But while I see hedonism as morally wrong, you simply don't.

Don't tell me what my morals are.

Well, I can find plenty of things to like in my own life too. And I do have certain things that I like to do. I like to draw, I like to discuss politics and actually have joined this site to get to know people around the globe a little better. These are my little joys. But ultimately, they are not really meaningful beyond the moment they're done in. And when you are dead and underground they'll be lost with you, at least, according to your belief.

Which in no way undercuts the enjoyment you experienced when you did them. And if you're doing them right, you're sharing them with others, enhancing their day to day experiences too. Life's not just a mark you make on the future, it's made up of those day to day, transient experiences too. They're the memories you share with others, the practice that hones your skills, the myriad tiny ways you touch the lives of others. So what if I can't enjoy them when I'm dead?

These things are meaningful in that when I'm at the end of my life I'll be able to look back at the memories I've made, the fun I've had and the people I had it with, and be happy. This isn't about hedonism, it's about emotional fulfillment.

My point is this, since atheists always do not look beyond their lifetimes, they generally see no point in looking back in their history, or having a vision that drives them to do better things for the future.

My point is this: quit making offensive blanket statements.

The only way they contribute to the future is having a child, which is in itself a way for them to have a taste of a greater joy in life, though some still exchange it for greater sexual freedom and less responsibilities, again, with the same reasoning. I'm here for a limited amount of time, why really bother to spend my time on someone else, when I can spend it on myself.

Does the fact that you're just manifestly wrong on every conceivable level even bother you? Case in point: the last Prime Minister my country had was an atheist.

Well, no such person would waste time in an internet forum.

You're here, ain't you?

Well, I've heard it from other people here numerous of times that people are not born with a purpose. So according to them, the default human is a man that has no purpose other than the purpose that he has by simply existing there.

Or, to put it accurately, you make your own purpose. Turn it to good, turn it to bad, turn it to nothing much at all, the beauty in life is in the blank ticket you were handed upon birth; your life is as you make it.

Besides, my purpose is not bound to me alone. It's a "greater purpose" whom I follow, I did not create it, I did not elaborate on it, I only try to understand it, and live accoding to it.

And I hope you never grow to resent it. I myself, I found a cause that means something to me, some way to share my special skills with the those who need it: I teach people to read. Maybe it's not a world altering goal, maybe it only helps a few in small ways, but it's important to me, and it's sure as hell important to the people I help. Best of all, I was the one who decided this.

Any purpose that I create for myself will ultimately end with me.

Not true. Take my personal example above: I teach a man to read, who otherwise couldn't. Now he's got a new skill, possibly a new interest too: at the very least, his prospects have gone up. His ability to function in the world has been enhanced. And maybe he teaches his kids, the same way I taught him. Maybe he gets a better job that might otherwise have been out of his reach, becomes successful. Helpful actions do persist beyond the individual, you know.

And hell, so what if you die and it ends with you? Isn't the fact that you've helped another person enough?

And the fact that you stressed above, that the past and future has no meaning other than being "history" is what drives you to accept a lesser purpose for your life, which is mostly to simply live for the sake of living.

Stop making assumptions about me and people like me. Should I be turning this into a song or something?

Well, if you do, you probably have the morals general society has. So do I. I don't make up my own moral standpoint, I simply understand the moral standpoint of society, and follow it.
You on the other hand reject many of the moral standpoints in whatver society you're in, and generally associate this with freedom(which I attribute to your general self-righteous attitude that stems from all the above mentioned points), and create your own set of morals, on which sometimes, you can't even agree on.

Can we all just revel in the irony of this guy calling someone else self righteous, for a moment?

In short, your morals are outlined by the laws in the countries you live in, and even in that case, you try to change these laws to suit your morals, instead of the morals of the general public.

Interesting: your implication here seems to be that majority rule determines what's moral. If I lived in a place where the morals of the general public dictated that a certain race of people be lynched, would it not be a moral imperative to try and change this?

Also, the idea of atheists as activists attempting to change the law according to their own moral compasses conflicts with your basic premise that atheists are lazy scofflaws, but then, nobody believes that you've thought your premise out enough to be a coherent thought anyway.

What? Is that too much for you to handle? Of course, you obviously can't comprehend the meaning of sacrifice, ideals, and living your life accoding to these ideals. You live your life according to yourself, which is, in my opinion, nothing.

Alright, I tried taking all this seriously, maybe addressing your points with some substance, but not anymore. You crossed the line. I'm going to need to call in some backup, here.

Hey Megaman, help me out!



Thanks, Megaman.

[Angrboda]

While Christianity adds its own spin to it with sin, I think there has historically been a tendency to separate out the bodily pleasures and experiences from the mental and spiritual, viewing the former, if not bad, as either dangerous or less valuable. I think one of the reasons Christianity places so much emphasis on it is likely a result of Plato's thinking as interpreted through Augustine. But even Aristotle, with his maxim about everything in moderation, and the Stoics, with their disapproval of impulsive and uncontrolled emotions, tended to frame the more hedonistic delights in a negative light. And you find similar themes in other religious and non-religious writings. The pleasures of the body have typically been identified with excesses and ruin, and for better or worse, ranked as inferior to those of the heart or the mind (or the spirit). I don't think it's specifically religious, but since much of religion is concerned with proscribing how you should and should not conduct yourself, any normative guidelines about the value of earthly pleasures generally is bound to be reflected in religion.

The paradoxical aspect is that, the pursuits which mehmet raises above the (mostly imagined) pursuits of atheists are just as determined by his biological nature and drives as sex or lust for good food. We are a social species, and as a result, we have drives built into our psychology which make the accomplishment of socially desirable goals pleasurable to us in and of themselves. So while mehmet may paint a distorted picture of atheists as only being obsessed with earth bound pleasures, he's also neglecting that the pleasurable pursuits which he trumpets as superior are every bit as tied to his bodily nature.

[genkaus]

I'm no old man to give you wisdom, I'm here to speak my own words, and explain my views.
If you find them worthless, don't reply.

Actually, if I find them worthless, I'll tell you why they are worthless.

To start with, I did not assert the idea that my views were original. As a matter of fact, people who are applauded in our society today, are people who have sacrificed much, for a greater cause.
Not otherwise.

Being applauded after death - that's not going to make anyone happy.

Amongst these 5, I have little to show. I have no relationship, I have no significant accomplishments which allow me to rise above the regular person, though pleasures of flesh, I can get whenever I want, may it be through wine, or whores.

Ah, that explains it. The sour grapes syndrome.

A meaning though, yes, my life has a meaning. This meaning, however is something that is beyond me. This is what makes it tower over whatever I hope to "accomplish" in life. All my accomplishments, I will dedicate to that meaning alone, which will make accomplishments count for something beyond me and perhaps my close circle of relatives and associates. For no matter how much you accomplish, there will be someon who has accomplished more than you, if you think it through in a personal way. Though if these accomplishments of yours are dedicated to a cause, they will count more than any amount of accomplishments of a single person.

Your psychology becomes clearer. As does your insecurity. If your chosen purpose was yours and yours alone, you would not be so eager to measure your accomplishment against another's. And if you had a degree of self-worth - not a borrowed sense of one - you would not allow this "purpose from beyond you" to dictate your life.

Perhaps. But you ought to know that one generally takes away the other.

Not if you choose wisely.

Just for an example: I have a relationship. I go and have an affair for my pleasure. She gets to know. I've sacrificed one thing, for another. This is how it goes. You cannot have all, friend.

I can have it all. By involving my wife in the affair and having a threesome. And I can have that by choosing the right wife.

What sort of a meaning do you have on your own? You're but a single number, if you'd die now, the world wouldn't go under, so what sort of a meaning do you think you possess?

The one that I wouldn't achieve should I die now. My purpose isn't based on the world, but on myself.

If your sacrifice will have a meaning beyond you, I'd say it's a fair deal. Achilles took that deal in the Illiad.

Achilles was a moron. And no, it won't be a fair deal.

And what sort of accomplishment is there in your pokemon card-collection?

Advertise it over the internet? Nah, don't think so.

Well, I'm just hoping that you're going to prove me otherwise.

Already have.

Except in the case for a child, seriously no. What sort of purpose beyond the purpose you described above do you hope to make up for yourself?

And the reason why I would need a purpose beyond the purpose I described would be?

Well, there isn't really much of a purpose you can set for your life though. The only thing the average joe without a greater purpose desires in life is a house, a car, perhaps a family if you're into it, children, and perhaps grandchildren. Or if you don't like these, you can choose many of the alternative lifestyles that are available today. It's nothing out of the ordinary, these too, are outlined.

And yet, so far, their lives end up being much more meaningful than yours.

Well, I'm 24 years old, I really have not much to show, my friend. And as I said, whatever I have accomplished, I did for a greater purpose. I was not alone, of course, people have helped me, I have helped them, and we tried to do something. We failed, but we've not given up.
And indeed, my heritage is the source of my pride, my friend. Hopefully I will be a source of pride to those that come after me.

Thanks for proving my point.

Well, I can't know. Hard to impress the next generations with your cooking skills when you're dead.

I don't give a shit about impressing anyone who comes after I'm dead.

That's how much your cookings skills matter, my friend. I guess taking pride in your cooking is not a bad thing, but considering themselves above your ancestors who've built cities, fought and died in wars, and have created for you the environment in which you've practiced and developed your cooking skills is nothing but being disrespectful.
A man always must honour and respect his ancestors.

Honoring them is a far, far thing from regarding them as a source of pride.

Honoring someone means showing them respect and considering them worthy. Pride means respecting oneself and considering oneself worthy. And if you pride yourself upon your ancestors, it means you think that you are worthwhile not because of something you've done or accomplished but because of what someone in the past did. And only someone without much sense of self-worth would need to borrow it from people long dead.

[Lucanus]

some still exchange it for greater sexual freedom and less responsibilities, again, with the same reasoning. I'm here for a limited amount of time, why really bother to spend my time on someone else, when I can spend it on myself.

It is only when you love yourself that you'd understand that your need for happiness goes beyond mere sensuality. It is upon loving oneself that one realizes that his dignity, development and achievement cannot and should not be compromised.

Back when I was a theist (actually, in my final phase of theism, a sort of christian pantheism) I once thought and wrote that since our view of the world is (by necessity) centered on ourselves, everything we do is mainly for ourselves. Yet in living our own lives we are presented with two opportunities: one is living without caring about others, the other is living while caring about others. Even then, there are plenty of combinations of the two opportunities, so I can care for my nation but not for others etc. . Of course now, as an atheist, I think that we as humans should care for the greater good of our own species, and in fact I live my life and I sacrifice the small pleasures I could have now to make something good for humanity in the future, but I still think that we have those two opportunities in the way we live our lives and that the limelight of our life is always centered on ourselves - that is, our actions, not the others'.

What sort of a meaning do you have on your own? You're but a single number, if you'd die now, the world wouldn't go under, so what sort of a meaning do you think you possess?

You live your life according to yourself, which is, in my opinion, nothing.

Hegel, Hegel, HEGEL!
ALL YOUR IMPORTANCE ARE BELONG TO US!
Come on boy, how many people are out there whose life, lived according to themselves, was so important to society? Who tells you you are not speaking to one of them or to one that can become one of them in the future? Everyone has the right to be important for mankind. Everyone. And you don't live your life impersonating society, you live your life impersonating your fucking self. So try to be good at that and don't get bent on following rules someone else imposed on you.

This does not necessarily mean hedonism, it means pulling that stick out of your arse.

[genkaus]

]While Christianity adds its own spin to it with sin, I think there has historically been a tendency to separate out the bodily pleasures and experiences from the mental and spiritual, viewing the former, if not bad, as either dangerous or less valuable. I think one of the reasons Christianity places so much emphasis on it is likely a result of Plato's thinking as interpreted through Augustine. But even Aristotle, with his maxim about everything in moderation, and the Stoics, with their disapproval of impulsive and uncontrolled emotions, tended to frame the more hedonistic delights in a negative light. And you find similar themes in other religious and non-religious writings. The pleasures of the body have typically been identified with excesses and ruin, and for better or worse, ranked as inferior to those of the heart or the mind (or the spirit). I don't think it's specifically religious, but since much of religion is concerned with proscribing how you should and should not conduct yourself, any normative guidelines about the value of earthly pleasures generally is bound to be reflected in religion.

I think that there is an important distinction to be made between criticism of hedonism, considering earthly pleasures as inferior and considering them outright sinful.

As I said, there are different aspects of of happiness, different avenues to them and maximizing happiness from each avenue would maximize your overall happiness. Under hedonistic pursuits, or if one acts in an impulsive of uncontrolled manner, one closes off other avenues to happiness. Which is why disapproval of excesses in this regard is justified. The the corollary should apply as well. You shouldn't live an ascetic life following some greater meaning because then you are sacrificing other forms of happiness.

As for considering one form superior to another - I would have no idea on how to compare. The happiness I feel while eating good food is of a completely different form from what I feel when I am with my family. Comparing them as inferior or superior is difficult - which is why the wisest choice would be to pick a way of life where you don't have to keep sacrificing one for another.

As for calling those earthly pleasures a sin - I consider that to be a sin itself.

---

Back when I was a theist (actually, in my final phase of theism, a sort of christian pantheism) I once thought and wrote that since our view of the world is (by necessity) centered on ourselves, everything we do is mainly for ourselves. Yet in living our own lives we are presented with two opportunities: one is living without caring about others, the other is living while caring about others. Even then, there are plenty of combinations of the two opportunities, so I can care for my nation but not for others etc. . Of course now, as an atheist, I think that we as humans should care for the greater good of our own species, and in fact I live my life and I sacrifice the small pleasures I could have now to make something good for humanity in the future, but I still think that we have those two opportunities in the way we live our lives and that the limelight of our life is always centered on ourselves - that is, our actions, not the others'.

I sort of disagree.

I'd say that how you decide to live your life for yourself would ultimately determine whether you should care about others and how much.

[Lucanus]

---

Back when I was a theist (actually, in my final phase of theism, a sort of christian pantheism) I once thought and wrote that since our view of the world is (by necessity) centered on ourselves, everything we do is mainly for ourselves. Yet in living our own lives we are presented with two opportunities: one is living without caring about others, the other is living while caring about others. Even then, there are plenty of combinations of the two opportunities, so I can care for my nation but not for others etc. . Of course now, as an atheist, I think that we as humans should care for the greater good of our own species, and in fact I live my life and I sacrifice the small pleasures I could have now to make something good for humanity in the future, but I still think that we have those two opportunities in the way we live our lives and that the limelight of our life is always centered on ourselves - that is, our actions, not the others'.

---

I sort of disagree.

I'd say that how you decide to live your life for yourself would ultimately determine whether you should care about others and how much.

Well that was the point... I dunno maybe something got lost in translation (english is not my first language) :S

[Godscreated]

@ littleendian and Kay, what is your problems, all I did was explain what Christians find pleasurable and what we do not find pleasurable and explained why. I did not point a finger at anyone and if you took it that way it must be from guilt. You two need to cool down, maybe a bucket of cold water would be useful. Both of you need to read what's printed not what whirs around in your minds.

[Gilgamesh]

Worldly pleasures are looked down upon because they're distractions, yes. Anything that doesn't serve to strengthen your relationship with christ is a distraction.

[genkaus]

@ littleendian and Kay, what is your problems, all I did was explain what Christians find pleasurable and what we do not find pleasurable and explained why.

You're right. What I found more objectionable was your presumption of speaking for all Christians.

[Godscreated]

@ littleendian and Kay, what is your problems, all I did was explain what Christians find pleasurable and what we do not find pleasurable and explained why.

You're right. What I found more objectionable was your presumption of speaking for all Christians.

I believe what was said, was I know Christians that... and referred to sin as the way Christianity sees it.