(October 12, 2026 at 8:45 am)emjay Wrote:

(October 12, 2026 at 8:27 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Either mindfulness practice in it's clinical form is the analytical and descriptive content it purports to be, or it isn't.  Changing our language to refer exclusively to subjective and anecdotal content won't effect that.

I really don't know what you're saying any more. I have the right to change the focus of my attention, if I'm capable of doing so, do I not? and I have the right to consider doing that beneficial to myself, rightly or wrongly, irrationally, foolishly, whatever... do I not? So yeah, if you all want to consider me an irrational fool, then so be it, sad but so be it. Frankly I wish I had died both times and the only curse is that I didn't... and now all that remains is to endure what's left until I do... which mindfulness, in my fucking opinion, helps me with... sometimes... when I apply it, which isn't always. I'm not gonna let you guys rip this rug out from under me because it's the only thing I've got left!

You really need to talk to someone, emjay. This isn't something you should be dealing with alone.

@emjay

I also don’t find the clinical mindfulness as impactful, or profound…anecdotally…in my life…as the fuller expression of Buddhism (or Zen Buddhism). Funnily enough my original introduction to that practice was in a chapter of a book about how to prepare your spirit to do ritual magic. Didn’t get into it very much except to experiment and reach something like the experience I was aiming for. It was much later in life- after the service, that I started to read about the philosophy and/or religion of it all

(October 12, 2026 at 10:52 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(October 12, 2026 at 8:45 am)emjay Wrote: I really don't know what you're saying any more. I have the right to change the focus of my attention, if I'm capable of doing so, do I not? and I have the right to consider doing that beneficial to myself, rightly or wrongly, irrationally, foolishly, whatever... do I not? So yeah, if you all want to consider me an irrational fool, then so be it, sad but so be it. Frankly I wish I had died both times and the only curse is that I didn't... and now all that remains is to endure what's left until I do... which mindfulness, in my fucking opinion, helps me with... sometimes... when I apply it, which isn't always. I'm not gonna let you guys rip this rug out from under me because it's the only thing I've got left!

You really need to talk to someone, emjay. This isn't something you should be dealing with alone.

Thank you, but I have my friends, including you guys, I have my family, I have my Buddhist group, but at the end of the day, we are all alone, or will be all alone... loss is just the ultimate nature of life, that we're all heading towards, and that's all I really care about, learning to accept, and deal with that. But from a Buddhist or Buddhist-like perspective, or indeed a similar Stoic-like perspective, the only way to deal with that reliably, or more reliably, is to master your own mind rather than relying on something external, which is my goal with it all, and ultimately has to be done alone. But thank you for your concern.

(October 12, 2026 at 7:04 am)Silas Vane Wrote:

(October 9, 2026 at 5:56 pm)Sheldon Wrote: To be fair,  the deity in the bible is depicted as killing indiscriminately, even a global genocide, so it "has form" if you will, however leaving that and much more aside for now, maybe you can clarify this much, do you believe anything happens without your god's will?

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

Epicurus

1) This is a very bad and weak argument, but I get it, You dont have the brain power to come up with an argument that you can create so you try and stand on the shoulders of someone who lived a long time ago but had no real understanding of cause and effect.

2) If this was your one shot at stardom, bruh you need Jesus more than youre willing to admit. Here is my reply.

3) Epicurus' argument rests on an assumption you've yet to establish: that God who is both willing and able to prevent evil must therefore prevent all evil.


4) Why?
Being able to prevent something doesn't automatically establish an obligation to prevent it.

5) Furthermore, God can accomplish His purposes even through the evil actions of others, without approving of those actions or being morally responsible for them.

6) Now demonstrate why God's failure to prevent evil necessarily makes Him either powerless or malevolent.

7) Until you establish that connection, quoting Epicurus is a brain-dead move. You're borrowing someone else's conclusion without establishing the reasoning that makes it true.

1) It's pretty hilarious that you don't address the argument at all, label it weak with handwaving, then save the real comedy gold until last by using an ad hominem fallacy, FWIW that is the very definition of a weak argument. 

2) More ad hominem, and a bare claim, tell me again about weak arguments. 

3) Priceless, but if you read it slowly and carefully, you might find that he made no such assumption, and used qualifying statements, and I never claimed everyone's concept of deity was the same. 

4) No indeed, as Epicurus points out in that very quote, a deity could conceivably just be malevolent. for example, the deity depicted in the bible certainly fits that idea. 

5) This weak argument fails to actually address the deity depicted in the bible, and of course fails to understand and therefore address Epicurus's argument, so it also fails as a logical extrapolation of that argument. 

6) I don't believe any deity exists, and Epicurus's argument doesn't address all concept of deities of course. Since you brought your belief here, why don't you properly define the deity you imagine exists first, and then I can address it. In the meantime it is a pretty obvious contradiction to claim a deity is moral, let alone perfectly moral, and is both omniscient and omnipotent, and yet allows, and even causes suffering, to me anyway, but then it without unnecessary suffering as a metric, the word moral pretty much loses all meaning to me.  

7) Epicurus's argument seems to have really triggered you, and it is you who has failed to understand that his conclusions are not absolutes, they are qualified by and follow logically from the preceding concepts of deity. 

Maybe take a deep breath, ease up on the ad hominem, and try understanding what is and more importantly is not being said, before you let your emotions lead your reasoning.

Epicurus doesn’t ask us to consider a dilemma. It’s not just incompetent or malevolent. The third option is useless as tits on a boar. As in, if your house was burning down…you’d be better off if there was a chimpanzee with a bucket full of piss in the room than god in the room.

- which may not be a problem for a gods super fans…but often is a problem for the rank and file. We as people tend to expect more of each other than this type of apologetics expects of a god. It’s also the general shape of why believing people have trouble giving gods thanks for things and, in particularly adverse circumstances, experience that long dark night of the soul if not full on deconversion.

(October 12, 2026 at 7:23 am)Silas Vane Wrote: 1) Epicurus' argument rests on an assumption you've yet to establish: that a God who is both willing and able to prevent evil must therefore prevent all evil.


2) Why?
Being able to prevent something doesn't automatically establish an obligation to prevent it.

3) Furthermore, God can accomplish His purposes even through the evil actions of others, without approving of those actions or being morally responsible for them.

4) Now demonstrate why God's failure to prevent evil necessarily makes Him either powerless or malevolent.

5) Until you establish that connection, quoting Epicurus is a brain-dead move. You're borrowing someone else's conclusion without establishing the reasoning that makes it true.

1) No it doesn't, read it again more carefully, he qualifies his conclusions, basking "is god...." then draws logical extrapolations that highlight contradictions with other concepts some people hold about deities. 

2) That is one moral viewpoint, it's not one I share of course, but my moral worldview attempts to empathise, if I was malevolent, or barbarically cruel, like the deity depicted in the bible for example, then I might think my own decisions and actions were more important than the suffering and death of humans, again as the deity depicted in the bible clearly does, but it would then be nonsensical to assert that such a deity were perfectly moral or merciful. In fact a deity wishing and causing harm or intense ill will towards others is the very definition of malevolent, as Epicurus points out.  

3) If you mean hypothetically, then yes, but it would still be malevolent to allow suffering one could easily prevent, let alone directly cause it and encourage others to do the same, as the deity depicted in the bible does.  

4) It doesn't necessarily, but then you have misrepresented Epicurus's argument by omitting part of it, characteristics like omniscience and omnipotence for example. Now I don't believe any deity exists, but if it did, and deliberately caused suffering it could easily avoid, or even allowed unnecessary suffering it could easily prevent, then it would be malevolent by definition, and cruelly indifferent to suffering, as of course the deity depicted in the bible is, murdering indiscriminately, even genocidally, endorsing slavery, torturing a newborn baby to death over 7 days, etc etc, to name just a few. 

5) That ad hominem is a bit rich, given you clearly have failed to understand what Epicurus is saying.

You also failed to address my question:

Do you believe anything happens without your god's will? 

If the deity you imagine is real differs to the concepts of deity in Epicurus's argument, then fine, but try explaining how it differs and evidencing your claims, instead of using childish insults.

(October 12, 2026 at 7:51 am)Silas Vane Wrote:

(October 12, 2026 at 7:28 am)Angrboda Wrote: Moral authority is not a form of knowledge and stems from ontological facts, not mental ones.  Thus this is a false analogy.

I agree that knowledge and moral authority are different things.
You claim moral authority comes from facts about existence.
So what facts establish that your moral judgment has the same authority as God's?

It's not the same, since humans are objectively real, so unless someone can demonstrate that any deity is real then the question is nonsensical. However even as a hypothetical, claiming a deity has moral authority over humans, and can do whatever it wants with them, would effectively be arguing that we are slaves, even if such a deity existed, I'd have no moral obligation to recognise the authority of a slave owner, let alone a barbarically cruel and indifferent slave owner like the one imagined in the bible.

And since god is a mere human fabrication, any of his qualities are human qualities. Albeit bad ones from the darker side of the human condition.

(October 12, 2026 at 1:30 pm)Sheldon Wrote:

(October 12, 2026 at 7:51 am)Silas Vane Wrote: I agree that knowledge and moral authority are different things.
You claim moral authority comes from facts about existence.
So what facts establish that your moral judgment has the same authority as God's?

It's not the same, since humans are objectively real, so unless someone can demonstrate that any deity is real then the question is nonsensical. However even as a hypothetical, claiming a deity has moral authority over humans, and can do whatever it wants with them, would effectively be arguing that we are slaves, even if such a deity existed, I'd have no moral obligation to recognise the authority of a slave owner, let alone a barbarically cruel and indifferent slave owner like the one imagined in the bible.

A non question from the point of view of objective moral authority. If there are facts about a thing that establish its moral character, then those facts would be the same facts regardless of what moral subject or agent apprehended them. If a gods moral assertions are better or more authoritative because they are a gods, rather than because they are that set of factual assertions (whatever those are) then morality and moral authority are fundamentally subjective. At which point…my moral authority is greater than gods because it is mine…and vv. Not exactly a cogent situation - but there it is.

(October 12, 2026 at 2:20 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote:

(October 12, 2026 at 1:30 pm)Sheldon Wrote: It's not the same, since humans are objectively real, so unless someone can demonstrate that any deity is real then the question is nonsensical. However even as a hypothetical, claiming a deity has moral authority over humans, and can do whatever it wants with them, would effectively be arguing that we are slaves, even if such a deity existed, I'd have no moral obligation to recognise the authority of a slave owner, let alone a barbarically cruel and indifferent slave owner like the one imagined in the bible.

A non question from the point of view of objective moral authority.  If there are facts about a thing that establish its moral character, then those facts would be the same facts regardless of what moral subject or agent apprehended them.  If a gods moral assertions are better or more authoritative because they are a gods, rather than because they are that set of factual assertions (whatever those are) then morality and moral authority are fundamentally subjective.  At which point…my moral authority is greater than gods because it is mine…and vv.  Not exactly a cogent situation - but there it is.

I agree about the question, I am inclined to believe morality is subjective, so of course the subjective moral view of an atheist can have no less authority than the subjective moral views of a theist, even if they assign them to a deity they imagine is real. 

If a deity thinks it has moral authority over me, then I will address that if any such deity ever demonstrates this to be the case, the idea that a deity others imagine to be real, has moral authority over me because they say so is nonsensical, and dangerous. If my own reason is of no use, or lacks any authority, in evaluating such claims as has been suggested here, I wonder on what basis the poster thinks his moral authority is equal tv that of the deity ISIS imagine to be real? 

Sauce for the goose etc