Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
January 5, 2015 at 10:11 pm (This post was last modified: January 5, 2015 at 10:29 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
(January 5, 2015 at 9:57 pm)*steve* Wrote: Call it an excuse if you want. I call it a mitigating circumstance. If God is the creator of our reality, God isn't shielded from the pain, suffering, evil, etc. If God created the universe as it is then God must have thought the negatives were worth the positives.
-and it just gets worse. Good to know that god decided for some poor infected 3rd world fucker that his miserable existence was totally worth it - by gods metrics...of course.....and worth it - regarding some unspoken "it". Now it's not an issue of necessity, but what some other party figures is worth it (whatever the hell that means)?
What about any of that is a mitigating circumstance? What do you understand a mitigating circumstance to be (in some other context, perhaps...)? -and what...exactly...is being mitigated
(that last q cuts to the heart of why I think you're not being honest with either us or yourself when you claim that you aren't shielding or making excuses for a hypothetical god - if that were the case...there'd be nothing to mitigate)
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
(January 5, 2015 at 8:07 pm)*steve* Wrote: Hello, I'm new to the forum. Full disclosure: I'm currently a non-traditional theist. However, I have considered atheism a few times but it seems to be such a grim position. Let me explain.
As I understand atheism, these would be a few of its tenets:
There is no ultimate meaning. Therefore, all lives and events are ultimately meaningless.
There is no ultimate basis for value. Therefore any moral position is ultimately arbitrary and logically, equally defensible. This means that things like genocide, pedophilia, torture, etc. are equally defensible to any other moral position.
There is no ultimate intentionality associated with/in reality. Therefore, all events, actions, thoughts and behaviors are determined by chance and necessity. Thus, an individual's thoughts and actions are determined solely by prior causal events and chance.
At least for me, if I take these atheist positions to their logical conclusion this all seems psychologically pretty grim.
I'd be interested in comments why this is not necessarily the case.
Did you get your definition of atheism from the 'Little Jesus Book of Bad Things to do Beside Masturbation.'?
Because I can tell you that book is wrong on both counts.
MM
"The greatest deception men suffer is from their own opinions" - Leonardo da Vinci
"I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously." - Douglas Adams (and I echo the sentiment)
You are conflating existential nihilism and ethical nihilism. The "philosophical ideas" you are using as the basis for your theology require a basic upgrade.
Hello, I'm new to the forum. Full disclosure: I'm currently a non-traditional theist. However, I have considered atheism a few times but it seems to be such a grim position. Let me explain.
As I understand atheism, these would be a few of its tenets:
There is no ultimate meaning. Therefore, all lives and events are ultimately meaningless.
There is no ultimate basis for value. Therefore any moral position is ultimately arbitrary and logically, equally defensible. This means that things like genocide, pedophilia, torture, etc. are equally defensible to any other moral position.
There is no ultimate intentionality associated with/in reality. Therefore, all events, actions, thoughts and behaviors are determined by chance and necessity. Thus, an individual's thoughts and actions are determined solely by prior causal events and chance.
At least for me, if I take these atheist positions to their logical conclusion this all seems psychologically pretty grim.
I'd be interested in comments why this is not necessarily the case.
The only thing that makes atheists, atheist is a lack of belief in a god or gods. If you find that psychologically grim, I can't help you. I suppose gravity is pretty grim if you think about it too hard.
I have a question for you though: what is it about the existence of a god, that would make life more meaningful?
If there is a god, I want to believe that there is a god. If there is not a god, I want to believe that there is no god.
You know, I've never really understood the whole ultimate meaning thing. I mean, I get that it's about having meaning magically bestowed upon you by some outside force, but I don't understand why denying that exists is even an issue. As if my experiences of pain and joy are somehow minimized because there isn't an all knowing, trans-dimensional being to tell me they're not.
The same goes with the idea that no objective source of morality means anything goes. I just don't get how people have convinced themselves that all that is worthless without the say-so of that magical being.
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
(January 5, 2015 at 10:30 pm)Faith No More Wrote: You know, I've never really understood the whole ultimate meaning thing. I mean, I get that it's about having meaning magically bestowed upon you by some outside force, but I don't understand why denying that exists is even an issue. As if my experiences of pain and joy are somehow minimized because there isn't an all knowing, trans-dimensional being to tell me they're not.
The same goes with the idea that no objective source of morality means anything goes. I just don't get how people have convinced themselves that all that is worthless without the say-so of that magical being.
^ this^
Much better than I said it.
If there is a god, I want to believe that there is a god. If there is not a god, I want to believe that there is no god.
Religious ethics fills in the blank with something supernatural. "Pleasing God", "Getting admission to Heaven", "Achieving Nirvana", whatever.
Atheist ethics fills in the blank with something in this world. What is the purpose of human life? We have our choice on that. "Promoting the health and happiness of my family, friends, adopted circle, and our descendants." "Contributing to the long-run survival of human civilization". "Maximizing my lifetime total of pleasure." There are a million possibilities.
(January 5, 2015 at 9:57 pm)*steve* Wrote: Call it an excuse if you want. I call it a mitigating circumstance. If God is the creator of our reality, God isn't shielded from the pain, suffering, evil, etc. If God created the universe as it is then God must have thought the negatives were worth the positives.
-and it just gets worse. Good to know that god decided for some poor infected 3rd world fucker that his miserable existence was totally worth it - by gods metrics...of course.....and worth it - regarding some unspoken "it". Now it's not an issue of necessity, but what some other party figures is worth it (whatever the hell that means)?
What about any of that is a mitigating circumstance? What do you understand a mitigating circumstance to be (in some other context, perhaps...)?
Example, a person has their hand caught in a bear trap. No help coming. They can cut off their own hand to live without the hand or die. Crappy choice but it is an option.
It's easy to get sentimental about these things. Another example, if you could save the lives of 100 million people by killing a hundred innocent children, would you do it?
However, I understand your indignation about a God who would let some poor guy suffer so that life could exist. The other mitigating thing, at least in my theological ontology is that, that guy's suffering is literally God's suffering as well. This comes from an ontology that I call an aspect monism or in Vishishtadvaita a qualified monism. The poor soul is an aspect of God.
I know it still sounds cruel. People are tempted to make God out as some sort of Big Daddy or Big Mommy where shit should never happen. Just ain't so, in my view.
(January 5, 2015 at 8:07 pm)*steve* Wrote: Hello, I'm new to the forum. Full disclosure: I'm currently a non-traditional theist. However, I have considered atheism a few times but it seems to be such a grim position. Let me explain.
Ooh gosh, never heard this one before.
Quote:As I understand atheism, these would be a few of its tenets:
You don't understand atheism, and there's only one "tenet,": lack of belief in gods.
Quote:There is no ultimate meaning. Therefore, all lives and events are ultimately meaningless.
What is "ultimate meaning"? Externally derived meaning? Why would you want that? You wouldn't want your parents deciding your college courses for you, let alone your life's meaning, and yet somehow you yearn for that from god?
Besides, "ultimately meaningless," doesn't mean individually meaningless; you're overreaching by calling this grim.
Quote:There is no ultimate basis for value. Therefore any moral position is ultimately arbitrary and logically, equally defensible. This means that things like genocide, pedophilia, torture, etc. are equally defensible to any other moral position.
Wrong: the ultimate basis is called "reality," of which we are individual components thereof, with objectively verifiable natures as biological beings. Due to this, some positions, like genocide and torture and all that, are not equally defensible, and are, in fact, indefensible. You just need to rationally reason through these things, keeping in mind the facts of our biology and the world we live in.
Perhaps, next time, you could ask what we believe, instead of just stating what you think we believe?
Quote:There is no ultimate intentionality associated with/in reality. Therefore, all events, actions, thoughts and behaviors are determined by chance and necessity. Thus, an individual's thoughts and actions are determined solely by prior causal events and chance.
Oh no?
Quote:At least for me, if I take these atheist positions to their logical conclusion this all seems psychologically pretty grim.
Good thing you're neither a psychologist nor an atheist, and thus what it seems like to you is not binding.
Besides, do you want beliefs that are true, or that make you feel good?
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
(January 5, 2015 at 10:33 pm)*steve* Wrote: Example, a person has their hand caught in a bear trap. No help coming. They can cut off their own hand to live without the hand or die. Crappy choice but it is an option.
It's easy to get sentimental about these things. Another example, if you could save the lives of 100 million people by killing a hundred innocent children, would you do it?
However, I understand your indignation about a God who would let some poor guy suffer so that life could exist. The other mitigating thing, at least in my theological ontology is that, that guy's suffering is literally God's suffering as well. This comes from an ontology that I call an aspect monism or in Vishishtadvaita a qualified monism. The poor soul is an aspect of God.
I know it still sounds cruel. People are tempted to make God out as some sort of Big Daddy or Big Mommy where shit should never happen. Just ain't so, in my view.
