‹ First  < 7 8 9 10 11 >  Last ›
 
   
 

God Obsessed About What He Did Wrong

 
unsmoked
 
Avatar
 
 
unsmoked
Total Posts:  9520
Joined  20-02-2006
 
 
 
12 September 2020 12:47
 
8262014 - 11 September 2020 03:06 PM
unsmoked - 09 September 2020 07:28 PM
8262014 - 08 September 2020 02:56 PM

Unsmoked—

First I want to admit that I don’t know diddly-squat about Buddhism, or what a lot of Buddhists’ statements mean.
.
and no I don’t claim any knowledge of Zen or Buddhism, or qualification in Zen or Buddhism.

Have you read THE END OF FAITH - Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason by Sam Harris?

 

 

 
 
8262014
 
Avatar
 
 
8262014
Total Posts:  187
Joined  26-08-2020
 
 
 
12 September 2020 20:50
 

Unsmoked—

I haven’t read it. I hadn’t heard of it before I visited this forum. 

When Buddhists explain Buddhism, that’s one of the times when, in most instances, I don’t know what they mean.  And sometime some Buddhists have said that other Buddhists misunderstand Buddhism. So, at least sometimes, their explanations wouldn’t agree.
.
I have agreed with some things that they’ve said or seemed to imply.  (...if I rightly interpreted what they meant.)

 
8262014
 
Avatar
 
 
8262014
Total Posts:  187
Joined  26-08-2020
 
 
 
13 September 2020 14:55
 

Before leaving this discussion, and while we’re questioning beliefs, I should:
.
1. discuss and mention some questions, regarding meaning, suggested by things that our Aggressive “Atheists”  (AAs) have been saying, regarding what they mean mean by their statements.
.
... and
.
2. summarize just what it was that happened in this discussion.
.
I emphasize that I don’t believe in criticizing anyone else’s beliefs, but I didn’t start this forum’s belief-questioning discussion.
—————————-
1. Statements and Beliefs:
.
It’s mostly a matter of word-confusion and fashion-regurgitation.
.
First, let me quote a few things:
.
One Aggressive “Atheist” said:
.


I acknowledged that the material (lower case-m) exists.  Currently, I am not convinced that anything “non-material” exists.

.
Alright, let’s try to guess what that means:
.
He isn’t convinced that anythng “non-material” exists.
.
And so he isn’t convinced that the square-root of 2 exists.
.
Mathematicians routinely speak of existence-proofs.  ...proofs that some number, of some description or with certain properties relevant to some mathematical topic, exists.  Maybe our Atheists should contact those mathematicians, to let them know that they might be all wrong, to think that they’ve ever proven the existence of a number.
.
No, actually numbers and abstract facts exist in context. Abstract facts exist in the context of logic. A system of inter-referring abstract if-then facts also exists in its own internal context of inter-reference.  A number exists in the context of logic and a system of mathematical axioms.

.Those things just aren’t in doubt.
.
Are numbers and abstract-facts material?
.
No? Thens something nonmaterial exists.
.
But now, he said that he acknowledges that the material exists.  So he must mean that matter exists in some way that nonmaterial things (such as numbers and abstract logical facts) might not exist.
.
But let’s be generous, and assume that that our AA is referring to some particular kind of existence. Objective-existence?  Alright, I don’t claim that abstract-facts, or any of the logically-interdependent things objectively exist. (...exist other than in some limited specified relational context) In fact, I don’t claim that anything other than Reality itself objectively exists.  In fact, I don’t disagree with the Theists in India who say that only Reality itself objectively-exists.  ...or uniquely demnstrably exists objectively.
.
So, that AA isn’t saying anything that I don’t agree with. In fact he isn’t saying much at all.
.
But what is the existence that he acknowledges for matter, but says that maybe other things might not have?
.
Objective existence?  But, if he thinks matter has objective existence, then why can’t he say what he means by that?  ...or why he thinks that matter has it?  I’ve been asking what it would mean to say that this physical universe and its matter objectively exist.  But no answer.
.
But here’s a possibility for what he might mean by “acknowledging” that matter exists, but nonmaterial things might not:  He might be referring to material existence…existence as matter.  Yes, I agree that matter exists as matter, but nonmaterial things do not.  (...a stronger statement than that they might not.)
.
Sorry, but one can only guess what existence he’s referring to.  Existence as matter?  Objective existence (which he evidently can’t define and support)? Who can guess?
.
If he means anything with a meaning that can be guessed, then, he isn’t saying anything that I disagree with.  ...and in fact isn’t saying much at all.
.
We hear similar things from other AAs.  e.g. :
.

Currently, I am not convinced that anything “non-material” exists

.
Identical, word-for-word. Are they singing from the same hymn-book?
————————————————
2. Summary of what it was that happened in this discussion:
.
Two AAs asked me what I believe and why.  It was going to just be questions and answers.  Of course there’s nothing wrong with stating that they don’t agree or aren’t convinced. In fact, there’s also nothing wrong with stating why they disagree or aren’t convinced.
.
But our AAs didn’t leave it at that.  It isn’t alright to consistently use misquotes, and re-use the same already-answered objections and fallacies.  That’s against the behavioral rules at most discussion-forums.

.That wasn’t part of the initial agreement about questions and answers, when it turns into dishonest rhetorical tactics.
.
One AA, after having asked what I believe and why, responded to my anwer by asking why anyone should care.  ...but he’d asked, and I was just answering his question.  :D

 

 
8262014
 
Avatar
 
 
8262014
Total Posts:  187
Joined  26-08-2020
 
 
 
13 September 2020 18:59
 

One other thing:
.
3. Obsession with Fundamentalist Biblical-Lileralism (FBL):
.
I don’t agree with FBL. I believe that they shouldn’t be permitted to accost people at their doorstep (...because of their record of abuse—but maybe ban all door-to-door solicitatgion.). When I was in highschool, I used to sometimes argue about FBL, &/or with FBLs. But, oddly, there are people older than that who still do so.
.
It’s incomprehensible to me that there are people who want to spend their time in that way.  So I repeat this question to them: 
.
Why don’t you get a hobby?

 
MrRon
 
Avatar
 
 
MrRon
Total Posts:  2240
Joined  14-08-2008
 
 
 
14 September 2020 14:22
 

Yawn.

How many times is the AT (Aggressive Theist) going to say he’s done here and then regurgitate the same crap?

Ron

 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  615
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
14 September 2020 15:31
 
8262014 - 11 September 2020 03:03 PM
weird buffalo - 09 September 2020 07:37 AM

If we want to move away from discussing your belief, I think we adjust the topic slightly and turn our attention to the the conversation we’ve just had over the past couple of days.

At this point, I have rejected your belief.  I haven’t refuted it, but I have given my reasons for why I am not convinced that it is true.  Have I done this in a way that is unreasonable, illogical

Of course not. It isn’t a topic in logic.

, or resorted to personal attacks against you?

No.

He already admitted that I wasn’t being aggressive… then wen’t back to calling me aggressive.

So, either he was lying then, or he’s lying now.  Either way…

 
8262014
 
Avatar
 
 
8262014
Total Posts:  187
Joined  26-08-2020
 
 
 
15 September 2020 14:19
 

It occurs to me that if I don’t say anything about Ron’s comments below, someone might think that I’m evading them. ..not that there’s much to say.
.
First, here’s what he was “replying to”:
.
I’d said:
.

I’ve pointed out that suffering is temporary, only questionably-real, and is voluntarily-risked (a life-experience-story protagonist is that protagonist, by his/her very nature,  and therefore is in a life, by his/her very nature).
.
I reminded you that ever-deepening sleep at death is endless and timeless.  By comparison, a life, and any suffering in it, is brief.
.
Non-suffering predominates.
.
So it can be said that sleep is the usual, natural, normal, and final state of affairs for us. All’s well that tnds well.
.
Death doesn’t interrupt life. Life temporarily and briefly interrupts sleep.

.
Ron says:

Just because non-suffering may predominate statistically in an endless universe, that doesn’t mean it predominates experientially. In fact, it most definitely does not.

.
Well that settles it. There we have it from the expert.  The first thing to mention here is that, when someone is as sure of himself and what he says as Ron is, and so assertive about it, there’s really nothing for anyone to say to him.
.
But I’ll just mention that, for the above quote, and for Ron’s continued comments (copied immediately below), I’d refer Ron to the the posts that, by his own declaration, Ron didn’t read.
.
In a long philosophical post I supported some assertions.  Later I expressed impressions based on those facts that I’d asserted and supported.
.
I don’t claim that Ron’s impressions should be the same, but Ron wants to say that anyone not sharing his subjective feelings is wrong. That attitude and belief is sometimes referred to as bigotry.
.
As for the end of a life, I’ve admitted that I don’t know what that would be like. 
.
(Ron’s question to me about that suggeted that Ron thinks that it’s the same for everyone. The end of a life is part of that life, and different people’s lives differ.)
.
But there are things that can be said about the end of a life, and I’ve said some of them in this forum. 
.
If, as Ron said, he didn’t read what I said, or ignored it, that isn’t my fault.
.
Much of what Ron says, quoted below, can be described by a phrase that I’ve used:  “Materialist’s grim accounting”  ...something that I’ve answered about.  (...but Ron didn’t read that.)
.
What he’s saying depends on his assertion that this physical world has some unspecified sort of concerete “existence” that the infinitely-many hypothetical experience-stories, and other systems of inter-referring abstract logical facts, don’t have.  Yes, the world inhabited by any speaker is “actual” for that speaker, by that word’s indexical Lewis definition.
.
Ron’s claims also depend on some fallacies of his about the end of a life.  ...fallacies that are answered in posts that Ron says he didn’t read.
.

A life may be brief by cosmic standards, but, so far as we know, that life is the only thing the individual will ever experience.

.
It must be wonderful and exalting to know as much about that as Ron does.
.
Of course, if you define a person’s life as the totality of their experience.  I said that sleep is the natural, normal and usual state-of-affairs for a person. Undeniably, this busy waking worldly-life seems long, but for everyone (many, but not all, Eastern philosophers write) it’s a temporary anomaly. You might as well let yourself enjoy it while it lasts.
.

It’s EVERYTHING to the individual. He/she will never be in a position to say, “My 80 years of suffering on Earth is being mitigated by this non-suffering I’m currently experiencing.”


.
That’s answered by my comments about the end of a life, and other things I’ve said, in posts that Ron, by his own declaration, didn’t read, or ignored if he did read.
.
I re-emphasize that, on subjective matters, I don’t say that Ron is objectively wrong. He just needs to undestand that not sharing Ron’s subjective beliefs, feelings and impressions isn’t wrongness.
.
I remind that some of what I said consisted of supported phlosophical assertions, and some consisted of subjective, intuitive impressions based largely on those asserted facts.  ...impressions that Ron needn’t agree with.
.
What Ron says, quoted both above and below in this reply, consists of his impressions, expressed assertively with certainty that he’s right.  ...things that are answered in the posts that Ron didn’t read.  ...and which it would be unreasonable to expect me to repeat for Ron.  ...given that he didn’t read them the first time.
.

It’s EVERYTHING to the individual. He/she will never be in a position to say, “My 80 years of suffering on Earth is being mitigated by this non-suffering I’m currently experiencing.” 
.
Therefore, it’s disingenuous and somewhat of a red herring for theists to dismiss the problem of suffering as “merely temporary.” Unless they can demonstrate that one can actually somehow experience the statistically greater non-suffering part of “endless and timeless sleep at death” with which to draw the comparison. And nobody has ever demonstrated that one can experience something beyond this Earthly life.
.
The bottom line is that suffering is real and can be experienced. And a non-suffering “ever-deepening sleep at death” cannot be experienced.

.
...from the self-recognized authority and expert..
.
I refer Ron to the posts that he didn’t read. 
.

Nothingness cannot be “experienced.” Otherwise, it would no longer be “nothingness.”

.
That’s a re-statement of something that I’ve been saying:  Though the time when you aren’t will arrive for your survivors, it won’t arrive for you.
.

The problem of suffering remains as a defeater for theists who claim an omnibenevolent and omnipotent God/Universe.

.I didn’t say that this physical universe is benevolent.  Understandably, anyone believing that this physical universe has objective (absolute, independent of context, rather than only in some specified context) existence, &/or is the fundamental, ultimate and only reality will say that that reality isn’t benevolent
.
Omnipotent?  With nothing external to Reality itself, then Reality itself has no external constraints. Anyting about Reality, the overall Way Things Are, is in the intrinsic nature of Reality.
.
Materialism is indefensible and insupportable.  Ron’s claims depend on Materialism.
.

 

 

 

[ Edited: 15 September 2020 14:22 by 8262014]
 
MrRon
 
Avatar
 
 
MrRon
Total Posts:  2240
Joined  14-08-2008
 
 
 
15 September 2020 17:44
 

The AT is back for more. So…


Once again, 8262014 seems to have me confused with somebody else. What posts, by my own declaration, did I not read??


Ron’s claims also depend on some fallacies of his about the end of a life…

What is the “fallacy” about the end of life that I espoused? You seem to be referring to this…

“A life may be brief by cosmic standards, but, so far as we know, that life is the only thing the individual will ever experience.”

If so, what is the “fallacy”???

Of course, if you define a person’s life as the totality of their experience.  I said that sleep is the natural, normal and usual state-of-affairs for a person. Undeniably, this busy waking worldly-life seems long, but for everyone (many, but not all, Eastern philosophers write) it’s a temporary anomaly. You might as well let yourself enjoy it while it lasts.

How could a person’s life NOT be “the totality of their experience”? And how are you defining “sleep.” Are you talking about non-existence? And why should we care what eastern philosophers have to say about the matter?

 

He just needs to undestand that not sharing Ron’s subjective beliefs, feelings and impressions isn’t wrongness.

It is wrong if you think that my statement “A life may be brief by cosmic standards, but, so far as we know, that life is the only thing the individual will ever experience” is a fallacy.

Ron’s claims depend on Materialism.

What “claims” are you referring to?

Ron
.

 

[ Edited: 15 September 2020 17:46 by MrRon]
 
unsmoked
 
Avatar
 
 
unsmoked
Total Posts:  9520
Joined  20-02-2006
 
 
 
16 September 2020 12:01
 

Maybe I missed it along the way, but I’m still wondering if 8262014 believes that Jesus turned water into wine, or if he thinks only evangelical Christians believe such stories.

If you asked Trump if he believed that Jesus literally turned a jug of water into a jug of wine at a wedding party would he answer yes or no?

Would his answer depend on which reply would gain the most votes?

http://churchandstate.org.uk/2019/03/here-are-evangelical-christianitys-10-biggest-gaslighting-tactics/

http://churchandstate.org.uk/2019/05/why-many-evangelicals-find-donald-trump-simply-irresistible/

[ Edited: 16 September 2020 12:03 by unsmoked]
 
 
8262014
 
Avatar
 
 
8262014
Total Posts:  187
Joined  26-08-2020
 
 
 
16 September 2020 13:16
 
unsmoked - 16 September 2020 12:01 PM

Maybe I missed it along the way, but I’m still wondering if 8262014 believes that Jesus turned water into wine, or if he thinks only evangelical Christians believe such stories.

I’ve repeatedly said that I don’t agree with Biblical-Literalism.  Early in this discussion, I answered a question about my religious beliefs, by a very brief statement of beliefs, and emphasized that my religious beliefs consist of that.  Period.

Your water-to-wine story is part of what Biblical-Literalists believe.

I repeat my suggestion that those here who are so obsessed with the beliefs of Fundamentalist Biblical-Literalists, need to get a hobby.

If you asked Trump if he believed that Jesus literally turned a jug of water into a jug of wine at a wedding party would he answer yes or no?

Would his answer depend on which reply would gain the most votes?

http://churchandstate.org.uk/2019/03/here-are-evangelical-christianitys-10-biggest-gaslighting-tactics/

http://churchandstate.org.uk/2019/05/why-many-evangelicals-find-donald-trump-simply-irresistible/

 
unsmoked
 
Avatar
 
 
unsmoked
Total Posts:  9520
Joined  20-02-2006
 
 
 
16 September 2020 14:03
 
8262014 - 16 September 2020 01:16 PM

I repeat my suggestion that those here who are so obsessed with the beliefs of Fundamentalist Biblical-Literalists, need to get a hobby.

The beliefs of Fundamental Biblical-Literalists are bringing disaster down on the planet.  “Use it all up.  It’s all going to end soon anyway.”

Quote:  “Imagine the consequences if any significant component of the U.S. government actually believed that the world was about to end and that its ending would be glorious.  The fact that nearly half of the American population apparently believes this, purely on the basis of religious dogma, should be considered a moral and intellectual emergency.  [This book] is my response to this emergency.  It is my sincere hope that you will find it useful.”  -  Sam Harris, 2006 (preface to ‘LETTER TO A CHRISTIAN NATION’.

A hobby?  Is that your response to a moral and intellectual emergency? 

 

 
 
8262014
 
Avatar
 
 
8262014
Total Posts:  187
Joined  26-08-2020
 
 
 
16 September 2020 16:42
 

The AT is back for more. So…
.

Once again, 8262014 seems to have me confused with somebody else.

Wrong. Not “once again”.  Your other allegation of such an instance was incorrect.  You DID ask me if there could have been Reality with contents of nothing. That was you, not someone else.
.
But yes, it wasn’t you who said you didn’t read my posts.  (You just evidently didn’t read them, or forgot what I said.)
.

Ron’s claims also depend on some fallacies of his about the end of a life

.
What is the “fallacy” about the end of life that I espoused? You seem to be referring to this…

“A life may be brief by cosmic standards, but, so far as we know, that life is the only thing the individual
will ever experience.”

No, I wasn’t referring to that. Your abovequoted statement by you didn’t mention the end of a life.
.
Do you really need me to tell you which of your statements mention the end of a life?
.

  Of course, if you define a person’s life as the totality of their experience.  I said that sleep is the natural, normal and usual state-of-affairs for a person. Undeniably, this busy waking worldly-life seems long, but for everyone (many, but not all, Eastern philosophers write) it’s a temporary anomaly. You might as well let yourself enjoy it while it lasts.

How could a person’s life NOT be “the totality of their experience”?

.
I didn’t say that it would be incorrect to define life in that broad manner.
.
But of course a time will come, for you, when you don’t know, nor would it even occur to you, there there ever was, or even could be, such a thing as worldly-life, identiy, time or events.  ...or the consequent story-elements of concerrns, worries, menaces, suffering, lack and incompletion.
.
Because you won’t know about time, it would be reasonable to say that, then, you’ve reached timelessness. 
.
The fact that, as seen by your survivors, your body is about to shut down, is something that, to you, is then unknown and irrelevant.
.
(...well, I must admit that some Eastern philosophers, probably a minority of them, believe that some people won’t reach that, and I can’t prove them wrong. Maybe there indeed are some people who are exceptions, as that minority beieve.) 
.
You can call that time part of “life” if you want to, though it isn’t part of worldly-life. Definitions aren’t important, as long as they’re specified and consistently applied.
.

And how are you defining “sleep.”?

.
Merriam-Webster:

Sleep (noun):
.
1. The natural periodic suspension of consciousness during which thepowers of the body are restored.
.
[end of Merriam-Webster definition)

But, by extension, it’s reasonable to also use that word to refer to something simiar, but ever deepening, at the end of a person’s life.
.
...a usage used by such diverse writers as Raymond Chandler (in a novel-title), and Willliam Shakespeare (in Hamlet’s soliloquy).
.

Are you talking about non-existence?

.
Of course not. I’ve neverr implied that.
.
For you, of course there will never be nonexistence.
.

And why should we care what eastern philosophers have to say about the matter?

I mentioned what Eastern philosophers have written, to show that there’s long been widespread support for some things that I say.
.
You also once asked why anyone would care about Theists in India.  I mentioned them to show that a lot of Theists don’t agree with the Bible/Sunday-School definition of God that the AAs so endlessly talk about.
.

He just needs to undestand that not sharing Ron’s subjective beliefs, feelings and impressions isn’t wrongness.

It is wrong if you think that my statement “A life may be brief by cosmic standards, but, so far as we know, that life is the only thing the individual will ever experience” is a fallacy.

.
As I mentioned above, that statement doesn’t mention the end of a life, and therefore can’t be what I meant when referring to your fallacies about the end of a life.
.

Ron’s claims depend on Materialism.

.
What “claims” are you referring to?

.
So you haven’t made any claims? 
.
You made various (fallacious) claims about the end of a life.  ...and other claims, in the posts that I was referring to.  Must I read your own posts to you?
.
You dwell on suffering in this life, and I’ve shown the questionable reality of it, and the temporariness of this life and its suffering. And I’ve given an argument for the voluntariness of our being in this risky thing called a life.
.
Your arguments against temporariness hinge on a claim that all that we experience is the busy, hazardous waking life, in which suffering (sometimes) occurs.  You’ve been explicit about that claim, and have much repeated it, and there’s nothing for me to add. Your claim speaks for itself, and anyone can judge its validity for themselves. We can leave it at that.
.
There’s got to be a limit to how much you can expect someone else to spell-out for you.
.
I’ve questioned the objective existence of this this physical world and its stuff and things.  ...and the objective reality of it and your life in it.
.
Yes, of course this world and your life in it are real and existent in their own context, but you seem to want to draw unwarranted and unsupported general conclusions from that.
.
...conclusions that depend on an assertion that this particular physical universe has some (unspecified) kind of existence had by it alone.

You say that you have no evidence of anything existent other than this material universe. I answer that you haven’t given evidence that this universe has a kind of existence that abstract-facts, or inter-referring systems of them,  don’t have.  ...or even specified what kind of existence that is, or what you mean by it.
.
...a kind of exist4ence other than in the context of itself and our life-experience.

 
8262014
 
Avatar
 
 
8262014
Total Posts:  187
Joined  26-08-2020
 
 
 
16 September 2020 17:26
 

Unsmoked—

The beliefs of Fundamental Biblical-Literalists are bringing disaster down on the planet.  “Use it all up.  It’s all going to end soon anyway.”

.
Of course that isn’t true.
.
Closet-Atheist politicians who profess Theism in order to endear themselves with people who enjoy a social-bonding based on church & religion (but might not believe in the religion any more than the politicians do) are doing the bidding of the people who pay them.
.
No one is doing the enviornmental-damage because of religion. They’re doing it for their own short-term gain. 
.
Maybe they assume that science and technology will later somehow save them (they being better-protected than the rest of us in the meantime) from whatever hole they dig the environment into.
.
But’s got nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity.
.
New Atheists have concocted a wild, preposterous theory that Christianity is behind all that is wrong.
.
Of course Christianity was co-opted and interpreted as the opposite of what the Christian message said. That isn’t Christianity.
.
And, in any case, as I explained above, even that drastic distoritionn of Christianity has nothing to do with the motives or privately-imagined justification, for the environmental damage being done by the greedy.
.
So, to summarize:
.
1. What you’re calling Christianity is obviously only a drastic-distortion of Christianity.
.
and
.
2. But even that drastic-distortion has nothing whatsoever to do with the motivation (and privately-imagined justification) of greedy environmental destruction.

A hobby?  Is that your response to a moral and intellectual emergency?

.
The cause, motivation and justification of the ongoing disaster to which you refer has nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity (either genuine or in the co-opted and distorted version).
————————-
But, now that you mention it, yes, I once heard a Biblical-Literalist say exactlly what you quoted. She said that the world is soon going to end anyway for reasons relating to religion, not to anthropogenic damage, and so environmental protection is silly.
.
So I don’t claim that no FBLs believe that, and accept it as a reason for allowing environmental-destruction.  But such people are few (not half the population). New Atheists are barking up the wrong tree. 
.
Mis-attributing the cause of the problem is counterproductive.

You could ask, “If preaching unto to the FBL multitude isn’t going to fix the problem, then what do you think can?”
.
Answer: I didn’t say that anything can. I suggest that there’s no hope for this societal-world or for humanity. 

But I emphasize that the Earth and its life will survive the Anthropocene-Extinction, just as it survived the other mass-extinctions.  When new evolutionary adaptions fill the newly-vacated niches, the Earth will again have abundant and diverse life.

As I’ve said, the Philosophcial Anti-Natalists have a valid point (...even though I don’t agree with their conclusions).

 

 
MrRon
 
Avatar
 
 
MrRon
Total Posts:  2240
Joined  14-08-2008
 
 
 
17 September 2020 06:15
 

Wrong. Not “once again”.  Your other allegation of such an instance was incorrect.  You DID ask me if there could have been Reality with contents of nothing.

Not quite. My question was:
“in your opinion, if you take away the physical universe, would there be any Reality?”

The fact that, as seen by your survivors, your body is about to shut down, is something that, to you, is then unknown and irrelevant.
(...well, I must admit that some Eastern philosophers, probably a minority of them, believe that some people won’t reach that, and I can’t prove them wrong. Maybe there indeed are some people who are exceptions, as that minority beieve.)

Incoherent. Exceptions to what exactly? What are you talking about?

And why should we care what eastern philosophers have to say about the matter?
I mentioned what Eastern philosophers have written, to show that there’s long been widespread support for some things that I say.

Truth is not determined by a show of hands.

You also once asked why anyone would care about Theists in India.  I mentioned them to show that a lot of Theists don’t agree with the Bible/Sunday-School definition of God that the AAs so endlessly talk about.

Bingo! Theists don’t agree. Which means they can’t all be right. But, they could all be wrong.

You made various (fallacious) claims about the end of a life.  ...and other claims, in the posts that I was referring to.  Must I read your own posts to you?

What are the claims?? I don’t want to play guessing games or put words in your mouth. Just post the quote you’re referring to. Sheesh!

You dwell on suffering in this life, and I’ve shown the questionable reality of it, and the temporariness of this life and its suffering. And I’ve given an argument for the voluntariness of our being in this risky thing called a life.

Dwell?? And what do you mean by “voluntariness”?

Your arguments against temporariness hinge on a claim that all that we experience is the busy, hazardous waking life, in which suffering (sometimes) occurs.

To be clear, I have agreed to the statistical temporariness of life in the cosmos. Anyway, what else besides our waking (and sleeping) life do we actually experience?

I’ve questioned the objective existence of this this physical world and its stuff and things.  ...and the objective reality of it and your life in it.
Yes, of course this world and your life in it are real and existent in their own context, but you seem to want to draw unwarranted and unsupported general conclusions from that.

Like what? What do you think is my “conclusion”?

You say that you have no evidence of anything existent other than this material universe.

Where did I say that?

Ron

 

 

 
unsmoked
 
Avatar
 
 
unsmoked
Total Posts:  9520
Joined  20-02-2006
 
 
 
17 September 2020 11:28
 
8262014 - 16 September 2020 05:26 PM

Unsmoked—

The beliefs of Fundamental Biblical-Literalists are bringing disaster down on the planet.  “Use it all up.  It’s all going to end soon anyway.”

.
Of course that isn’t true.
.
Closet-Atheist politicians who profess Theism in order to endear themselves with people who enjoy a social-bonding based on church & religion (but might not believe in the religion any more than the politicians do) are doing the bidding of the people who pay them.
.
No one is doing the enviornmental-damage because of religion. They’re doing it for their own short-term gain. 
.
Maybe they assume that science and technology will later somehow save them (they being better-protected than the rest of us in the meantime) from whatever hole they dig the environment into.
.
But’s got nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity.
.
New Atheists have concocted a wild, preposterous theory that Christianity is behind all that is wrong.
.
Of course Christianity was co-opted and interpreted as the opposite of what the Christian message said. That isn’t Christianity.
.
And, in any case, as I explained above, even that drastic distoritionn of Christianity has nothing to do with the motives or privately-imagined justification, for the environmental damage being done by the greedy.
.
So, to summarize:
.
1. What you’re calling Christianity is obviously only a drastic-distortion of Christianity.
.
and
.
2. But even that drastic-distortion has nothing whatsoever to do with the motivation (and privately-imagined justification) of greedy environmental destruction.

A hobby?  Is that your response to a moral and intellectual emergency?

.
The cause, motivation and justification of the ongoing disaster to which you refer has nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity (either genuine or in the co-opted and distorted version).
————————-
But, now that you mention it, yes, I once heard a Biblical-Literalist say exactlly what you quoted. She said that the world is soon going to end anyway for reasons relating to religion, not to anthropogenic damage, and so environmental protection is silly.
.
So I don’t claim that no FBLs believe that, and accept it as a reason for allowing environmental-destruction.  But such people are few (not half the population). New Atheists are barking up the wrong tree. 
.
Mis-attributing the cause of the problem is counterproductive.

You could ask, “If preaching unto to the FBL multitude isn’t going to fix the problem, then what do you think can?”
.
Answer: I didn’t say that anything can. I suggest that there’s no hope for this societal-world or for humanity. 

But I emphasize that the Earth and its life will survive the Anthropocene-Extinction, just as it survived the other mass-extinctions.  When new evolutionary adaptions fill the newly-vacated niches, the Earth will again have abundant and diverse life.

As I’ve said, the Philosophcial Anti-Natalists have a valid point (...even though I don’t agree with their conclusions).

You seem to be ignoring the damage that Trump is doing to the planet.  He’s calling human-caused climate change a hoax; putting fossil fuel advocates in charge of the EPA etc. etc.

Trump would not be president if evangelicals didn’t vote for him.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/05/politics/military-leaders-trump-floyd-protests/index.html

Please read what these top military generals and admirals said about Trump gassing the crowd of peaceful protesters then crossing the street for a photo op in which he’s holding up the Bible. 

I think you know what’s going on.  I think you know he wouldn’t be president if evangelical hadn’t voted for him. 

In 2016 Trump lost by 3 million votes.  He’s president because of the electoral college and because of the evangelical support in the hinterlands.

 
 
‹ First  < 7 8 9 10 11 >  Last ›