So if you can't explain yourself I should not make any more demands
:shrug:
God is like atheists in foxholes
- Thread starter Syzygys
- Start date
:shrug:
I can explain myself, but I shouldn't have to. It's a necessity of current physics that no point in time or space is "special", that the laws are(in general) constant throughout. Your ability to bend reality to your beliefs would create special points in time and space where the normal laws simply don't apply. How are you going to mend our understanding of physics after you demonstrate this awe inspiring ability?
that remains to be seen
there is no necessity for current understanding of "constants" to remain static (you know, with science being progressive and all that)
I'm not sure what this has to do with anything I brought up in the thread ... but if you want to talk about bending reality to beliefs you are already doing that if you think biology is a sub-discipline of physics.
:shrug:
With that level of precision, we can't discuss much.
Even Sartre, a staunch atheist at the time, maintained that thinking of one's nature in such ways was bad faith, self-deception.
"Bad faith or "Self-Deception", as translations vary, can be understood as the guise of existing as a character, individual or person who defines himself through the social categorization of his formal identity. This essentially means that in being a waiter, grocer, etc. one must believe that his or her social role is equivalent to his or her human existence. Living a life defined by one's occupation, social, racial or economic class, is the very essence of "bad faith", the condition in which people cannot transcend their situations in order to realize what they must be (human) and what they are not (a grocer, etc.)."
If you'd think about it, you'd see the connection.
An analogy: Suppose your shoe size is 10. As long as you try to wear shoes that are less or more than 10, you'll have difficulty. But as long as you wear shoes that fit you, you're fine.
We can think of our true nature in a similar fashion: as long as we act according to it, we don't suffer.
It's wishful thinking to believe that simply by the body dying, we would cease to exist and the suffering would stop.
The reference frame for your atheism is mainstream Christianity.
Which is how you make posts like this, for example.
No, because if one doesn't understand something, one should not ask for clarification, and one should instead jump to conclusions!
How are our desires and what we consider attractive, not part of reality??
It can't be. Who said it was?
I never did. There is no such thing as a non-existent life. And if you're going to pick on typos, I think you meant "somehow" not "some how."
Are you telling me you didn't know those all of those religions feature an afterlife which begins with judgement for a person's deeds, or in the case of Norse mythology, the prerequisite of dying in battle?
We're not talking about socioeconomic status, we're talking about physiology and psychology. We're talking about people literally being themselves. Did I once mention anyone's career or income level? Their social status? No, I talked about people simply being themselves, and the way that their very existence brings suffering.
Unless you think that when someone is so riddled with tumors they can't even walk to the bathroom, they're deceiving themselves?
I don't disagree with that assessment. However, it has nothing to do with what we're talking about. A person can "rise above" their socioeconomic status and still suffer, can still have a terrible life. It's not ignoble to make that effort, I grant you, but the proud black teen who keeps himself above the fray in the ghetto might still have an affinity for 12-year-old girls, or, perhaps more immediately, still be poor and not have money for medical treatement. Acting above your station doesn't mean you're actually above your station, and I certainly don't see where Sartre ever tried to convey the notion that being true to oneself would mean that you will never suffer.
But again, I've already demonstrated to you that our true nature doesn't guarantee happiness or relief. We do not live in bubbles, Wynn. If you come out of the closet after a lifetime of lying to yourself and others, you will feel tremendous relief, but that decision might also cause you to lose family and friends. Just by acting upon your true nature, you've brought suffering upon yourself. Is it your fault? No, it's theirs, but that's my point.
How do you figure? Is there any evidence of an afterlife?
Interesting that you missed this post which came right before it, where I addressed exactly that point:
Do I not discuss the subjugation of women by Islam? That a woman can be raped by court order because their law states an honor killing cannot be done to a virgin? We can go there if you like. But let's face it, this place is lousy with Christians, so that's what we end up talking about.
Last edited:
It's not nonsense, there are atheists in the army and veterans who are still atheists, such as the hip-hop artist Greydon Square, who is an Iraq war veteran. It has nothing to do with what we desire, as our minds seek continuity above all things, that is it's function. It has to do with what can be reasonably believed based on evidence. Our lives are not meaningless, even if we die. In fact, I would say they are only meaningful because we die.
When I'm tired I sleep. When life is over, we cease to exist. This is the circle of life. To desire endless life is as neurotic as desiring a permanent orgasm.
The topic under discussion was whether having an eternal existence or not is a matter of choice or not -
Apart from secular stories about magic potions or grand deeds that can make one immortal, I know of no religion that would actually posit that whether or not we are eternal is up to us.
The Abrahamic religions and some Hindu ones posit that we are eternal by default, it's not our choice.
Then your notion of "being oneself" means identifying with one's body, which is just another item in the same category with occupation, social, racial or economic class.
By "true nature," you apparently mean the body.
Clearly, this is not what I mean by "true nature."
Things like our body, occupation, social, racial or economic class are temporary, while our true nature is that which persists, even though those external things like the body, occupation etc. change.
You are talking about a temporary pain and suffering.
Is there any evidence that there is not?
IOW, both sides could be accused of wishful thinking.
I didn't say that your obsession with mainstream Christianity was the only obsession you have.
The mainstream versions of Abrahamic religions are "feasible," if one wants to tie oneself in knots, that is.
The desire isn't for endless life per se; the desire is for permanence - for things that are not subject to aging, illness and death.
Permanence here relates to meaningfulness, worth, safety, reliability. This is what we desire.
Okay, I see where I went wrong. You're right, I mistook you to mean that we didn't have control over where we went when we died, and I was trying to demonstrate that I didn't now of any religious philosophy that believed this. My fault.
That said, this doesn't change the fact that whether or not eternal life is attainable has no impact on our ability to desire for such an existence (or non-existence). Do you really disagree with that?
Not at all. Sartre was simply talking about not allowing oneself to be defined by their situation. He did not imply at all that being true to one's own nature means that you are guaranteed happiness or success, or good health or anything like that. Pain, suffering, misery, and all of the bad things in life still happen.
An example of what I mean is the recently-departed polemicist Christopher Hitchens. He spent his final year in great agony, on a constant line between his home and the hospital, and yet he continued his prolific output. He was borrowing books from friends as late as a few days before his death, while he was in the hospital for what he must have known very well his last visit.
But Christopher still suffered tremendously. He still wasted away to half of his original body weight, still lost all of his hair, still had to miss the living memorial his friends put on for him. You can't rise above these things, Wynn. No philosophy makes you immune to pain and sorrow.
I understand perfectly well what you mean. I'm just pointing out to you that being true to oneself doesn't make you impervious to pain.
As opposed to what? Unless you believe in some sort of afterlife, that statement is absolutely meaningless.
That's like asking if there is evidence that there are no aliens visiting our planet. Obviously I can't prove that there's no afterlife, but there's no reason to assume there is.
Not at all. For one, not many people wish for non-existence. Most people who believe that life ends at death simply accept it as the most probable answer. Has nothing to do with wanting to not exist.
You're just trying to be insulting. The forum lost a great troll today, and I'm still basking in the afterglow. I'm not going to let your nonsense get to me.
The mainstream versions of Abrahamic religions are "feasible," if one wants to tie oneself in knots, that is.
You're going to have to expand on that one, dear.
And since the only thing that is certain is change, the desire for permanence can be seen as counter to the way things are, to natural law.
Not at all.
Even gross materialists require a few permanent articles in order to maintain a coherent world view (they are simply adamant that consciousness is not one of them)
Like what?
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Really.. Please explain.
Please provide evidence that death is not an end to suffering.
the universe
I don't know if the universe always existed. Materialism doesn't depend on it.