God is like atheists in foxholes

[lightgigantic]

@LG --

I don't need the universe to be permanent, I just need it to last slightly longer than I do.

then you also don't have a need for arguments rejecting god on the authority of material laws
:shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

I don't know if the universe always existed. Materialism doesn't depend on it.

if that was the case you wouldn't be rejecting god based on the characteristics of it
:shrug:

 

[spidergoat]

I reject God based on lack of evidence for a God, and it's superfluousness with regard to explaining material phenomenon.

 

[lightgigantic]

I reject God based on lack of evidence for a God, and it's superfluousness with regard to explaining material phenomenon.

In a general sense yes, however, as they say, the devil is in the details

 

[spidergoat]

The universe isn't permanent, it's just the name we give to whatever is there.

 

[lightgigantic]

The universe isn't permanent, it's just the name we give to whatever is there.

like permanent natural laws ?

 

[Arioch]

@LG --

then you also don't have a need for arguments rejecting god on the authority of material laws

Nope, I certainly don't(though it's nice to have them), because there's not one good argument for accepting the existence of a god. Kind of nice not having to shoulder the burden of proof the way I did when I was a theist.

 

[lightgigantic]

@LG --



Nope, I certainly don't(though it's nice to have them), because there's not one good argument for accepting the existence of a god. Kind of nice not having to shoulder the burden of proof the way I did when I was a theist.

Actually that is precisely what I am talking about - your ideas on what warrants a good argument on the basis of (your ideas of ) evidence (namely by the authority of material laws ... which must be necessarily permanent btw ...at least in order to lend coherency to your views)

 

[wynn]

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.

If all things change, then there can be no laws.

 

[wynn]

For two, there is nothing wrong with eternal life. No rotting molars, nor rotting morals.

Really.. Please explain.

In short:
Eternal life = no decay.

As if death would be an end to suffering.

Please provide evidence that death is not an end to suffering.

I was relativizing another poster's assumed certainy.
If we don't know what happens at death and after, we can't make claims of certainty either way.

 

[wynn]

I don't need the universe to be permanent, I just need it to last slightly longer than I do.

Need?

You need the universe to be a certain way?

What about all that about reality not caring about us, our desires and needs?

 

[wynn]

Nope, I certainly don't(though it's nice to have them), because there's not one good argument for accepting the existence of a god. Kind of nice not having to shoulder the burden of proof the way I did when I was a theist.

So I'll guess: For you, matters of theism and atheism are primarily matters of how to justify either position when faced with opposition - a matter of how to beat down those who oppose you, how to emerge victorious from each exchange with other people - a matter of competition - a matter of how to prevail.

Yes?


You do this now, and going by what you have said about yourself, you did it back when you considered yourself a theist.

 

[wynn]

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.

Okay.

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?

To begin with, I was the one to introduce the idea that we cannot meaningfully desire (or not desire) eternal existence -

For one, surely you realize that whether or not one's life is going to be eternal, is not something within one's control, and thus, not something one could meaningfully desire, or not desire.

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.

I used Sartre's notion of bad faith / self-deception as an introduction to my line of reasoning.
I am not limiting myself to Sartre's view, I am incorporating it.

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.

There are people who have disagreed with that. For example, a notable Indian prince.

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.

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.

Another analogy: If you place a drop of water on a hot stove plate, the water will move frantically until it evaporates. The drop of wate rand the hot stove plate But if you place a drop of water into a river, the drop of water will move along with the river, as if merging with it - there will be no friction.

Similarly, when we act in line with our true nature, there is no friction - and thus, no suffering.

Pain and suffering pertain to things that are subject to aging, illness and death.

You are talking about a temporary pain and suffering.

As opposed to what?

As opposed to permanent pain and suffering.

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.

Many people also use imprecise terms or use terms imprecisely.

Like I said earlier:

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.

Conversely, the desire isn't for non-existence per se; the desire is that the pain and the suffering would go away.

When people identify with things that are subject to aging, illness and death - ie. when they identify in a way that causes suffering - the desire to end pain and suffering is tantamount to the desire for non-existence.

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.

The doctrines of the mainstream versions of the Abrahamic religions are riddled with double binds, ethical problems, gross threats, numerous ugly things.

If one has the desire to be earnest about life, but also has the desire to distract oneself from the problems of life, then engaging in reading and discussion of the mainstream versions of the Abrahamic religions satisfies those desires ...

In short, if you are into feeling disgusted, just read some stuff from the mainstream versions of the Abrahamic religions.

 

[Balerion]

To begin with, I was the one to introduce the idea that we cannot meaningfully desire (or not desire) eternal existence -

I understand that. I have already told you that we can desire things whether we can have them or not. Just like I desire a billion dollars, or you desire a world peace. Often times people desire things more when they are told they cannot have them.

I used Sartre's notion of bad faith / self-deception as an introduction to my line of reasoning.
I am not limiting myself to Sartre's view, I am incorporating it.

You still misunderstood its meaning. Even as an introduction, it doesn't work, because you're using it to demonstrate a point his philosophy does not agree with.

There are people who have disagreed with that. For example, a notable Indian prince.

Again with the vagueness?

Another analogy: If you place a drop of water on a hot stove plate, the water will move frantically until it evaporates. The drop of wate rand the hot stove plate But if you place a drop of water into a river, the drop of water will move along with the river, as if merging with it - there will be no friction.

Similarly, when we act in line with our true nature, there is no friction - and thus, no suffering.

The analogy doesn't apply, because humans are not droplets of water, and life has no river in which we can live without friction.

How about instead of hiding behind analogies, you give me a real-world example of a person living without suffering?

Pain and suffering pertain to things that are subject to aging, illness and death.

Not exclusively. People can suffer from personal relationships gone bad, from having evil little bastard children, and from numerous other things that are unrelated to aging, illness, or death.

But even if it was, those things are still pain and suffering. You can't just pretend they don't exist. You can't escape death, aging, or illness.

As opposed to permanent pain and suffering.

You have to add some context to these comments, Wynn. Are you saying there's some sort of afterlife? I'm guessing by this exchange that you're a believer in one of the Eastern faiths, but you're all over the map, and contradicting yourself (ie, there is no suffering, but suffering exists in aging, illness, and death; it is wishful thinking to believe the pain ends at death, but all pain is temporary). In other words, your ideas standing on their own are jumbled and contradictory. At least give me some frame of reference for where you're coming from, so I can tell which ideas are from the faith, and which are just misunderstandings of the faith--similar to your misunderstanding of Sartre.

Many people also use imprecise terms or use terms imprecisely.

Like what?

When people identify with things that are subject to aging, illness and death - ie. when they identify in a way that causes suffering - the desire to end pain and suffering is tantamount to the desire for non-existence.

That pain and suffering exists whether or not one "identifies" (whatever that even means in this context) with illness or aging or death. Nor is the acceptance of non-existence a wish for the pain to end, as much as it is simply the understanding that non-existence is the only logical explanation for what happens to us when we die.

The doctrines of the mainstream versions of the Abrahamic religions are riddled with double binds, ethical problems, gross threats, numerous ugly things.

If one has the desire to be earnest about life, but also has the desire to distract oneself from the problems of life, then engaging in reading and discussion of the mainstream versions of the Abrahamic religions satisfies those desires ...

In short, if you are into feeling disgusted, just read some stuff from the mainstream versions of the Abrahamic religions.

Oh, this is more of your needless mudslinging about my "obsession" with religion. This, coming from the person who discusses the matter (though not ethically or honestly) as much as anyone here.

 

[wynn]

To begin with, I was the one to introduce the idea that we cannot meaningfully desire (or not desire) eternal existence -

I understand that. I have already told you that we can desire things whether we can have them or not.

No.
We have incommensurably different understandings of the issue.

my point is that we cannot meaningfully desire things that we believe are not under our control.

Unless one believes that whether one will have eternal life or only a temporary one is under one's control, one cannot meaningfully desire either eternal life or temporary life.

Although there are people who actually believe that whether one will have eternal life or only a temporary one is under one's control; they are the ones who believe in magic potions and such.

You still misunderstood its meaning. Even as an introduction, it doesn't work, because you're using it to demonstrate a point his philosophy does not agree with.

I'm not limiting myself to Sartre.

The analogy doesn't apply, because humans are not droplets of water, and life has no river in which we can live without friction.

The point of analogies is to compare two things, not to equalize them.

How about instead of hiding behind analogies, you give me a real-world example of a person living without suffering?

While there probably are no people who would be without pain, there are those who have overcome suffering.

Pain and suffering pertain to things that are subject to aging, illness and death.

Not exclusively. People can suffer from personal relationships gone bad, from having evil little bastard children, and from numerous other things that are unrelated to aging, illness, or death.

But even if it was, those things are still pain and suffering. You can't just pretend they don't exist. You can't escape death, aging, or illness.

Surely you have noticed that aging, illness and death, and also birth, come in a vast variety of shapes and sizes.

You have to add some context to these comments, Wynn. Are you saying there's some sort of afterlife? I'm guessing by this exchange that you're a believer in one of the Eastern faiths, but you're all over the map, and contradicting yourself (ie, there is no suffering, but suffering exists in aging, illness, and death; it is wishful thinking to believe the pain ends at death, but all pain is temporary). In other words, your ideas standing on their own are jumbled and contradictory. At least give me some frame of reference for where you're coming from, so I can tell which ideas are from the faith, and which are just misunderstandings of the faith--similar to your misunderstanding of Sartre.

As a reference frame, you can use Buddhism or Hinduism, in general.

Many people also use imprecise terms or use terms imprecisely.

Like what?

As I exemplified after the sentence you quoted.

In short, if you are into feeling disgusted, just read some stuff from the mainstream versions of the Abrahamic religions.

Oh, this is more of your needless mudslinging about my "obsession" with religion. This, coming from the person who discusses the matter (though not ethically or honestly) as much as anyone here.

Noticed how I started off this tangent by adding a to my comment?

 

[Enmos]

In short:
Eternal life = no decay.

Why would eternal life mean no decay of any kind?
I take it you are using the commonly used definition of 'eternal'?

I was relativizing another poster's assumed certainy.
If we don't know what happens at death and after, we can't make claims of certainty either way.

Alright.

 

[Balerion]

No.
We have incommensurably different understandings of the issue.

my point is that we cannot meaningfully desire things that we believe are not under our control.

Unless one believes that whether one will have eternal life or only a temporary one is under one's control, one cannot meaningfully desire either eternal life or temporary life.

Although there are people who actually believe that whether one will have eternal life or only a temporary one is under one's control; they are the ones who believe in magic potions and such.

You posted a cartoon depicting "atheist missionaries" sarcastically pointing out to the godless tribe that their lives are meaningless and tragic without the promise of an eternal paradise to make up for their worldly suffering. I simply said that for the cartoon to make a point, it has to assume that eternal life is a better alternative to finite life. Your argument that one cannot "meaningfully" desire for an eternal life is a non-sequitur. The entire purpose of posting the strip was to demonstrate how foolish atheism is for not promising an afterlife.

I'm not limiting myself to Sartre.

Okay? Sartre still does not apply to your argument.

The point of analogies is to compare two things, not to equalize them.

And Sartre's "bad faith" and "self-deception" ideas do not work as analogies for the idea "No suffering will come to those who are true to their own nature." That is not what Sartre said, nor what he implied, so where does the analogy come into play?

While there probably are no people who would be without pain, there are those who have overcome suffering.

There are those who overcome situations, yes. People who find peace regarding the loss of a child or a parent, people who get over a lifelong feud, or those who rise above their impoverished beginnings to become great people, but no one can escape suffering or pain as a concept. This directly contradicts your earlier assertion that one who is true to their own nature will never suffer.

Surely you have noticed that aging, illness and death, and also birth, come in a vast variety of shapes and sizes.

Yes, of course. What does that have to do with anything?

Noticed how I started off this tangent by adding a to my comment?

Use your words, Wynn.

 

[wynn]

You posted a cartoon depicting "atheist missionaries" sarcastically pointing out to the godless tribe that their lives are meaningless and tragic without the promise of an eternal paradise to make up for their worldly suffering. I simply said that for the cartoon to make a point, it has to assume that eternal life is a better alternative to finite life. Your argument that one cannot "meaningfully" desire for an eternal life is a non-sequitur. The entire purpose of posting the strip was to demonstrate how foolish atheism is for not promising an afterlife.

This is how you see it, as an atheist.

I don't see it that way. To me, the cartoon speaks of the absurdity of the atheist promise. (That doesn't automatically make a particular theistic one favorable.)

And Sartre's "bad faith" and "self-deception" ideas do not work as analogies for the idea "No suffering will come to those who are true to their own nature." That is not what Sartre said, nor what he implied, so where does the analogy come into play?

No, Sartre doesn't say that, but his idea that identifying with one's occupation, socio-economic status, race etc. is an act of bad faith or self-deception - this idea I used as an introduction to the line of reasoning that identifying with anything material is problematic.

Hindu or Buddhist sources often point out how it is problematic when one identifies with the material; but I haven't seen them refer to this kind of identification as "bad faith"; they usually use notions to the effect of "false ego". But I find the term "bad faith" or "self-deception" to be really suitable in this conext.

There are those who overcome situations, yes. People who find peace regarding the loss of a child or a parent, people who get over a lifelong feud, or those who rise above their impoverished beginnings to become great people, but no one can escape suffering or pain as a concept.

What do you mean by that bolded part?

This directly contradicts your earlier assertion that one who is true to their own nature will never suffer.

Being true to one's nature is mutually exclusive with suffering; this is a truism.

Yes, of course. What does that have to do with anything?

Unruly children or exhausting relationships (which you mentioned earlier and said that they have nothing to do with aging, illlness and death) are some of the forms that aging, illness, and death, and also birth, take.

Use your words, Wynn.

Granted, irony doesn't travel well online.

 

[wynn]

Why would eternal life mean no decay of any kind?
I take it you are using the commonly used definition of 'eternal'?

e·ter·nal
   [ih-tur-nl] Show IPA
adjective

1. without beginning or end; lasting forever; always existing ( opposed to temporal): eternal life.
2. perpetual; ceaseless; endless: eternal quarreling; eternal chatter.
3. enduring; immutable: eternal principles.
4. Metaphysics . existing outside all relations of time; not subject to change.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/eternal

 

[Balerion]

This is how you see it, as an atheist.

I don't see it that way. To me, the cartoon speaks of the absurdity of the atheist promise. (That doesn't automatically make a particular theistic one favorable.)

For one, there is no atheist promise. Atheism does not deal in revealed truths. It is simply a logical position in the context of all available evidence, and should the data change, so would the parameters of atheism.

Secondly, and most importantly, the cartoon is indeed lampooning the atheist point of view, but in order to "get" the joke, one has to assume that an alternative theory is more favorable. In the strip, the object of the artist's sarcasm is the idea of non-existence after death, meaning that the author believes eternal life to be the preferable scenario.

So if you do not believe in eternal life, nor believe it is preferable to non-existence, then what purpose does the strip serve for you?

No, Sartre doesn't say that, but his idea that identifying with one's occupation, socio-economic status, race etc. is an act of bad faith or self-deception - this idea I used as an introduction to the line of reasoning that identifying with anything material is problematic.

Hindu or Buddhist sources often point out how it is problematic when one identifies with the material; but I haven't seen them refer to this kind of identification as "bad faith"; they usually use notions to the effect of "false ego". But I find the term "bad faith" or "self-deception" to be really suitable in this conext.

You confused the issue by trying to maintain some religious anonymity. With nothing more to go by than your reference to Sartre, I had no way to tell what you were trying to say if not what Sartre said.

Let's return to the issue: you say that identifying with the material is problematic, a rather demur statement compared to the earlier one about how one cannot suffer if they follow their true nature. You used the metaphor of a droplet of water in a stream, I believe.

The problem with this metaphor is that once the droplet enters the water, that's the end of the story. The droplet is no longer an entity, as it is simply dispersed within the stream. There is no human equivalent to this. Until death, there's always another story, always another problem to overcome. There is no such thing as nirvana.

This is why I asked you to give me a real example of someone who does not suffer, as opposed to some flowery metaphor. I'm still waiting.

What do you mean by that bolded part?

I mean that while a person may overcome an obstacle, there is no path that frees them from all obstacles. There will always be something else to overcome. And one will not always succeed.

Being true to one's nature is mutually exclusive with suffering; this is a truism.

So then this was simply another non-sequitur? I said that life can be miserable, and full of pain and suffering, and that an afterlife is not promised to be any different, to which you replied that one will not suffer if they follow their true nature. If this was not to say "You can avoid all suffering by being yourself," but rather "One thing that won't make you suffer is being yourself," then what was the point of saying it?

Sometimes I think your religious anonymity is due to your awareness that you don't really have a grasp on the concepts of your faith. This is one of those times.

Unruly children or exhausting relationships (which you mentioned earlier and said that they have nothing to do with aging, illlness and death) are some of the forms that aging, illness, and death, and also birth, take.

I completely disagree. For one, you could say the same about anything, if you wanted to define the terms that broadly. Taxes would be a form of aging. Come on.

Granted, irony doesn't travel well online.

It travels just fine. The problem here is the opaqueness with which you communicate your point. How am I supposed to read in the middle of an insult?