even outside of issues of religion, faith in a result renders 90% of everyday life doableFor the time being, we can take this on faith only.
It begins with simple acts of charity, since even a commitment to sacrifice runs against the grain of entrenched egotism afforded by a materialistic view (of course there are various ways egotism can hijack the act of charity, which explains why humanitarianism etc is hardly perfectional)For an alternative to atheism to be meaningful to the atheist, it has to be accessible to the atheist.
And as discussions so far have shown, they do not seem to be accessible to the atheist. Ie., in those alternatives, there seems to be no entry point, no gate through which an atheist could pass.
hence .... they are instead sold the notion of "ok you are not happy now, but you willWell, there's certainly nothing in sight, but two or three hundred
years from now, who knows.
A mere opinion about having a transcendental existence is as futile as an opinion that weAnyway, I would argue that the "powers" of humanity have solved the problem,
by creating religion. In other words, life doesn't have to be everlasting, the people just
have to believe it is.
On the contrary, that's the exclusive deal of atheism and their willingness to accept isThat's the deal for everyone. Atheists are simply more willing to accept it.
Been dealt with numerous times but in shortI'm sorry, but how does a transcendental worldview explain that, and how does
atheism fail to?
granted that at the lower threshold of religious practice it can function like that ....Actually, that would better describe the carrot-and-stick of monotheistic religion.
"Your life may suck now, but your reward will come in heaven."
as I said there are two categories - seems like you are only familiar with the firstIt seems a bit unfair, because I feel like I have an unfair advantage here. As an
atheist, I grew up in a Catholic household, attended church and a Catholic school, have
known and still consider friends many religious people. So I know not only religion as it
was written, but how it is practiced by average people. You, on the other hand, seem to be
getting your information about atheism from other religious folks. I say that because I've
never known an atheist to submit to nihilism. The opposite of "God has a plan" has never
been "There's no point," in my experience. In fact, the only people I've ever heard say
that are religious people when considering the atheist position.
:shrug:
hence .... they are instead sold the notion of "ok you are not happy now, but you willWell, there's certainly nothing in sight, but two or three hundred
years from now, who knows.
A mere opinion about having a transcendental existence is as futile as an opinion that weAnyway, I would argue that the "powers" of humanity have solved the problem,
by creating religion. In other words, life doesn't have to be everlasting, the people just
have to believe it is.
On the contrary, that's the exclusive deal of atheism and their willingness to accept isThat's the deal for everyone. Atheists are simply more willing to accept it.
Been dealt with numerous times but in shortI'm sorry, but how does a transcendental worldview explain that, and how does
atheism fail to?
granted that at the lower threshold of religious practice it can function like that ....Actually, that would better describe the carrot-and-stick of monotheistic religion.
"Your life may suck now, but your reward will come in heaven."
as I said there are two categories - seems like you are only familiar with the firstIt seems a bit unfair, because I feel like I have an unfair advantage here. As an
atheist, I grew up in a Catholic household, attended church and a Catholic school, have
known and still consider friends many religious people. So I know not only religion as it
was written, but how it is practiced by average people. You, on the other hand, seem to be
getting your information about atheism from other religious folks. I say that because I've
never known an atheist to submit to nihilism. The opposite of "God has a plan" has never
been "There's no point," in my experience. In fact, the only people I've ever heard say
that are religious people when considering the atheist position.
:shrug:
hence .... they are instead sold the notion of "ok you are not happy now, but you will be in the future"Well, there's certainly nothing in sight, but two or three hundred years from now, who knows.
A mere opinion about having a transcendental existence is as futile as an opinion that we can hopefully attain such a state via technology in 300 or so years ....Anyway, I would argue that the "powers" of humanity have solved the problem, by creating religion. In other words, life doesn't have to be everlasting, the people just have to believe it is.
On the contrary, that's the exclusive deal of atheism and their willingness to accept is simply a consequence of having no other option . Kind of like saying the deal is that everyone only gets to eat cactus and camels are simply more willing to accept it. I guess the difference is that even atheists are mostly trying to avoid it as opposed to the camel relishing the taste of its own blood.That's the deal for everyone. Atheists are simply more willing to accept it.
Been dealt with numerous times but in shortI'm sorry, but how does a transcendental worldview explain that, and how does atheism fail to?
granted that at the lower threshold of religious practice it can function like that .... but the irony is that you have painted the upper threshold of atheists/gross materialists in the same manner ("perhaps we can solve this problem in 300 years with technology" etc etc)Actually, that would better describe the carrot-and-stick of monotheistic religion. "Your life may suck now, but your reward will come in heaven."
as I said there are two categories - seems like you are only familiar with the first variety. Persons of the second type tend to be a bit more intellectual or knowledgeable of the nature of conditioned existence to. I've met a few but they are certainly a lot more rarer breed than your standard "I'm gonna go out there and acquire what I need to be happy" sort of atheist. Posters like Crunchycat come to mindIt seems a bit unfair, because I feel like I have an unfair advantage here. As an atheist, I grew up in a Catholic household, attended church and a Catholic school, have known and still consider friends many religious people. So I know not only religion as it was written, but how it is practiced by average people. You, on the other hand, seem to be getting your information about atheism from other religious folks. I say that because I've never known an atheist to submit to nihilism. The opposite of "God has a plan" has never been "There's no point," in my experience. In fact, the only people I've ever heard say that are religious people when considering the atheist position.
:shrug:
IOW regardless who or what you teach (assuming you are teaching nothing to do with aparvarga of course) both yourself and your pupils will go through the cycle of parvarga
stuff it
as an experiment I'm going to post one paragraph at a time and see if there is some sort of word or something that freaks out the "auto mod queue" thing
hence .... they are instead sold the notion of "ok you are not happy now, but you will be in the future"
A mere opinion about having a transcendental existence is as futile as an opinion that we can hopefully attain such a state via technology in 300 or so years ....
On the contrary, that's the exclusive deal of atheism and their willingness to accept is simply a consequence of having no other option . Kind of like saying the deal is that everyone only gets to eat cactus and camels are simply more willing to accept it. I guess the difference is that even atheists are mostly trying to avoid it as opposed to the camel relishing the taste of its own blood.
granted that at the lower threshold of religious practice it can function like that
.... but the irony is that you have painted the upper threshold of atheists/gross materialists in the same manner ("perhaps we can solve this problem in 300 years with technology" etc etc)
as I said there are two categories - seems like you are only familiar with the first variety. Persons of the second type tend to be a bit more intellectual or knowledgeable of the nature of conditioned existence to. I've met a few but they are certainly a lot more rarer breed than your standard "I'm gonna go out there and acquire what I need to be happy" sort of atheist. Posters like Crunchycat come to mind
Its not just your death.
Its the death of the people you teach (assuming you didn't teach them anything about how to surmount the problem of death) and also eventually the planet and universe that you taught on (if you want to assume that you taught something which was noteworthy over numerous millennium).
This is a succinct description of the process based on what are the the 5 vargas (a varga is a particular type of letter in the sanskrit language and "pa" = 5.... taken together .... pa-varga .... one can get the word aparvarga which, due to the way semantics combine in sanskrit, means "liberation"
Material life is called pavarga because here we are subject to five different states of suffering, represented by the letters pa, pha, ba, bha and ma. Pa means pariçrama, very hard labor. Pha means phena, or foam from the mouth. For example, sometimes we see a horse foaming at the mouth with heavy labor. Ba means byarthatä, disappointment. In spite of so much hard labor, at the end we find disappointment. Bha means bhaya, or fear. In material life, one is always in the blazing fire of fear, since no one knows what will happen next. Finally, ma means måtyu, or death. When one attempts to nullify these five different statuses of life—pa, pha, ba, bha and ma—one achieves apavarga, or liberation from the punishment of material existence.
IOW regardless who or what you teach (assuming you are teaching nothing to do with aparvarga of course) both yourself and your pupils will go through the cycle of parvarga
as I said there are two categories - seems like you are only familiar with the first variety. Persons of the second type tend to be a bit more intellectual or knowledgeable of the nature of conditioned existence to. I've met a few but they are certainly a lot more rarer breed than your standard "I'm gonna go out there and acquire what I need to be happy" sort of atheist. Posters like Crunchycat come to mind
Since the society is very complex , why should be only one solution for all . I believe different segments of the society will help themselves with different teaching
Anyway, I would argue that the "powers" of humanity have solved the problem, by creating religion. In other words, life doesn't have to be everlasting, the people just have to believe it is.
It seems a bit unfair, because I feel like I have an unfair advantage here. As an atheist, I grew up in a Catholic household, attended church and a Catholic school, have known and still consider friends many religious people. So I know not only religion as it was written, but how it is practiced by average people. You, on the other hand, seem to be getting your information about atheism from other religious folks. I say that because I've never known an atheist to submit to nihilism. The opposite of "God has a plan" has never been "There's no point," in my experience. In fact, the only people I've ever heard say that are religious people when considering the atheist position.
Believing that one has food to eat is not even remotely the same as actually having food to eat.
Just believing something is not enough.
From some theistic perspectives*, all materialism is nihilism, since all matter "goes to dust" and is not worth being attached to.
(*Christians and Hindus probably disagree on this.)
Which is exactly why it's a complete and utter waste of time arguing with religious nut jobs.A mere opinion about having a transcendental existence is as futile as an opinion that we can hopefully attain such a state via technology in 300 or so years ....
hence .... they are instead sold the notion of "ok you are not happy now, but you will be in the future"
On the contrary, that's the exclusive deal of atheism and their willingness to accept is simply a consequence of having no other option . Kind of like saying the deal is that everyone only gets to eat cactus and camels are simply more willing to accept it. I guess the difference is that even atheists are mostly trying to avoid it as opposed to the camel relishing the taste of its own blood.
even outside of issues of religion, faith in a result renders 90% of everyday life doable
It begins with simple acts of charity, since even a commitment to sacrifice runs against the grain of entrenched egotism afforded by a materialistic view (of course there are various ways egotism can hijack the act of charity, which explains why humanitarianism etc is hardly perfectional)
A mere opinion about having a transcendental existence is as futile as an opinion that we can hopefully attain such a state via technology in 300 or so years ....
Christians say the purpose of life is to know God, accept his salvation and have eternal life.
Ok?
Which is exactly why it's a complete and utter waste of time arguing with religious nut jobs.
The various religions and beliefs allow a more immediate gratification, which is obviously far superior a technique in keeping people on their feet, and therefore is far more attractive to those who might be looking, subconsciously or otherwise, for an easy way out rather than having to contemplate things too deeply.
If a man's beliefs are the only thing preventing him from opting out, he isn't going to let go of them very easily. A man being logically argued out of his faith is usually going to convince himself he doesn't have enough of it, or that he does. It's the same mental safety net an atheist uses when considering what it actually means for him not to believe in god.
A little like a 20 year old blonde marrying a 60 year old billionaire for the security, and then convincing herself that she did it because she was in love with him. Man will do all sorts of things to make himself comfortable.
True...if you're talking about food. But we're talking about faith in some kind of divine plan, that there is more to consciousness and existence than this brief time spent on Earth. The driving force behind such a desire is the discomfort or fear or depression caused by the belief that this is, in fact, all there is to it. So all that is needed to assuage those fears and concerns is belief.
This LightGigantic fellow appears to have convinced himself that any atheist who fully understands mortality is simply going to roll over and die. It doesn't appear to have occurred to him that a total faith in god should theoretically have the religious types doing more or less the same thing. After all, there is no point to any progress if we're all going to end up in some kind of after life anyway.
There are, however, several other checks and balances nature has put in place to ensure we don't usually do off ourselves. Certainly not much more often than the religious types, and in either case it's not likely to be for religious or non-religious reasons. Point is, that man will find any reason not to die... and every last one of them has very little to do with logic or reality.
Including religion.
Few arguments regarding whether or not god exists rarely get as far as discussing the ramifications of him not doing so. That particular tangent forces believer and non-believer alike to think about consequences.
Neither of them particularly want to. Checks and balances.
realization born of applicationWhat else can we have but a mere opinion on these matters?
Like I replied to a poster in another thread:
This assumes that happiness is defined only by eternal life, and no other kind of happiness is attainable. I would disagree vehemently with that definition. It may in fact be valid to you, but to say that atheism--which does not posit some eternal existence--is therefore a failure is incorrect.
I disagree. You can't have a transcendental existence, you can only believe that you one day will. If that soothes you, then mission accomplished irrespective of the validity of the belief.
No, it's the deal for everyone. Whether you want to admit it or not, your god is a myth and your existence is temporary. No amount of faith can save you from reality. Of course, you can delude yourself, but your consciousness will blink out of existence just like everyone else's.
Then the endeavour doesn't persistBut in my experience, theism is like that too - "ok you are not happy now, but you will be in the future". There is this constant putting off of any shred of happiness, meaningfulness or satisfaction.
enough to be spat upon by one.How do you know what camels relish?
It seems like you are heavily projecting your own ideas about what things are like, into/onto animals.
It's not like you have spent a lot of time with camels, studying them. Or have you?
its all about the modes of nature one cultivates - which in turn dictate things such as happiness and distress. The point of the descriptions is to isolate which happiness's are superior to others or how they might compare. Generally they aim at pointing out how happiness born of the pursuit of animal propensities (eating, sleeping, mating and defending - or the entire scope for materialistic pursuit) are uniform throughout all species so it doesn't really pay to make them the be all and end all in the human form of life (since the human form of life offers something unique and practically unavailable in any of the other millions of species)It's like some other ideas I have heard from devotees - that dogs eat stool because they have such intense hunger and no discrimination; or that pigs refuse to eat sweets because their sense of taste is so off.
A flea larva eating stool and an animal like a dog or cat eating stool, is not the same.
Dogs, and a number of other mammals, eat stool in order to replenish their intestinal flora, which had been compromised by insufficient or poor nutrition, intestinal parasites, or, as is typical for domestic dogs that are fed canned food, by preservatives in the food that kill intestinal flora. Without proper intestinal flora, an animal cannot digest food.
The same principle is used for humans whose intestinal flora had been compromised by use of antibiotics: they take the stool of a healthy person, distill it, and introduce it to the patient's stomach via a tube through the mouth and stomach (to avoid the acidic environment of the stomach that would otherwise kill much of the intestinal flora).
Not all animals have the same kind of digestion enzymes as we do. And some animals actually have a sense of what kind of food they can digest, and what food would just make them sick. Pigs, for example, seem quite smart in this regard (unlike cows, cats and dogs).
If one has lived with animals for some time and has studied them, along with comparing insights from other people who have lived with animals, one can notice that they aren't simply stupid or greedy or generally lack discernment.
Since the thorny plants that camels eat do not kill them, I imagine there is a good reason why camels eat them. Such as that there is no better food around, or that those plants contain nutrients that camels cannot easily obtain otherwise, given their habitat.
without it there is the guarantee that there will be no resultSure.
But simply having faith is no guarantee that the invested effort will lead to the desired result.
You miss the point.While an atheist can certainly perform acts of charity, that won't likely give them any sense that they are doing something specifically theistic; so from the atheist's perspective, charity isn't a gate to theism.