Philosophy Now Forum

From The Commandments of Atheism: “Thou shalt not believe that God is a loving God … if there really was a God. As an atheist, you know that if there really was a loving God he wouldn’t let people get hurt and suffer. It’s just common sense, which also proves there is no God.”

From The Commandments of Atheism: “As an atheist, your ability to believe that you can disprove things by pointing out that those things can’t be proven, proves that you’re always right.”

Nick_A wrote:The trouble with blind belief and blind denial as it relates to God is idolatry; a psychological condition where the idol takes the place of the real. Why this happens is a topic all its own. The antidote for blind belief and blind denial is conscious impartiality or an open mind. If Simone Weil is right in the following only a few will become capable of conscious impartiality.

Simone is clearly so far away from that state as it is possible to be. Amusingly she thinks it of no difficulty to be able to deny "false gods", and yet has no reasonable to way determine if one, any, or all gods are false.

Walker wrote:From The Commandments of Atheism: “Thou shalt not believe that God is a loving God … if there really was a God. As an atheist, you know that if there really was a loving God he wouldn’t let people get hurt and suffer. It’s just common sense, which also proves there is no God.”

From The Commandments of Atheism: “As an atheist, your ability to believe that you can disprove things by pointing out that those things can’t be proven, proves that you’re always right.”

The bleat of the idiot: "You can't prove a negative: so the god I conceive is true"

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Walker wrote:From The Commandments of Atheism: “Thou shalt not believe that God is a loving God … if there really was a God. As an atheist, you know that if there really was a loving God he wouldn’t let people get hurt and suffer. It’s just common sense, which also proves there is no God.”

From The Commandments of Atheism: “As an atheist, your ability to believe that you can disprove things by pointing out that those things can’t be proven, proves that you’re always right.”

The bleat of the idiot: "You can't prove a negative: so the god I conceive is true"

Define true.

Me.

Nick_A wrote:

D P wrote: Allow me to reiterate. I do not like or accept the life system of the 'creator'. It is my lot that I exist, but I would not, and have not, created another consciousness, that is subject to it. I have no right to choose for another. No one does. (You will of course say, 'but you are choosing "no life" for another', to which I would respond, 'there is no other, so I am choosing for no one, and no one is being impacted by that decision.') And if I don't like the life system, why would I, or should I, like that which created it?

Of course you believe what you want but what of those who feel the questions of the heart like who am I and why am I here? You can say why bother because apparently you don't feel the questions. A person with questions of the heart and blessed with a critical mind seeks a hypothesis that can explain universal meaning and purpose and Man's position within it. The time tested efforts to "know thyself" can reveal the truth or error of the hypothesis. Efforts to know thyself or have the experience of oneself interfere with the joys of denial so are avoided in favor of condemnation. Not my way. I just feel bad for the young in institutions of child abuse called schools and universities that are forced to endure the negativity of blind denial.

All you and Simone Weil are doing is adding layers of Romanticism onto a simple subject such as purpose, when there is no objective purpose, save base continuation. Philosophy is not about subjective wish fulfilment, but, often, unpalatable reasoning.

D P wrote: All you and Simone Weil are doing is adding layers of Romanticism onto a simple subject such as purpose, when there is no objective purpose, save base continuation. Philosophy is not about subjective wish fulfilment, but, often, unpalatable reasoning.

No. philosophy is the love of wisdom. It is not the ego satisfying pleasures of denial. Is it really reasonable to assume that this virtually infinite creation we call universe and can document as transforming substances has no objective purpose? Isn't it far more reasonable to assume that if it does, for some reason you are unable to understand and to feel it? Blind believers have been conditioned to believe and blind deniers have been conditioned to deny. It would seem that the minority with an open mind are far more reasonable since they are inclined to become capable of understanding rather than basking in blind belief or blind denial. Reasonable people are always offensive to blind believers and blind deniers since they interfere with the pleasures of imaginary self justification.

Nick_A wrote:

D P wrote: All you and Simone Weil are doing is adding layers of Romanticism onto a simple subject such as purpose, when there is no objective purpose, save base continuation. Philosophy is not about subjective wish fulfilment, but, often, unpalatable reasoning.

No. philosophy is the love of wisdom. It is not the ego satisfying pleasures of denial. Is it really reasonable to assume that this virtually infinite creation we call universe and can document as transforming substances has no objective purpose? Yes, it's very reasonable. Isn't it far more reasonable to assume that if it does, for some reason you are unable to understand and to feel it? No, it's not far more reasonable. Blind believers have been conditioned to believe and blind deniers have been conditioned to deny. It would seem that the minority with an open mind are far more reasonable since they are inclined to become capable of understanding rather than basking in blind belief or blind denial. Reasonable people are always offensive to blind believers and blind deniers since they interfere with the pleasures of imaginary self justification.Well, stop taking offense then

Well, what's the objective purpose of the universe then, Nick? (Oh, and see an optometrist about that blind belief and denial.)

Nick_A wrote:

D P wrote: All you and Simone Weil are doing is adding layers of Romanticism onto a simple subject such as purpose, when there is no objective purpose, save base continuation. Philosophy is not about subjective wish fulfilment, but, often, unpalatable reasoning.

No. philosophy is the love of wisdom. It is not the ego satisfying pleasures of denial. Is it really reasonable to assume that this virtually infinite creation we call universe and can document as transforming substances has no objective purpose? Isn't it far more reasonable to assume that if it does, for some reason you are unable to understand and to feel it? Blind believers have been conditioned to believe and blind deniers have been conditioned to deny. It would seem that the minority with an open mind are far more reasonable since they are inclined to become capable of understanding rather than basking in blind belief or blind denial. Reasonable people are always offensive to blind believers and blind deniers since they interfere with the pleasures of imaginary self justification.

It's obviously escaped your attention that Simone Weil is not really doing philosophy but some sort of hybrid theology.
You need hitting with the "belief is not enough" stick very hard.

D P wrote: Well, what's the objective purpose of the universe then, Nick? (Oh, and see an optometrist about that blind belief and denial.)

Blind belief or blind denial would make such discussion impossible. We wouldn't get past "yo momma sucks," But that isn't to say it isn't possible. It would need people not possessed by either blind belief or blind denial. Here are two scientists discussing what would be impossible here. Those into blind denial and measurements are better off measuring Kim Kardashian's behind and debating its merits. You'll be happier and she'll be happier. Forget about the more offensive spiritual speculations and stick with the facts.

http://www.counterbalance.org/ghc-div/peaco1-body.html

Nick_A wrote:

D P wrote: Well, what's the objective purpose of the universe then, Nick? (Oh, and see an optometrist about that blind belief and denial.)

Blind belief or blind denial would make such discussion impossible. We wouldn't get past "yo momma sucks," But that isn't to say it isn't possible. It would need people not possessed by either blind belief or blind denial. Here are two scientists discussing what would be impossible here. Those into blind denial and measurements are better off measuring Kim Kardashian's behind and debating its merits. You'll be happier and she'll be happier. Forget about the more offensive spiritual speculations and stick with the facts.

http://www.counterbalance.org/ghc-div/peaco1-body.html

What exactly do you mean by 'blind denial'? Do you 'blindly deny' the existence of leprechauns? ALL belief in the supernatural is blind, because there's simply no evidence for it. And if there was evidence, it wouldn't be 'supernatural' any more.

Nick_A wrote:... Is it really reasonable to assume that this virtually infinite creation we call universe and can document as transforming substances has no objective purpose? ...

What makes you think this creation is even the purpose?

V wrote: What exactly do you mean by 'blind denial'? Do you 'blindly deny' the existence of leprechauns? ALL belief in the supernatural is blind, because there's simply no evidence for it. And if there was evidence, it wouldn't be 'supernatural' any more.

Blind denial is the attitude of emotional skepticism. Intellectual skepticism is healthy and the essence of questions. Emotional skepticism is poison for the human psyche. It is a blind conditioned emotional reaction based on the fear of being vulnerable which the open mind requires. Emotional skepticsm protects our ego by closing the potential open mind.

Nick_A wrote:

V wrote: What exactly do you mean by 'blind denial'? Do you 'blindly deny' the existence of leprechauns? ALL belief in the supernatural is blind, because there's simply no evidence for it. And if there was evidence, it wouldn't be 'supernatural' any more.

Blind denial is the attitude of emotional skepticism. Intellectual skepticism is healthy and the essence of questions. Emotional skepticism is poison for the human psyche. It is a blind conditioned emotional reaction based on the fear of being vulnerable which the open mind requires. Emotional skepticsm protects our ego by closing the potential open mind.

An atheist denies the existence of God, all else is window dressing.