Christianity

[Immanuel Can]

You seem to propose culling out some *inspiration* while you repress or eliminate that which has inspired.

That's an astute observation.

When we talk about "the goods produced by Theism," or "Christian culture," or whatever, what gives us the confidence that the "goods" or the "culture" can be tidily severed from the basic predispositions of Christianity itself?

If there's no God, why should anybody "Love thy neighbour," or "Give to the poor," let alone, "Do good to those who [actually] use you spitefully"?

Why not rather say, "Survival of the fittest: let the strong thrive, and the weak die," to no particular regret?

[Dontaskme]

Why not rather say, "Survival of the fittest: let the strong thrive, and the weak die," to no particular regret?

Because that's what evolution dictates...the survival of the fittest.

Life's only purpose is to die, so that it can live. Sometimes in a very disgusting nasty long painful and lingering way...That's all that's going on, each sentient feeling creature is out for it's own survival, because nature dictates it, and likes it that way.

Why do you have a hard time accepting your true animalistic and selfish nature?

Humans are the worse predators on the planet, they know intention and can cause serious harm with intent. This was natures grave mistake. Hopefully, one that will never be repeated, when humans hopefully become extinct just like the dodo had to go...But then it's all worth it according to you, so enjoy being blown to pieces when the nukes fall, enjoy the sensation of being irradiated, and don't forget to smile when it happens to you. And know that your God will be with you as you are writhing around in agony, make sure you leave a sign that it was all worth it, so at least any surviors will see for themselves how much it was all worth it when they find your fossil is wearing a LOL expression ..



.

[Immanuel Can]

Why not rather say, "Survival of the fittest: let the strong thrive, and the weak die," to no particular regret?

Because that's what evolution dictates...the survival of the fittest.

So you're agreeing with me. Yes, that's what Evolutionism implies.

But if you were a Nihilist, and if you didn't even believe in Evolutionism, you would have to believe that morality/ethics was never a thing at all. It was merely reflective of the contingent state of belief at any given time, and had no more obligatory force or legitimacy than anything else that ever happens.

In other words, by Nihilism's "lights," there's simply no such real thing.

[Dontaskme]

Why not rather say, "Survival of the fittest: let the strong thrive, and the weak die," to no particular regret?

Because that's what evolution dictates...the survival of the fittest.

So you're agreeing with me. Yes, that's what Evolutionism implies.

But if you were a Nihilist, and if you didn't even believe in Evolutionism, you would have to believe that morality/ethics was never a thing at all. It was merely reflective of the contingent state of belief at any given time, and had no more obligatory force or legitimacy than anything else that ever happens.

In other words, by Nihilism's "lights," there's simply no such real thing.

You can play around with concepts all day, they are meaningless. Nature does not care about made up imagined concepts.
Nature is a brutal serial killer..full stop...no one is making this nature happen. Just try undoing the thing you are, you cannot undo yourself and know you do not exist anymore.

There's simply what's happening, and no thing is making it happen. That's the uncomfortable truth that you fail to accept.

[Immanuel Can]

Nature is a brutal serial killer..full stop...no one is making this nature happen.

So you say. And if you so say, then morality/ethics are mere figments of imagination, not realities.

I don't have any reason to agree with you, but you can continue that line if you want.

[Dontaskme]

Nature is a brutal serial killer..full stop...no one is making this nature happen.

So you say. And if you so say, then morality/ethics are mere figments of imagination, not realities.

I don't have any reason to agree with you, but you can continue that line if you want.

Reality is a serial killer, this is a fact, it kills so it may live. To live is to die, and to die is to live...FACT

Everything else is delusion and fantasy and imagination.

I don't have any reason to agree with you, but you can continue that line if you want. I prefer to live in the real world as it actually is, not how I would like it to be.

Human man made concepts are an artificially imposed reality upon real reality that cannot respond because it has no brain or intent to do so...you are alone in the world and your concepts are all you've got since you are the one who has created them..imagine that, oneness and it's imagined world of concepts.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Reality is a serial killer, this is a fact, it kills so it may live. To live is to die, and to die is to live...FACT

Everything else is delusion and fantasy and imagination.

I don't have any reason to agree with you, but you can continue that line if you want. I prefer to live in the real world as it actually is, not how I would like it to be.

Human man made concepts are an artificially imposed reality upon real reality that cannot respond because it has no brain or intent to do so...you are alone in the world and your concepts are all you've got since you are the one who has created them..imagine that, oneness and it's imagined world of concepts.

I may not fully understand what IC is asserting, given that you two have likely conversed on the topic before, but I doubt that IC denies that *life* (the world of nature) indeed carries on as you describe. I describe these as base-facts about *the world*.

So in this sense Christianity, and indeed other religious modes and philosophies (such as Vedic, Buddhist), recognize the advent of a force or power that proposes the possibility of acting differently, of making different choices, and indeed of applying different choices for ideal and idealistic purposes.

I describe these as *impositions* -- something that is interposed -- on reality, which means in fact on and in a sense against (the grain of) the natural world.

What is curious about the Christian vision, if one goes back and actually examines it, is the belief that there will be, at some point, a 'new heaven and a new earth'. That is that the world, with all these predatorial systems and ecology, will wrap itself up and be replaced by a new and different reality.

This seems unlikely to me. The world will go on (& on & on & on) just as it has. If there is a new world and a new creation it will be (I would assume) because the souls will have translated to some other plane. (And this requires an assertion that other planes are possible).

But still: Christianity involves imposing ideals over and against facts and realities. These are intelligent choices and require intelligence (intellectus).

Human man made concepts are an artificially imposed reality upon real reality that cannot respond because it has no brain or intent to do so...you are alone in the world and your concepts are all you've got since you are the one who has created them..imagine that, oneness and it's imagined world of concepts.

You have described here what makes humans human. The *imposition* if ideas and ideals. It is all based on *concepts* -- receiving them, holding to them, applying them, living by them, and all of this is what only man can do.

Our entire world arises out of this.

[promethean75]

"If there's no God, why should anybody "Love thy neighbour," or "Give to the poor," let alone, "Do good to those who [actually] use you spitefully"?"

That question doesn't get fixed if you posit a 'god' as the reason such things should be done. Why should I do those things if there IS a 'god'? Because of fear that I'll be punished if I don't? But wait. How incredibly vague are those instructions to begin with? What does 'love thy neighbor' even mean... or better yet, how many different things CAN that mean? Ax this same question about all the instructions.

Okay, so now we have a god that is not only poised to punish me (for eternity?... 'pends on which interpretation you're using; another critical flaw in religious text), but offers only the most vague and obscure set of instructions I could ever possibly attempt to follow... something I scramble about trying to do for fear of damnation.

Now the whole game has changed, because once I discover the absurdity of this situation, I'm gonna purposely do everything I can to reject and defy this idiot god because a) what the fuck is that, and b) I'm not a toy to be played with.

But now I don't even do this, because I don't believe there is a god. And if there is, fuck em. I'm primed and ready for the best he's got. So bring that shit you old senial bastard.

Rather what I set my campaign against are the religions and the religious people themselves. Out of principle. This HAS to be done, because look at what the fuck they believe! And look at what the fuck what they believe, has gotten the world into!

But back to the original question. If I do what is my understanding and interpretation of what those general mores are, I do them for my pleasure... because seeing and knowing happy, healthy people pleases me. I need no other reason.

The irony is, most people who set to do these things, do so for reasons that are none, or for the wrong reasons... or I should say in the wrong ways, resulting only in compounding the problem even more.

[Nick_A]

Promethean

The next thing you'll hear them say is something like this: well even though all these religions and spiritualisms are different in particular historical detail, storyline, and narrative, there's something universal that they all share, so there has to be something to it all that transcends each particular one'.

But has anyone ever answered this observation with: 'yes, and that thing they all share is a generic lack of critical thinking, an absence which inevitably leads them all to the same general errors.'

But will critical thinking answer the question of human meaning and purpose or just intensify the battle of opinions?

Can you resolve the riddle of Meno's paradox through critical thinking? Is there a higher quality of reason normally overlooked

The argument known as “Meno’s Paradox” can be reformulated as follows:
If you know what you’re looking for, inquiry is unnecessary.
If you don’t know what you’re looking for, inquiry is impossible.
Therefore, inquiry is either unnecessary or impossible.
An implicit premise:

Either you know what you’re looking for or you don’t know what you’re looking for.

[Immanuel Can]

"If there's no God, why should anybody "Love thy neighbour," or "Give to the poor," let alone, "Do good to those who [actually] use you spitefully"?"

That question doesn't get fixed if you posit a 'god' as the reason such things should be done. Why should I do those things if there IS a 'god'? Because of fear that I'll be punished if I don't?

That would be a good reason, but it's not the primary one. The primary one is that God is the center of all goodness, so doing what is consonant with His character turns out to be the very definition of morality, as well as the only road to our own teleological good. The alternative is to rebel against all goodness...and that never works out well, in the long run.

What does 'love thy neighbor' even mean

It depends on the situation you're facing. But when you face it, I don't think you know what to do...that is, if you are walking in fellowship with God. If not, you may be perplexed; but then, why would you even care about "loving thy neighbour"?

I'm gonna purposely do everything I can to reject and defy this idiot god because a) what the fuck is that, and b) I'm not a toy to be played with.

What you are saying here is exactly what justifies the judgment of God against man. Man is in petty rebellion against his own Creator and against His own good...to say nothing of the good of the neighbour, of course.

It's common for men to hate God. It's common for man to do many things that are evil. But as the Word of God says, "And this is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the Light; for their deeds were evil." (John 3:19)

But back to the original question. If I do what is my understanding and interpretation of what those general mores are, I do them for my pleasure... because seeing and knowing happy, healthy people pleases me. I need no other reason.

Let's suppose that's true.

Then it's fine for you: but it's no good for ethics or morality generally, because you're saying there's literally no good reason why anybody else has to feel the same way. So maybe you end up being a conventionally "nice" person; but it does nothing for anybody else. Your "niceness" simply disadvantages you strategically, as it may incline you not to do what you otherwise could to increase your own "happiness," as you put it.

And actually, you aren't objectively "nice" at all, since there is actually no such quality in the universe, according to Atheism. It's a contingent, subjective, personal assessement unbacked by any facts at all.

[Immanuel Can]

I doubt that IC denies that *life* (the world of nature) indeed carries on as you describe.

I don't at all deny that a world devoid of God and driven merely by laws of nature would be a savage and unrelenting place. That seems quite obvious to me.

But then, I don't believe that's ultimately how things are.

What is curious about the Christian vision, if one goes back and actually examines it, is the belief that there will be, at some point, a 'new heaven and a new earth'. That is that the world, with all these predatorial systems and ecology, will wrap itself up and be replaced by a new and different reality.

This seems unlikely to me. The world will go on (& on & on & on) just as it has.

Well, I understand that assessment. After all, it's based on uniformitarian assumptions (i.e. that the dynamics of the world of yesterday will continue to be the dynamics of the world of today and tomorrow, essentially), plus no particular position regarding God.

But let's take the Theistic view, for a moment. IF we've already considered that there's a God, what would make us sanguine about the belief that He cannot intervene and change things? What larger "law" could constrain the Law Giver Himself? Of course, there is no such thing: the Supreme Being is the Supreme Being, and can do what He wishes.

And, in point of fact, He's spoken of this very view:

Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue just as they were from the beginning of creation.” For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, through which the world at that time was destroyed by being flooded with water. But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly people.

But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not willing for any to perish, but for all to come to repentance.
A New Heaven and Earth

But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be discovered.

Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat! But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells. Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found spotless and blameless by Him, at peace, and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation... (2 Peter 3:3-15)

But still: Christianity involves imposing ideals over and against facts and realities.

Not at all. It just requires the realization that God exists. After that, there is no longer a question as to whether or not the Supreme Being can interrupt the status quo. It seems quite obvious He can.

[Alexis Jacobi]

That question doesn't get fixed if you posit a 'god' as the reason such things should be done. Why should I do those things if there IS a 'god'? Because of fear that I'll be punished if I don't? But wait. How incredibly vague are those instructions to begin with? What does 'love thy neighbor' even mean... or better yet, how many different things CAN that mean? Ax this same question about all the instructions.

I hope you won't mind a few of my own comments here.

I certainly understand the sense of affront when, as is often the case, one confronts the projections of some religionists. In this case the heaven-hell dichotomy. But I would suggest, as a way to understand a more sophisticated metaphysics, the 16th chapter of the Bhagavad-Gita. The outline is here:

This chapter expounds on the two kinds of human nature—the saintly and the demoniac. Krishna explains that the saintly-nature develops in humans by cultivating the modes of goodness, by following the instructions given in the scriptures, and purifying the mind with spiritual practices. Such behavior attracts daivī sampatti or godlike qualities, eventually leading to God-realization. Contrary to this, the demoniac-nature develops by associating with modes of passion and ignorance and materially focused lifestyles that breed unwholesome traits in human personality. This leads the soul finally to a hell-like existence.

Krishna enumerates the saintly virtues of those endowed with a divine nature and then describes the demoniac qualities that should be shunned consciously. Else, these will drag the soul further into ignorance and samsara or the cycle of life and death. In the end, Krishna declares that the knowledge of the scriptures helps in overcoming ignorance and passion. They also guide us to make the right choices in life. Therefore, we must understand their teachings and injunctions and accordingly perform our actions in this world.

The way I have come to understand the metaphysics, and the relation to the metaphysics, is to see things in terms of choices. We either cultivate the higher and the better aspects of self, and thus of society, culture and life, or we choose the opposite. It is, in some sense, an either-or proposition.

It is not so much the 'fear that I will be punished' but that the choices I make will result in defining my own punishment. The same idea operates in Christian thought but I would say in more black & white terms. But the question is Is it true or not? I am pretty sure that you'd agree that our choices define us. Where you will likely disagree is if there is a *soul* that can or will live in the result of its choices.

But the basic idea is not unsound.

Okay, so now we have a god that is not only poised to punish me (for eternity?... 'pends on which interpretation you're using; another critical flaw in religious text), but offers only the most vague and obscure set of instructions I could ever possibly attempt to follow... something I scramble about trying to do for fear of damnation.

My own view is to be suspicious of the notion of eternal damnation. I think there must always be a way out (of the consequences of what we choose). Obviously this is not so in one solitary life, if it begins and ends there, but in the life of a soul if after-existence is conceived. But again the Bhagavad-Gita does a reasonable job of outlining simply the dichotomy of choice we all face.

Now the whole game has changed, because once I discover the absurdity of this situation, I'm gonna purposely do everything I can to reject and defy this idiot god because a) what the fuck is that, and b) I'm not a toy to be played with.

Here I think you demonstrate your ideological link with Lacewing.

I am uncertain what you have discovered, or if indeed something actually substantial has been discovered. While I can indeed recognize absurdity, and absurd stories, or absurd interpretations, and absurd propositions, I cannot agree that failure to recognize the essential dichotomy encased within our existence is any sort of wisdom at all. But this goes back to things I said previously: that I believe that we need to examine and see these traditions with more insight. It becomes a question of who is looking, who is seeing.

But now I don't even do this, because I don't believe there is a god. And if there is, fuck em. I'm primed and ready for the best he's got. So bring that shit you old senial bastard.

This is an interesting statement because, from one perspective (the Vedic one which is the one I have studied most) you are proposing an engagement with nescience. Someone might say to you: You have made an erroneous interpretation of what God is, as if God is an agent standing over you, and failed to recognize that there is a science of divinity, or a science of consequence in this *world*. Philosophical science, if I may use this term, opposes philosophical nescience. Saying what you have said, in the way you have said it, indicates a rather immature attitude to what are, in the best circumstances and traditions, far more serious questions.

But this fits into the culture of superficial rejection when what is rejected, spasmodically, is not really understood in the first place.

Rather what I set my campaign against are the religions and the religious people themselves. Out of principle. This HAS to be done, because look at what the fuck they believe! And look at what the fuck what they believe, has gotten the world into!

One of the things that IC was successful in pointing out is that it is not religious communities, or religions, that are the source of error and harm, but the huge atheistic states (Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Communist China) that have achieved results we all recognize as horrible. And yet the religious, and religion, is pegged as intolerably horrible. I do not think the assertion pans out.

Why do you say it?

But back to the original question. If I do what is my understanding and interpretation of what those general mores are, I do them for my pleasure... because seeing and knowing happy, healthy people pleases me. I need no other reason.

That cannot be much of a base, really, because your feelings are personal, mutable, and will of course change. Ideas about what is right & wrong have to be couched un ultra-intellectual terms, not sentiments.

The irony is, most people who set to do these things, do so for reasons that are none, or for the wrong reasons... or I should say in the wrong ways, resulting only in compounding the problem even more.

Nicely put!

[promethean75]

"The primary one is that God is the center of all goodness, so doing what is consonant with His character turns out to be the very definition of morality, as well as the only road to our own teleological good."

You're homeboy Euthyphro made quite a dilemma out of that very claim. You didn't get the memo?

Seriously tho, every time you put an argument up having anything to do with 'god' - unless to show the concept to be nonsense - somebody can come behind you and knock it down.

The best a religious fellow such as yourself can do is maintain a quiet feidism based on a personal hope/faith - if that is your temperament - and pass up attempts to argue or even talk about such non-sense, silently. If you don't, and get away with it, it means a battle-hardened atheist has not yet found you.

[Alexis Jacobi]

If you don't, and get away with it, it means a battle-hardened atheist has not yet found you.

...fuck em. I'm primed and ready for the best he's got. So bring that shit you old senial bastard.

A bit of fun can't hurt, can it?

[Immanuel Can]

"The primary one is that God is the center of all goodness, so doing what is consonant with His character turns out to be the very definition of morality, as well as the only road to our own teleological good."

You're homeboy Euthyphro made quite a dilemma out of that very claim. You didn't get the memo?

Oh, that's an old canard. I'm very amused to see it trotted out again here.

Yes, I know Euthyphro. But he got that wrong in a very simple way: he made a false dichotomy between "God" and "good," and then tried to set them against each other.

His mistake was understandable: like Socrates and the other polytheists of his day, his concept of God was of multiple "gods," not of the Supreme Being (although Socrates sometimes seems more aware than that, it seems Euthryphro never was.) You'll see that when Socrates asks him about "the gods" hating some things that the others love. His frame of reference was polytheism. And he did, indeed put a pin in polytheism.

But the word "God" and "good" are harmonious. And the Supreme Being does not love one thing and then hate it later. So for us, the Christians, Euthyphro is actually no dilemma at all...it's just a very simple category error.