Philosophy Now Forum

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

thedoc wrote:

Arising_uk wrote:No, I perfectly accept that you have had the experience. It's that you appear to think it confirms a specific metaphysical belief and yet in the same words agree that the label could be wrong. So why believe that it was this 'Holy Spirit' and all the baggage that comes with it?

What difference does it make? I believe that God exists and that is as far as I am willing to go. If you want to quibble about the details, please be my guest. I don't know and will not argue about it.

Then don't claim to have evidence and expect others to believe you. Personally I couldn't give a stuff what nonsense people believe as long as it doesn't interfere with others. Unfortunately, kristians insist on having a powerful say in politics and laws that should be secular, and shoving their personal beliefs down everyone else's throats. IC doesn't like abortion? Then don't have one!

I believe that I have stated elsewhere that I understand that the experience was only for the benefit of those who were there, and I don't expect anyone else to take my experience as their own. I don't expect any one else to believe me. I don't try to force my beliefs on anyone else, it is entirely up to them what they choose to believe or not believe.

thedoc wrote:

Arising_uk wrote:

thedoc wrote:I don't, but that is the label I applied to what I observed. And since you weren't there, (as far as I know), you are just being critical of what you know nothing about.

No, I perfectly accept that you have had the experience. It's that you appear to think it confirms a specific metaphysical belief and yet in the same words agree that the label could be wrong. So why believe that it was this 'Holy Spirit' and all the baggage that comes with it?

What difference does it make? I believe that God exists and that is as far as I am willing to go. If you want to quibble about the details, please be my guest. I don't know and will not argue about it.

FYI, I attach no baggage to the term, if you want to, so be it. It is only a label that I attach to an experience that demonstrates the existence of God to me.

Something about nacreous spheroids...

thedoc wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:IC doesn't like abortion? Then don't have one!

By great and fortuitous chance, I have avoided that contingency.

Immanuel Can wrote: Something about nacreous spheroids...

thedoc wrote:
I believe that I have stated elsewhere that I understand that the experience was only for the benefit of those who
were there and I dont expect anyone else to take my experience as their own. I dont expect any one else to believe
me. I dont try to force my beliefs on anyone else it is entirely up to them what they choose to believe or not believe

I agree with absolutely every single word of this and in an ideal world it would actually be the natural default position

henry quirk wrote:"MUST an Atheist be good?"

Nope.

And -- even if God exists, knowing the direction and speed of every particle, knowing your heart down to the foundation -- you, Mannie, have no obligation to be good.

You, a Christian, choose to align yourself with God or choose to walk away from Him.

The choice is yours, not God's

Now He may burn you eternally for what He sez is a bad choice, but He cannot deprive you of that choice.

Must anyone be good?

Nope.

Still, everyone probably agrees that the priorities for religious people are on both life and Heaven/Religious state while the priorities for the Atheist Humanist/Atheist are on life only, clearly. This must have consequences. What are these consequences? That you leisurely torture children? Or something else? Indeed, to give people the death by bombing or shooting is far different from giving people death by (extreme/maximal) torture, don't you agree?

Fx. do you think the British banker in Hong Kong who has (hideously) killed two Indonesian women is an Atheist? Or no opinion? Or "we don't know" and "it's not an issue"?

The above brings my thoughts to how American Psycho, novel by Bret Easton Ellis (1991) has no particular religious language, but an "Atheist" lifestyle of luxuries and decadence, torturing to death women being one of these decadent features. Aaaarrrggghhhh, awful book!

Necromancer wrote: Still, everyone probably agrees that the priorities for religious people are on both life and Heaven/Religious state while the priorities for the Atheist Humanist/Atheist are on life only, clearly. This must have consequences. What are these consequences? That you leisurely torture children? Or something else? Indeed, to give people the death by bombing or shooting is far different from giving people death by (extreme/maximal) torture, don't you agree?

Fx. do you think the British banker in Hong Kong who has (hideously) killed two Indonesian women is an Atheist? Or no opinion? Or "we don't know" and "it's not an issue"?

The above brings my thoughts to how American Psycho, novel by Bret Easton Ellis (1991) has no particular religious language, but an "Atheist" lifestyle of luxuries and decadence, torturing to death women being one of these decadent features. Aaaarrrggghhhh, awful book!

Good point. It does have to have consequences. What we truly believe has an effect on how we live: and that's as true for Atheists as for the religious.

Again, CAN an Atheist be good? Sure, and perhaps he is. But why would he need to be? Why can't he be an amoralist, or even enthusiastically immoral?

Nietzsche said it, and Dostoevsky said it: absent God anything goes. And it's pretty hard to get Neitzsche and a Christian to agree on much.

CAN a Christian act in immoral ways? Sure: just like the "good" Atheist, he can choose not to live out the spirit of what he believes. But can he remain a good Christian while doing that? Atheists themselves will tell you the answer to that...he's a hypocrite, a fake, a fraud.

And yet the Atheist can't tell you why doing exactly the same things, or worse, makes him anything less that a perfect Atheist.

Heck, they can't even tell you why they think hypocrisy itself is "wrong."

Immanuel Can wrote:Good point. It does have to have consequences. What we truly believe has an effect on how we live: and that's as true for Atheists as for the religious.

Again, CAN an Atheist be good? Sure, and perhaps he is. But why would he need to be? Why can't he be an amoralist, or even enthusiastically immoral?

Nietzsche said it, and Dostoevsky said it: absent God anything goes. And it's pretty hard to get Neitzsche and a Christian to agree on much.

CAN a Christian act in immoral ways? Sure: just like the "good" Atheist, he can choose not to live out the spirit of what he believes. But can he remain a good Christian while doing that? Atheists themselves will tell you the answer to that...he's a hypocrite, a fake, a fraud.

And yet the Atheist can't tell you why doing exactly the same things, or worse, makes him anything less that a perfect Atheist.

Heck, they can't even tell you why they think hypocrisy itself is "wrong."

Thanks, man! Good points, yourself!

Immanuel Can wrote:
What we truly believe has an effect on how we live: and thats as true for Atheists as for the religious

Again CAN an Atheist be good? Sure and perhaps he is. But why would he need to be? Why cant he be an amoralist or even enthusiastically immoral

Nietzsche said it and Dostoevsky said it absent God anything goes. And its pretty hard to get Neitzsche and a Christian to agree on much

CAN a Christian act in immoral ways? Sure just like the good Atheist he can choose not to live out the spirit of what he believes

But can he remain a good Christian while doing that? Atheists themselves will tell you the answer to that ... he is a hypocrite a fake a fraud

And yet the Atheist cant tell you why doing exactly the same things or worse makes him anything less that a perfect Atheist

Heck they cant even tell you why they think hypocrisy itself is wrong

An atheist can be amoral or immoral but so too can a Christian [ indeed anyone else ]

Nietzsche and Dostoevsky clearly did not understand the nature and origin of morality

Christianity requires Christians to behave in a certain way but this is not true for atheism and atheists

Hypocrisy [ for a Christian ] is wrong because it is against the Ninth Commandment as it is a form of lying

surreptitious57 wrote:An atheist can be amoral or immoral but so too can a Christian [ indeed anyone else ]

That is true, as I said. But such a person is a bad Christian, as you indicate at the end of your message.

But show, please, why he would be a bad Atheist.

For as you yourself say,

Christianity requires Christians to behave in a certain way but this is not true for atheism and atheists

I could not possibly agree more. Morally, the lines for Christians are well-drawn; but for Atheists, simply do not exist.

As you rightly say here, Atheism is an amoral system -- it has no view of ethics at all, and no power to prevent any evil at all or to advocate any kind of good at all. It's a moral eunuch, really.

Nietzsche and Dostoevsky clearly did not understand the nature and origin of morality

Well, really, to say what they said they didn't have to. They didn't have to say where morality had come from in order to make their case: only where it was going to. I fear you've grabbed the question by the wrong end; and with respect to where they said it was "going to," you've agree with them, as above.

Hypocrisy [ for a Christian ] is wrong because it is against the Ninth Commandment as it is a form of lying

Yes, as you say above, Christians have to believe that...if they are Christians. But from an Atheist perspective, you can't condemn it.

Nothing, including being a hypocrite, is "wrong" under Atheism. And certainly an Atheist is not going to bow to a Commandment, or defer his judgment to it, is he? I suspect not.

Immanuel Can wrote:Something about nacreous spheroids...

Are you allowed to comment on a post I'm quoted in? As I thought your bastard 'God' will punish you by association. You growing a pair at last?

thedoc wrote:What difference does it make? I believe that God exists and that is as far as I am willing to go. If you want to quibble about the details, please be my guest. I don't know and will not argue about it.

FYI, I attach no baggage to the term, if you want to, so be it. It is only a label that I attach to an experience that demonstrates the existence of God to me.

But you said it could just as well be Odin's Will so why does this experience not make you a pagan instead of a Christian? All your experience demonstrates is how confirmation bias works with belief.

Arising_uk wrote:

thedoc wrote:What difference does it make? I believe that God exists and that is as far as I am willing to go. If you want to quibble about the details, please be my guest. I don't know and will not argue about it.

FYI, I attach no baggage to the term, if you want to, so be it. It is only a label that I attach to an experience that demonstrates the existence of God to me.

But you said it could just as well be Odin's Will so why does this experience not make you a pagan instead of a Christian? All your experience demonstrates is how confirmation bias works with belief.

This is a valid point, if however there is a God - then if i were raised in a pagan upbringing then the experiences i have had of this entity i would attribute to whichever pagan God i felt the attributes fitting.
Obviously thedocs experience and the very fact that this God has placed him within the grounding of a Christian upbringing explains perhaps why he merits the experience to the Holy Spirit.

attofishpi wrote: Obviously thedocs experience and the very fact that this God has placed him within the grounding of a Christian upbringing explains perhaps why he merits the experience to the Holy Spirit.

So...if he had been a Greek he would have experienced Zeus? If he'd been a Hindu, he'd have seen Vishnu or Shiva? Only if his experience was a delusion generated by his own mind, and hence had to partake of whatever culture he already knew. But we wouldn't know that.

Immanuel Can wrote:

attofishpi wrote: Obviously thedocs experience and the very fact that this God has placed him within the grounding of a Christian upbringing explains perhaps why he merits the experience to the Holy Spirit.

So...if he had been a Greek he would have experienced Zeus? If he'd been a Hindu, he'd have seen Vishnu or Shiva? Only if his experience was a delusion generated by his own mind, and hence had to partake of whatever culture he already knew. But we wouldn't know that.

If my experience was a delusion, then I must have a very powerful imagination, because the experience was shared by a large room full of people that were effected by the experience, and it was caught on audio tape as well.

BTW, I have a niece-in-law whose name is Shiva, but neither she nor her parents had any idea of what the name referred to.