The "tell" here [for me] is not what attofishpi has posted but the manner in which it is inflected...the pitch and the tone, the arrogant and scoffing bluster embedded in the taunting words.attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Aug 30, 2022 12:33 pm
iambiguous with this:list-Where I addressed every point they both raised (of which both lists are extremely inadequate in any attempt to refute the existence of God)...WHERE THEY BOTH WANTED TO CHALLENGE ME...and yet have not addressed even ONE of my answers to their stupid lists!iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Aug 21, 2022 6:28 pm
Just a reminder to the Christians here that, if they are willing, I'd appreciate them bringing their God to a discussion that revolves existentially around these factors:
1] a demonstrable proof of the existence of your God
2] addressing the fact that down through the ages hundreds of Gods and religious/spiritual paths to immortality and salvation were/are championed...but only one of which [if any] can be the true path. So why yours?
3] addressing the profoundly problematic role that dasein plays in any particular individual's belief in God
4] the questions that revolve around theodicy and your own particular God
OH THY GREAT WISE PHILOSOPHERS - fuck off back to ILP.
That's when I know I am starting to get to them...the objectivists. My point on that thread was not to explore how someone grok's God, but to examine how existentially each of us as individuals goes about this given the unique trajectory of our lives.
This part...
...and then the manner in which the moral and political and philosophical and spiritual objectivists among us can become particularly fierce in defending their convictions.Grok:
1] understand (something) intuitively or by empathy.
"because of all the commercials, children grok things immediately"
2] empathize or communicate sympathetically; establish a rapport.
"nestling earth couple would like to find water brothers to grok with in peace"
"When you grok something, you just get it — in other words, you totally grasp its meaning. Once you grok your best friend's sense of humor, her jokes won't confuse you but will instead make you laugh hysterically. The informal verb grok was an invention of the science fiction writer Robert A. Heinlein"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grok
Okay, so given that, how might grokking be applicable to that which most interests me in regard to philosophy:
"How ought one to live -- rationally, morally -- in a No God world awash in both conflicting goods and in contingency, chance and change."
And, no, not metaphysically...existentially.
In other words, given a particular set of circumstances.
For them, in my view, what they believe about God pales next to the need to believe that what they do believe about God becomes the embodiment of this:
1] For one reason or another [rooted existentially in dasein], you are taught or come into contact with [through your upbringing, a friend, a book, an experience etc.] a point of view about God.
2] Over time, you become convinced that this perspective on God expresses and encompasses the most rational and objective truth. This truth then becomes increasingly more vital, more essential to you as a foundation, a justification, a celebration of all that is moral as opposed to immoral, rational as opposed to irrational.
3] Eventually, for some, they begin to bump into others who feel the same way about God; they may even begin to actively seek out folks similarly inclined to view God in a particular way.
4] Some begin to share this perspective on God with family, friends, colleagues, associates, Internet denizens. Increasingly it becomes more and more a part of their life. It becomes, in other words, more intertwined in their personal relationships with others...it begins to bind them emotionally and psychologically.
5] As yet more time passes, they start to feel increasingly compelled not only to share their Truth about God with others but, in turn, to vigorously defend it against any and all detractors as well.
6] For some, it can reach the point where they are no longer able to realistically construe an argument that disputes their own about God as merely a difference of opinion; they see it instead as, for all intents and purposes, an attack on their integrity...on their very Self.
7] Finally, a stage is reached [again for some] where the original quest for the truth about God becomes so profoundly integrated into their self-identity [socially, psychologically, emotionally] defending it in and of itself becomes the whole point.
Again, the actual belief system itself -- God or No God -- could be anything:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
Bottom line [mine}:
It's not what they believe but that embracing what they do believe allows them to ground the Self in one or another essential, objective, teleological font. Their life has an overarching meaning and purpose. And this by itself very much comforts and consoles them.
So, I don't come here taking sides -- God/No God, liberal/conservative, capitalist/socialist, idealist/pragmatist, nature/nurture, individualism/collectivism -- but to suggest that taking sides itself is a manifestation of dasein more so than a philosophical quest for wisdom.
