Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Dark Matter]

For many years human sacrifice was thought to serve people well. Slavery, and so forth. I have no problem with anyone's beliefs. Not my business, horses for courses, etc. That's of no concern. However, when believers make statements of "fact" based on their efficacious myths and fantasies, then I have the right to point out that the emperor is naked, even if others feel better imagining him to be clothed.

And that coming from someone "inspired" by a charlatan.

-- Updated December 16th, 2016, 5:36 am to add the following --

What's your problem, Greta? You allow science to advance, so why not religion? Are you so angry at the the way the universe appears to the senses that you are willing to dismiss all attempts to understand the "why"? It would not be inaccurate to say you come across like Philistine.

[Gertie]

For many years human sacrifice was thought to serve people well. Slavery, and so forth. I have no problem with anyone's beliefs. Not my business, horses for courses, etc. That's of no concern. However, when believers make statements of "fact" based on their efficacious myths and fantasies, then I have the right to point out that the emperor is naked, even if others feel better imagining him to be clothed.

And that coming from someone "inspired" by a charlatan.

-- Updated December 16th, 2016, 5:36 am to add the following --

What's your problem, Greta? You allow science to advance, so why not religion? Are you so angry at the the way the universe appears to the senses that you are willing to dismiss all attempts to understand the "why"? It would not be inaccurate to say you come across like Philistine.

What's your problem that you follow someone round the board to repeatedly personally insult them after they've told you it's upsetting?

[Dark Matter]

Am I to assume that as far as you are concerned, repeatedly insulting the intelligence of theists is okay? That's a double-standard, Gertie.

[Dclements]

Am I to assume that as far as you are concerned, repeatedly insulting the intelligence of theists is okay? That's a double-standard, Gertie.

What are you bothered about concerning Gertie's (Greta?) or anything regarding atheist's or agnostic's position? I know I really unable to speak for anyone other than myself, and as someone partial to nihilism you might like my position even less. However it is unlikely you will say anything to me that could bother me much since I have wasted at least a decade of my life debating and had enough things thrown at me to not have as much of a thin skin as when I started.

I imagine some of us (or perhaps most) might not be as knowledge about theist's position as theists themselves, and I will admit some theists have thought about the problem enough to come up with arguments that are not that easy to counter, but I think there are many theist that will agree it is easy to point out flaws in common/simple doctrine which is most atheist argue against. It might not be fair that atheist/agnostics also have a common simple doctrine that could be as easy to attack, but it shouldn't be that hard to debunk each person's position if the atheist/agnostics is also equally flawed.

[Sy Borg]

Zzzzz. Sorry, I dozed off for a moment. Did somebody say something about the actual topic? No? Thought not. Thanks Gertie for speaking up - noted and appreciated :)


So, I assume that most of us are perfectly happy with current model of reality, thinking it beyond reproach because it's too complex for us to understand? Any more ideas for improving this vale of tears?

I think most of you are intimidated, too afraid to appear wrong or foolish to address the thread topic. So easier things have been spoken about.

What I see is a system of reality where every smaller entity is essentially "collateral damage" to larger ones. This is not a kind system, not at this stage anyway. The universe has consistently evolved over billions of years and will continue to produce ever more complex and, presumably, aware entities as it cools off. If one thinks this current system is impossible to improve upon, maybe then you could imagine how the universe will improve over the next 13 billion years?

Or do you think this is as good as it gets? That humans today have reached or come close to the pinnacle of physical being and consciousness?

[Ormond]

Dclements, enjoying your intelligent thoughtful posts.

It might not be fair that atheist/agnostics also have a common simple doctrine that could be as easy to attack, but it shouldn't be that hard to debunk each person's position if the atheist/agnostics is also equally flawed.

That's it. All the positions on these topics, including my own, can be ripped to shreds in the right hands. All the positions rest upon a foundation of faith, thus none of them can be proved unless one first accepts that faith foundation. As I see it, the primary value of philosophical discourse on God related topics is to uncover this insight.

Regrettably, the overwhelming vast majority of commentators on these issues are either stuck on this step, or just unwilling to leave it. This is perhaps understandable on forums given that most participants are quite young and as the old saying goes, Rome wasn't built in a day.

The God debate as typically engaged is an incredibly boring repetitive merry-go-round to nowhere that's been proceeding ever onward to no result for thousands of years, but there is hope for those who pursue it through to it's final demise within their own experience.

Consider the state of mind where one is still very interested in the largest of questions, but finally realizes that intellectual analysis will never be able to provide credible answers. For any person of some seriousness, this is a much more interesting environment than riding the God debate merry-go-round.

At the least, reaching such a place can shed an illuminating light on whether one is actually interested in the largest of issues at all, or is really only interested in the experience of philosophy. There is no good or bad here, to each their own, but a greater good is found in becoming clear within oneself about what one's interest and agenda really are.

In your own mind, is philosophy a means to the end of uncovering deeper insight in to God topics? Or are God topics a means to the end of doing philosophy?

As example, imagine that it were proven beyond all doubt that the only effective way to move such topics forward was not philosophy, but playing golf. What would you do? Quit this forum and join a country club? Or quit this topic and look for other topics where philosophy is useful?

If you choose the later, there's nothing wrong with that. But that would help explain why someone is not making progress on the largest of questions. They're not really interested in them after all.

[Whitedragon]

Getting back to the topic, “what has the Lord actually done wrong;” should the question not also be, what have we done wrong? If we started out, according to Genesis, as content and safe, should the blame not rather be on us? Imagine you get your son into a firm, everything is safe, and the company belongs to him. He runs it into the ground, spending all his cash on personal assets, luxury holidays and soon there is not a penny left. If he and his children keep following the same pattern, why should his father help him again? Is it wrong of the father to say, halt? Is it wrong of the father to force him to earn his own money after that?

[Dark Matter]

To me, it is inconceivable that anyone of sound mind would proceed to answer the question, "What has God actually done wrong ?"

[Sy Borg]

Getting back to the topic, “what has the Lord actually done wrong;” should the question not also be, what have we done wrong? If we started out, according to Genesis, as content and safe, should the blame not rather be on us? Imagine you get your son into a firm, everything is safe, and the company belongs to him. He runs it into the ground, spending all his cash on personal assets, luxury holidays and soon there is not a penny left. If he and his children keep following the same pattern, why should his father help him again? Is it wrong of the father to say, halt? Is it wrong of the father to force him to earn his own money after that?

I see, so the the posited omnipotent being bears no responsibility while little helpless, post-apes must take full blame - despite being, by design, rarely capable of controlling their emotions enough to be the person they aspire to be. It's like saying that businesses aren't to blame to climate change problem - it's solely on us individuals. If one is to apportion responsibility then one must look for where the power lies.

In your example, what responsibility do the parents take for raising a fool with no respect for money? Who can respect a father who blindly leaves major responsibility in the hands of an obvious incompetent? One of the great human delusions is that we are in control of ourselves and our lives. Yet the nightly news is basically a listing of colourful human impulse control failures.

Dark Matter asks what sane person would answer this question. I wonder what sane person would believe that everything about reality and the universe is just peachy and beyond reproach? Generally those with a Pollyannaish view of god/the universe lack life experience and have not undergone serious privations and suffering.

Never mind, deep, scorching suffering eventually catches up with everyone ... in time we all learn just how brutal and cruel existence can be.

[Dclements]

What I see is a system of reality where every smaller entity is essentially "collateral damage" to larger ones. This is not a kind system, not at this stage anyway. The universe has consistently evolved over billions of years and will continue to produce ever more complex and, presumably, aware entities as it cools off. If one thinks this current system is impossible to improve upon, maybe then you could imagine how the universe will improve over the next 13 billion years?

Or do you think this is as good as it gets? That humans today have reached or come close to the pinnacle of physical being and consciousness?

I think your hitting on one of the major problems of Abrahamic religions today is where it is accepted as a given that 'lesser' lifeforms (as well as lesser people) have to suffer to provide a better existence that are higher up on the food chain. This hierarchical order of importance more or less has many of the same problems of the hierarchical order that India had in there society where people (and often animals) live out an existence dictated by the level of importance society imposes on them.

IMHO the word of 'God' was originally meant as a way for people to be considerate/mindful for one another, but over the centuries (and our current emphasis on material wealth over all else) drowned out such teachings. To be honest I don't know if there was really any time of real piety and charity in the history of Christianity, but I really don't know enough to speak about such things.

Perhaps if we eventually develop a real from of 'collective conscience' or even a kind of mindfulness for one another we could become 'good' toward one another regardless whether or not there is a real 'God'.

[Ormond]

Getting back to the topic, “what has the Lord actually done wrong;”

He made man capable of becoming lost in silly questions like this one.

[Dclements]

Dclements, enjoying your intelligent thoughtful posts.

Thanks. And sorry if I was a little abrasive in some of my replies. I sometimes get so into debating that I'm not as thoughtful as to the person being just another rational being on the forum and I focus somehow too much on 'winning' the debate instead of just discussing the matter.

It might not be fair that atheist/agnostics also have a common simple doctrine that could be as easy to attack, but it shouldn't be that hard to debunk each person's position if the atheist/agnostics is also equally flawed.

I think what you are talking about is what Soren Kierkegaard called 'absurdism' which is more or less the futility in human beings to be able to find meaning in this life; which kind of makes trying to find 'God' absurd but also trying to find meaning in life without 'God' equally absurd; and of course arguing whether one is better than the other is probably even more absurd that just doing either. To be honest as a person partial to nihilism I find the concept of 'absurdism' kind of liberating since it kind of does away with some of the hot air we fill our ideologies with and kind of levels the playing field so to speak.

You are right in that BOTH atheist and theist are equally trapped by so called 'absurdism', and you are also correct that many atheist point it out as a problem for theism without really addressing as a problem also with their own position. I would like to think it is because theism (and Abrahamic religions) as a whole can seem like it is on a pedestal and bringing it down to our level is one of the first goals of many non-believers; however since I don't know why every atheist argues their position I shouldn't speak for all of them.

I believe that some atheist and other non-theist could be thought of as a kind of non-official Unitarian Universalism, since the church doesn't adhere to any one doctrine so to speak as well as focusing more on just on just trying to accommodating any and all beliefs as much as possible. I think they would accept even a Nihilist such as myself although it might be a contradiction for a nihilist to go to even a Unitarian Universalism church.

Regrettably, the overwhelming vast majority of commentators on these issues are either stuck on this step, or just unwilling to leave it. This is perhaps understandable on forums given that most participants are quite young and as the old saying goes, Rome wasn't built in a day.

It was more or less on the same on the last forum I was on and I hung out there for over a decade before it went defunct. I guess I'm just glad to have somewhere to go and talk/debate, and perhaps do a little bit of a sanity check then to have nowhere to go.

The God debate as typically engaged is an incredibly boring repetitive merry-go-round to nowhere that's been proceeding ever onward to no result for thousands of years, but there is hope for those who pursue it through to it's final demise within their own experience.

Yes I agree that we often waste valuable time arguing either about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin or something along those lines. Humans have done this long ago, we do it today, and likely will do it in the future even if we become more 'rational'. I kind of chalk it up to part of the problem with the human condition (which I kind of lump most of our problems into) but you may be right that more could be done about it.

Consider the state of mind where one is still very interested in the largest of questions, but finally realizes that intellectual analysis will never be able to provide credible answers. For any person of some seriousness, this is a much more interesting environment than riding the God debate merry-go-round.

I like to think that man 'intellectual integrity' will increase as our knowledge of the universe increases as well as our access to more resources increase as well. That may be a bit naive , as well as being a contradiction to being a nihilist, but I have to have a little hope in something after all.

I also think being more open to other philosophical/religious ideas (other than Abrahamic religions) isn't a bad idea either; although I not saying we need to forgot about Abrahamic religious ideas/beliefs in order to do so. More or less this is something along the lines of what is being done by comparative religious studies today.

At the least, reaching such a place can shed an illuminating light on whether one is actually interested in the largest of issues at all, or is really only interested in the experience of philosophy. There is no good or bad here, to each their own, but a greater good is found in becoming clear within oneself about what one's interest and agenda really are.

In your own mind, is philosophy a means to the end of uncovering deeper insight in to God topics? Or are God topics a means to the end of doing philosophy?

Since I didn't major in philosophy, I really don't have some of the academic background that so of the people that seem to hang out there;or at least they did on the other forum I was on. To me religious debate is really a debate on morality/ethics with some additional ideological complexity thrown in, and since ethics mostly requires understanding logic/fallacies/etc (which I focus on anyways) I kind of gravitate to the subject; even if my studies in Christian beliefs is a bit lacking.

After the ten or so years of studying and debating, I kind of developed a kind of holding pattern in most of the beliefs I have and I' sad to say I have rarely encountered new ideas enough for me to change them; although I have had to change my beliefs many times over the years since I first started. As I told somebody else one time, I may be crazy and still ignorant after the many years of debating and studying but the problems with my position isn't due to a lack of me trying to improve them.

As example, imagine that it were proven beyond all doubt that the only effective way to move such topics forward was not philosophy, but playing golf. What would you do? Quit this forum and join a country club? Or quit this topic and look for other topics where philosophy is useful?

Since I have ADHD (or perhaps because of the kind of ADHD I have), I'm kind of stuck asking the same questions even if I can't find any better answers to them. Perhaps it would be more pragmatic for me to play golf or do something else with my time but I don't think my situation really allows for it right now. I'm kind of stuck having to live an examined life, as from time to time having to reexamine it. There may be a better thing to do than having to examine one's life, but I have some doubts as to whether doing something else could actually solve the problems the same way.

Philosophy (including the kind where people debate 'God' and religion) is a form of critical thinking, and critical thinking is supposedly one of the major tools that helps move civilization forward; not that it is a given that any particular discussion about religion on this forum or another will help change things for the better. I hope that some of what I have learn will be useful to others sometime in the future.

If you choose the later, there's nothing wrong with that. But that would help explain why someone is not making progress on the largest of questions. They're not really interested in them after all.

If someone doesn't lead an examine life so to speak of, it may not be a life not worth living as Socrates said it was. I think I have done enough question to last one or perhaps two lives, but still have been unable to find certain answers I seek. It is kind of funny that the reason we got kicked out of Eden (at least according to the bible) is by questioning what God told us to do and trying to seek answers for ourselves; which also kind of sounds like how we went from thinking of nature as sacred a living breathing thing to something just made up of processes and could be used as we see fit. My belief is that as we question more and occasionally find more answers, we have a good probability of multiplying our problems and making our world an even more complex one than it already is. While Abrahamic religions might provide some common sense for dealing with such issues, it might not be enough; then again there might not be anything we can do to solve the problem that we are barely anything more than stupid monkeys (not that I trying to say that monkeys are stupid animals) but hopeful something can be done to leverage our odds for what we weill have to face in a world that we can not be protected or saved by some 'God'.

Also I want to note that I think you mentioned something about 'faith' and that we kind of all have it but wasn't sure how to address it other than what I said about absurdism. I will admit that 'faith' can be useful, as long as it isn't blind faith and one still aims to be rational but I will agree with some atheist that many theists rely too much on faith and no enough on rationality. I know that many atheist could be just as blinded by some other kind of faith than believing in 'God', but I personally thinking one that believes that they are going to heaven and will be saved is more likely to blinded than those who do not believe this, although I know there are likely exceptions to either. At any rate I think we can agree we all have some kind of 'faith' in order to go about our lives, but I think most atheist would point out that their 'faith' has some difference than those who believe in 'God'.

[Dclements]

To me, it is inconceivable that anyone of sound mind would proceed to answer the question, "What has God actually done wrong ?"

But if you believe that than isn't it equally inconceivable to know anything about "God's" nature and/or his will? I may not be in the position to really be about to question 'God' or say much about him, but it is equally absurd for any other human being(s) to talk about such things and for us to not think that they have gone mad if they really think know anything about such matters.

[Dclements]

Getting back to the topic, “what has the Lord actually done wrong;” should the question not also be, what have we done wrong? If we started out, according to Genesis, as content and safe, should the blame not rather be on us? Imagine you get your son into a firm, everything is safe, and the company belongs to him. He runs it into the ground, spending all his cash on personal assets, luxury holidays and soon there is not a penny left. If he and his children keep following the same pattern, why should his father help him again? Is it wrong of the father to say, halt? Is it wrong of the father to force him to earn his own money after that?

I think I agree with most of what Greta said with just a slight difference to my own position. As a have said before I don't believe we know enough about 'God' to have enough authority so say what he is or what he wants, so it is kind of moot to talk about if he/she/it has done 'wrong' without such knowledge or even knowing if they exist.

Since I don't believe in 'God', I really don't believe in the story of Genesis, or that there was really ever a safe place where human beings got thrown out of. My memory may be incorrect but I think it is mention somewhere that there where humans outside of the garden of Eden (two of which became the wifes of Cain and Able), so if there where people besides Adam and Eve then that creates a problem of what about the people that got cast out but never sin other than not being one of the 'chosen ones'. At any rate for as far as I can tell the morality of the entire story (as well as much of the morality in the bible) is too arbitrary to glen anything useful from it.

Perhaps we are to blame for the things that are 'wrong' with the world today in a way that the Genesis story (or sometimes the bible) hints at, but as far as I can tell the only thing we are guilty of is being human beings. If we look back at history we can see that we are often crueler than any other animal (with the possible exceptions of certain parasites/insects/etc.) and we can be very cruel even to each other; however I believe such cruelty needs to be taken in the context of the environment that we have been put in. Our survival often requires us to often resort to ruthless pragmatism (or worse) at the expense of each other and the world around us; and it is only AFTER we have done what needed to be done to survive do we worry about whether it is moral or not and have the potential to feel guilty about what we have done. We may not be without sin of one sort or another, but without an explanation as to how we could have do better; since the Genesis doesn't really say whether there could have been another outcome or if there is any truth to humans ever existing in a 'perfect' world. If we descended from apes as science suggest that we have, the only problem we are guilty of is becoming sentient and all the pros and cons that came along with it. Also as far as I know, it is unlikely we had much choice in the matter since we may have not survived if it didn't happen. We may feel guilty for our own existence (as well as our conciseness) and what it has caused, but without any viable alternatives to have chose from (as well as having to more or less to continue many of the same actions in the future), we can't do much to fix the problem other than continue to feel guilty or perhaps to choose not to exist.

Maybe there is a useful purpose for us to feel this guilt for doing what needs to be done (and/or feeling guilt for what we can not do), but other than for psychological reasons I can't think of why we need to blame ourselves if we really can't blame 'God' for the situation. Perhaps if the world could be something other than what is, we could do something differently but as far as I can tell we are trapped in the way things are.

[Dark Matter]

Dark Matter asks what sane person would answer this question. I wonder what sane person would believe that everything about reality and the universe is just peachy and beyond reproach? Generally those with a Pollyannaish view of god/the universe lack life experience and have not undergone serious privations and suffering.

Never mind, deep, scorching suffering eventually catches up with everyone ... in time we all learn just how brutal and cruel existence can be.

I'll bet you're a real joy to be around.

It's really just a matter of perspective. The happiest person I know is a poor, illiterate farmer whose house was demolished in a recent typhoon, and that after one son killed another. I thought it interesting meeting people undergoing radiation for cancer. Some have died since then, but none were as depressing as your post.

-- Updated December 18th, 2016, 1:50 am to add the following --

I think it is fair to say you have validated The truth of something I've quoted on another occasion or two:

To the unbelieving materialist, man is simply an evolutionary accident. His hopes of survival are strung on a figment of mortal imagination; his fears, loves, longings, and beliefs are but the reaction of the incidental juxtaposition of certain lifeless atoms of matter. No display of energy nor expression of trust can carry him beyond the grave. The devotional labors and inspirational genius of the best of men are doomed to be extinguished by death, the long and lonely night of eternal oblivion and soul extinction. Nameless despair is man’s only reward for living and toiling under the temporal sun of mortal existence. Each day of life slowly and surely tightens the grasp of a pitiless doom which a hostile and relentless universe of matter has decreed shall be the crowning insult to everything in human desire which is beautiful, noble, lofty, and good.