A Contented Life

Would anybody like to engage in a debate with me?

The substance of the proposed debate would involve arguing which kind of individual can generally live out the most contented life, with a lucid distinction between 1. Religious Zealots or 2. Secular Humanists.

I would happily take either side, just for fun!

No takers yet, ay?

I realised after I posted this yesterday that before the start of the debate there would need to be a clearer, more precise idea of what option 1 and 2 are.

I think that, “Contended,” would also have to be defined very strictly.

It would indeed. This post, then is a clarification of the potential substance of the debate in question.

Whom is typically most likely to live most contently?

Contentedness

In one word, I think people regard this as ‘happiness’. But this is too vague.

I will take the most adequate definition of ‘contented’ that I can - mentally or emotionally satisfied with things as they are. This is throughout the framework of somebody’s entire life, provided it does not end too early, and not just in regards to the end of one’s life when they might have a chance to retrospectively look at their life with hindsight. It can be in regards to anything, as long as it is typical of that type of individual. This means it can include ideas about common goals like bringing up a family but excludes obscurities such as having a goal to fly to Mars. It is essentially whether their belief in God, along with their faith and everything that comes with it, leads to one being mentally or emotionally satisfied with things as they are.

Option 1: Religious Zealot

This does not mean a person with radical religious views. This is meant to mean somebody who would claim to be ‘devoting their life to God’. They can live an ordinary life (work, family, social life, church) but ultimately link everything that happens in their life to their God.

Furthermore, this should be thought of in terms of a sentient God or sentient Gods. God is watching everything that they do, and God controls what is going on here on Earth. This also offers the individual a consolation from this life, whether it be in terms of heaven, reincarnation, the freeing of their spirit, or whatever. Moral value is drawn directly from their respecive doctrine.

Option 2: Secular Humanist

These are individuals who never had faith in the first place. They find solace in other things, namely within the sphere of humanity, but ultimately the sense of a sentient God is absent from their life in that it does not direct their actions. Moral value is drawn from their own sense of right and wrong, as well as there being an influence from the consensus of their society. Death offers no continual of consciousness, this is the only life that can be led.

I repeat once more, this is all in the context of whether the individual is mentally or emotionally satisfied with things as they are, throughout the framework of their entire life.

I’d also like to re-iterate that I will happily take either side of the argument.

so you are asking if a theist or atheist is more contented. IDK. it seems very important— how happy one is with themselves.

Yup!

I’d be game for either position (maybe ask someone to flip a coin?). With respect to the topic, I lean slightly towards “religious zealot” as my answer but I think both approaches can be defended from the viewpoint of contentedness. It’d need to be in a little while or with generous time between postings because my 'net access is pretty unreliable right now.

Sweet, I was looking forward to this one. I am good with either side really. Although I also am incredibly busy at the moment so I’ll get back to you in a month or so if you like?

That could probably work.

We should maybe get on this one soonish, eh?

why didn’t you just make this thread like…a month later?

Well if you look at the timings you’ll see that Xunzian only accepted the challenge about a month after I posted it, and my circumstances had changed. Also I’d already had a long debate with Tab in that time.

I have some free time on my hands next week so why not. If you are up for starting i around tuesday? Or actually we should possibly wait until Carleas and Gaiaguerilla have had their fill of the debate chamber.

In the meantime, any clarification needed for what the juice of the debate is?

:blush:
ya got me

We can do multiple debates at the same time. Besides, GG and I will probably be arguing for a while. I can set up your debate when you’re ready, although I can’t commit to judging it.

It looks like a good one. Early on I identified myself as agnostic and was called quite a few times by others to be “secular humanist.” Though me and all my ET / robot bizarrities I had trouble with the humanist part :slight_smile: . . . now I resolutely define myself a Deist and side with the “religious zealot” as you describe . . . though I thought the term was moreso used pejoratively like the counterillustration you started with.