## on discussing god and religion

For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict.

Moderator: Dan~

### Re: on discussing god and religion

Over and over and over again I note the distinction between things we share in common in the either/or world and things we may or may not share in common regarding our reaction to these things in the is/ought world.
But clearly you were not talking about the either/or world because the post was about motivation, intention and psychology.
Here : "No, my point about his psychology revolves around this:"

If psychology is in the either/or world then value judgments would be in the either/or world as well.
What you think about these relationships is not the same as being able to demonstrate that all rational men and women ought to think about them in the same way. I readily acknowledge my own inability to accomplish this.

Given the gap between what I think I know and all that can be known about existence itself.

Basically you just shrug that gap off and talk yourself into believing that what you think you know need be as far as it goes. Why? Because what you think you know comforts and consoles you psychologically.

That's the important difference between us.
What does mean if I can't demonstrate it to all rational people?

It doesn't mean that I don't have knowledge, although it could mean that. I might just not be convincing. I might not appear trustworthy. I might not have sufficient teaching skill. I might not be able to present it in a clear manner. I might not sufficient resources to back up what I say. I might be less willing to lie and manipulate than a competing snake oil salesman. That's just the tip of the iceberg.

I can accept my limitations and the limitations of humans in general. I can move on. Can you?

Call it comfort and consolation if you want.
phyllo
ILP Legend

Posts: 11555
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

### Re: on discussing god and religion

There is some knowledge that cannot be put into words or presented in the form of an argument.

Some things cannot be demonstrated to other people. They have to demonstrate it to themselves ... they have to discover it themselves.

Having followers, believers and disciples does not show knowledge. It's possible to be obscure, unknown and ignored and still to be knowledgeable and wise.
phyllo
ILP Legend

Posts: 11555
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

### Re: on discussing god and religion

phyllo wrote:What does mean if I can't demonstrate it to all rational people?
One can have this as a criterion. He can have it as a criterion. He can make that demand or have that as a thought experiment. And there is a modicum of fairness, or one could say analytical usefulness in this criterion, since many people act like: they know the right answer, they can justify it such that a rational person should be convinced, and thus if someone does not agree they are irrational. People do exist who function like this, and most of us have moments where we do. So I get the criterion. But it is also a ridiculous criterion. In the above I am trying to be as respectful as possible to his criterion, since it does not appear in a vaccuum. People do act like this, assume it to be a reasonable criterion.

Problems abound with it of course. Right off the bat we have the implicit binary nature of it. Rational people in group A, irrational people in group B. But, of course, humans are not like this. They are rational in some situations and not others, regarding some topics and not others (and that's with pretty much any definition of 'rational'. Further rationality is itself not easy to demonstrate. IOW page 24 of whichever Kant book you choose should, you would think qualify as rational. I mean the guy was brilliant, he was a pro. He worked fucking hard on that page. But still it may very well have irrational elements. From cultural assumptions, from language, from his own idiosyncrasies. From error.

The problem with rational as a category is also here. Could two equally informed people both be rational and reach different conclusions on the same conclusion? Yes. Especially if they have different experiences - though one could say that means they have different information. But then, we always have different information. Rationality is an approach. Generally means working with deduction and empirical evidence. It is an approach. But we use rationality as a value laden term. It tends to mean good thinking. Which is silly, since it is an approach and one that can obviously reach false conclusions. Extremely rational, well informed people have used lovely deduction and come to wrong conclusions.

This conflation of 'rationality´as meaning thinking that follows whatever one considers the correct epistemology and the meaning of being correct, is a mistake. Rational thinking and rational thinkers can reach false conclusions. Even when they are being very rational, no fallacies that day.

The criterion is actually vague, falsely binary and almost meaningless.

And unlikely ever to be met. It certainly has never been met on any topic, even on either side of the is ought divide.

It doesn't mean that I don't have knowledge, although it could mean that. I might just not be convincing.

Yes, exactly. It sounds like an objective measurement. And I suppose it could be. We could set Phyllo loose on a huge statistical sample of people judged rational. But if he seems nervous, some might just not be convinced even if Phyllos logic and assumptions were spot on. And some of them might be having a bad day. And of course, cognitive dissonence related to issues that are emotionally charged could get in the way. One would think that someone with a belief system founded on dasein would think it was a ridiculous criterion.

We could give Iamb the benefit of the doubt and say: well, that's his point. You can't convince everyone. Fine, but then one must never conflate this criterion with a good judge of the truth.

An inability to convince huge numbers of people of something should never be conflated with not being right. ONe can be right and not be able to convince a single person.

And at least in practical terms, I have experienced this. IOW my continued belief in my own conclusion about what happened date X at 3pm, is working for me, has even helped me, despite the fact that I cannot prove that my sense of what happened is correct to a single human. And this would be about things on the is side of the is ought divide.
Last edited by Karpel Tunnel on Wed Jan 30, 2019 9:26 am, edited 3 times in total.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher

Posts: 2646
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

### Re: on discussing god and religion

phyllo wrote:There is some knowledge that cannot be put into words or presented in the form of an argument.

Some things cannot be demonstrated to other people. They have to demonstrate it to themselves ... they have to discover it themselves.

Having followers, believers and disciples does not show knowledge. It's possible to be obscure, unknown and ignored and still to be knowledgeable and wise.
Yes. to all this. And there are a range of issues here. That not all knowledge is verbal. That not all things can be learned through rational discussion - and I would add, that this is even a good way to learn most of the time is false, especially if it is the only way one is learning. And last, yes, all rational people have believed in things that Iamb is extremely skeptical about, like say God.

And even scientists have, en masse, been wrong. Must we then categorize them all as irrational?

Epistomology is being conflated with PR.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher

Posts: 2646
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

### Re: on discussing god and religion

phyllo wrote:
Over and over and over again I note the distinction between things we share in common in the either/or world and things we may or may not share in common regarding our reaction to these things in the is/ought world.
But clearly you were not talking about the either/or world because the post was about motivation, intention and psychology.
Here : "No, my point about his psychology revolves around this:"

If psychology is in the either/or world then value judgments would be in the either/or world as well.

We all come into the world hard-wired genetically to experience what we call mental, emotional and psychological states. So, if Joe is about to be executed, different people will react to that in different ways.

But they all have the capacity to react in different ways. They have a particular intention in and a particular motivation for reacting as they do. And this will be embedded in a complex intertwining of genes and memes out in a particular world. In what "I" call dasein.

There are facts about those reactions we are or are not able to establish.

My point however [over and over again] is to explore this philosophically when the discussion shifts to the moral components of these reactions. When the reactions come into conflict, is there a way in which to determine how one ought to react to Joe's execution? What is in fact true here?

Now, how on earth do you equate the facts embedded in our psychological reactions with attempts to resolve conflicting goods?

Re Joe's execution.

What you think about these relationships is not the same as being able to demonstrate that all rational men and women ought to think about them in the same way. I readily acknowledge my own inability to accomplish this.

Given the gap between what I think I know and all that can be known about existence itself.

Basically you just shrug that gap off and talk yourself into believing that what you think you know need be as far as it goes. Why? Because what you think you know comforts and consoles you psychologically.

That's the important difference between us.

phyllo wrote: What does mean if I can't demonstrate it to all rational people?

It doesn't mean that I don't have knowledge, although it could mean that. I might just not be convincing. I might not appear trustworthy. I might not have sufficient teaching skill. I might not be able to present it in a clear manner. I might not sufficient resources to back up what I say. I might be less willing to lie and manipulate than a competing snake oil salesman. That's just the tip of the iceberg.

I completely agree. All of these factors [and others besides] may well be applicable here. I have never argued that objective morality does not exist. I have never argued that rooting this in God or in ideology or in nature is necessarily irrational.

I have merely noted that here and now "I" do not believe in God and/or objective morality. I am down in my hole anticipating oblivion. I have no existential access to the sort of comfort and consolation that any number of religious objectivist have.

All I can do [on this thread] is ask those folks who do believe in God and in objective morality to take their religious and moral and political narratives/agendas out into the world and situate them in a particular context.

As we did with Communism.

The bottom line then being that you either convince me that your frame of mind is more reasonable than mine or you don't. But even if you do convince me that doesn't establish it as necessarily true. Not until the dots can be connected between what we now concur regarding Communism and all that would need to be known about the existence of existence itself.

phyllo wrote: I can accept my limitations and the limitations of humans in general. I can move on. Can you?

Call it moving on if you like, but that doesn't make all of the "unknown unknowns" embedded in the relationship between "in my head" and "out in the world" go away. Instead I'm back to this:

Basically you just shrug that gap off and talk yourself into believing that what you think you know need be as far as it goes. Why? Because what you think you know comforts and consoles you psychologically.

phyllo wrote:Call it comfort and consolation if you want.

What I want pales in importance to what you want. You either are comforted and consoled by your moral and religious beliefs or you're not.

I'm definitely not.
Objectivists: Like shooting fish in a barrel!

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

iambiguous
ILP Legend

Posts: 33918
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

### Re: on discussing god and religion

phyllo wrote:There is some knowledge that cannot be put into words or presented in the form of an argument.

Some things cannot be demonstrated to other people. They have to demonstrate it to themselves ... they have to discover it themselves.

Having followers, believers and disciples does not show knowledge. It's possible to be obscure, unknown and ignored and still to be knowledgeable and wise.

Note to others: What's missing here?

A context?

This is the classic "general description" embraced by any number of moral and political objectivsts. They have demonstrated to themselves that the discovery of their own value judgments encompasses all the knowledge they need to embrace one or another God, one or another political ideology, one or another deontological contraption or one or another take on Nature.

And, having convinced themselves that they are wise, it then comes down to how tolerant they will be of all those who refuse to be. "One of them" in other words.

Then above all else they must steer clear of the points I raise. After all, the more I make sense to them the more they -- their own particular "I" -- are risk of becoming increasingly fractured and fragmented themselves.
Last edited by iambiguous on Tue Jan 29, 2019 8:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Objectivists: Like shooting fish in a barrel!

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

iambiguous
ILP Legend

Posts: 33918
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

### Re: on discussing god and religion

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
phyllo wrote:What does mean if I can't demonstrate it to all rational people?
Once can have this as a criterion. He can have it as a criterion. He can make that demand or have that as a thought experiment. And there is a modicum of fairness, or one could say analytical usefulness in this criterion, since many people act like: they know the right answer, they can justify it such that a rational person should be convinced, and thus if someone does not agree they are irrational. People do exist who function like this, and most of us have moments where we do. So I get the criterion. But it is also a ridiculous criterion. In the above I am trying to be as respectful as responsible for his criterion, since it does not appear in a vaccuum. People do act like this, assume it to be a reasonable criterion.

Problems abound with it of course. Right off the bat we have the implicit binary nature of it. Rational people in group A, irrational people in group B. But, of course, humans are not like this. They are rational in some situations and not others, regarding some topics and not others (and that's with pretty much any definition of 'rational'. Further rationality is itself not easy to demonstrate. IOW page 24 of whichever Kant book you choose should, you would think quality as rational. I mean the guy was brilliant, he was a pro. He worked fucking hard on that page. But still it may very well have irrational elements. From cultural assumptions, from language, from his own idiosyncrasies. From error.

The problem with rational as a category is also here. Could two equally informed people both be rational and reach different conclusions on the same conclusion? Yes. Especially if they have different experiences - though one could say that means they have different information. But then, we always have different information. Rationality is an approach. Generally means working with deduction and empirical evidence. It is an approach. But we use rationality as a value laden term. It tend to mean good thinking. Which is silly, since it is an approach and one that can obviously reach false conclusions. Extremely rational, well informed people have used lovely deduction and come to wrong conclusions.

This conflation of 'rationality´as meaning thinking that follows whatever one considers the correct epistemology and the meaning of being correct, is a mistake. Rational thinking and rational thinkers can reach false conclusions. Even when they are being very rational, no fallacies that day.

The criterion is actually vague, falsely binary and almost meaningless.

And unlikely ever to be met. It certainly has never been met on any topic, even on either side of the is ought divide.

What is this but a gigantic intellectual contraption in which words define and defend other words; and are thus true or false depending on the internal logic of the definitions themselves.

Rational in regard to what? In what context involving what behaviors? What here are we likely to establish as in fact true objectively for all of us; and what instead would seem more applicable to the components of my own moral/political/religious narrative?
Objectivists: Like shooting fish in a barrel!

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

iambiguous
ILP Legend

Posts: 33918
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

### Re: on discussing god and religion

Note to others: What's missing here?

A context?

This is the classic "general description" embraced by any number of moral and political objectivsts. They have demonstrated to themselves that the discovery of their own value judgments encompasses all the knowledge they need to embrace one or another God, one or another political ideology, one or another deontological contraption or one or another take on Nature.

And, having convinced themselves that they are wise, it then comes down to how tolerant they will be of all those who refuse to be. "One of them" in other words.

Then above all else they must steer clear of the points I raise. After all, the more I make sense to them the more they -- their own particular "I" -- are risk of becoming increasingly fractured and fragmented themselves.

What is this but a gigantic intellectual contraption in which words define and defend other words; and are thus true or false depending on the internal logic of the definitions themselves.

Rational in regard to what? In what context involving what behaviors? What here are we likely to establish as in fact true objectively for all of us; and what instead would seem more applicable to the components of my own moral/political/religious narrative?
I think that it's safe to conclude that Iambig is unreceptive to anything we have to say.

We can leave it there.
phyllo
ILP Legend

Posts: 11555
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

### Re: on discussing god and religion

phyllo wrote:
Note to others: What's missing here?

A context?

This is the classic "general description" embraced by any number of moral and political objectivsts. They have demonstrated to themselves that the discovery of their own value judgments encompasses all the knowledge they need to embrace one or another God, one or another political ideology, one or another deontological contraption or one or another take on Nature.

And, having convinced themselves that they are wise, it then comes down to how tolerant they will be of all those who refuse to be. "One of them" in other words.

Then above all else they must steer clear of the points I raise. After all, the more I make sense to them the more they -- their own particular "I" -- are risk of becoming increasingly fractured and fragmented themselves.

What is this but a gigantic intellectual contraption in which words define and defend other words; and are thus true or false depending on the internal logic of the definitions themselves.

Rational in regard to what? In what context involving what behaviors? What here are we likely to establish as in fact true objectively for all of us; and what instead would seem more applicable to the components of my own moral/political/religious narrative?
I think that it's safe to conclude that Iambig is unreceptive to anything we have to say.

We can leave it there.

Note to others:

If this reflects your own frame of mind, by all means, move on to others. But [for all practical purposes] I can only be receptive to points that seem reasonable to me given the manner in which I construe the "self" [in the is/ought world] to be an existential contraption.

And thus the extent to which you are able to persuade me how in any particular context your own sense of self is not one of those.

In the spirit of the OP:

Noting how you do go about connecting the dots between your value judgments on this side of the grave and that which you imagine the fate of "I" to be on the other side of it.
Objectivists: Like shooting fish in a barrel!

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

iambiguous
ILP Legend

Posts: 33918
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

### Re: on discussing god and religion

phyllo wrote:
Note to others: What's missing here?

A context?

This is the classic "general description" embraced by any number of moral and political objectivsts. They have demonstrated to themselves that the discovery of their own value judgments encompasses all the knowledge they need to embrace one or another God, one or another political ideology, one or another deontological contraption or one or another take on Nature.

And, having convinced themselves that they are wise, it then comes down to how tolerant they will be of all those who refuse to be. "One of them" in other words.

Then above all else they must steer clear of the points I raise. After all, the more I make sense to them the more they -- their own particular "I" -- are risk of becoming increasingly fractured and fragmented themselves.

What is this but a gigantic intellectual contraption in which words define and defend other words; and are thus true or false depending on the internal logic of the definitions themselves.

Rational in regard to what? In what context involving what behaviors? What here are we likely to establish as in fact true objectively for all of us; and what instead would seem more applicable to the components of my own moral/political/religious narrative?
I think that it's safe to conclude that Iambig is unreceptive to anything we have to say.

We can leave it there.

God, I hope you can.

What I find fascinating in the quoted rant is that it is intended as a playing to the gallery. IOW the rhetorical structure that parallels ranting to like minds about a third party: a right winger complaining about 'transperson ideology' to other right wingers or a left winger complaining about alt.right sexism at a feminist convention. It is a speech aimed at the nodding heads of like minds, referring to the absurdity of what is supposedly Phyllo's position.

Perhaps it is absurd. Perhaps it is Phyllo's position. But let's set that aside.

Who the fuck is the gallery?

Who does he imagine are nodding their heads? ready to call out 'here, here'.

Now we can get some kind of victimy humble: oh, I know most people are objectivists, but i struggle here alone in the face of...

But it's this kind of thing that makes one wonder if he knows what he is doing.

When one says what he might be doing, he objects, and fair enough. It is very hard to know what he is doing, what purpose this serves.

But taking it at face value seems unjustified.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher

Posts: 2646
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

### Re: on discussing god and religion

phyllo wrote: I think that it's safe to conclude that Iambig is unreceptive to anything we have to say.

We can leave it there.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: God, I hope you can.

And, with Phyllo, God does manage to figure into all of this. Though "in the spirit of the OP" I've never actually been able to pin him down as to how.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: What I find fascinating in the quoted rant is that it is intended as a playing to the gallery. IOW the rhetorical structure that parallels ranting to like minds about a third party: a right winger complaining about 'transperson ideology' to other right wingers or a left winger complaining about alt.right sexism at a feminist convention. It is a speech aimed at the nodding heads of like minds, referring to the absurdity of what is supposedly Phyllo's position.

And, really, how is this relevant to the intent of the OP? My point is that there are folks all along the political spectrum who have "personal opinions" about human gender identity. Some predicate their moral narratives and political agendas on God and religion, some don't.

And, from my perspective, "like minds" here embody the components of my own argument on this thread: dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. Existential contraptions in a No God world. Out in a particular context out in a particular world historically, culturally and experientially.

I just don't pretend that my own frame of mind is not in turn an existential contraption subject to change given new experiences, new relationships and access to new ideas and arguments.

I merely suggest further that this is applicable to Phyllo and KT as well.

And that the objectivists among us seek to shut that part down by insisting that their own value judgments in regard to gender identity are essentially/necessarily true because they are predicated on one or another God and religion.

Or, in regard to the No God objectivists among us, on one or another political ideology, one or another deontological philosophical assessment or on one or another assessment of "natural behaviors".

phyllo wrote: Who the fuck is the gallery?

Well, among others, anyone who is reading this now.

And they will either engage the intent of the OP or they won't. They will either bring their value judgments and religions convictions "down to earth" and explore them with me contextually or they won't.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: Who does he imagine are nodding their heads? ready to call out 'here, here'.

Well, right now, "in total there are 3 users online". So, not many to say the least. On the other hand, in that context, why is he here? Go figure the things any particular "I" chooses to do. Go figure why this and not something else.

But then he procedes to "nail" me:

Karpel Tunnel wrote: Now we can get some kind of victimy humble: oh, I know most people are objectivists, but i struggle here alone in the face of...

But it's this kind of thing that makes one wonder if he knows what he is doing.

When one says what he might be doing, he objects, and fair enough. It is very hard to know what he is doing, what purpose this serves.

But taking it at face value seems unjustified.

Of course the implication here is that he does know what he is doing. Though, admittedly, aside from waiting for godot, I have myself not pinned that down yet.

On the other hand, there have been many, many very intelligent and articulate folks I have bumped into here at ILP. There is always the possibility that on threads like this one, someone will in fact succeed in nudging me in another direction. One less grim perhaps.

In the interim, I still enjoy contributing posts to my own quotes, movies and music threads. And I do gain some level of satisfaction [based on the view counts] that others here enjoy them too.

Note to others:

What, in your view, prompts this clear hostility that he often conveys towards me here. I have my own suspicions but I'll keep that to myself. If you know what I mean.

No, really, do you know what I mean?llll
Objectivists: Like shooting fish in a barrel!

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

iambiguous
ILP Legend

Posts: 33918
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

### Re: on discussing god and religion

iambiguous wrote:Of course the implication here is that he does know what he is doing. Though, admittedly, aside from waiting for godot, I have myself not pinned that down yet.

On the other hand, there have been many, many very intelligent and articulate folks I have bumped into here at ILP. There is always the possibility that on threads like this one, someone will in fact succeed in nudging me in another direction. One less grim perhaps.

In the interim, I still enjoy contributing posts to my own quotes, movies and music threads. And I do gain some level of satisfaction [based on the view counts] that others here enjoy them too.

Note to others:

What, in your view, prompts this clear hostility that he often conveys towards me here. I have my own suspicions but I'll keep that to myself. If you know what I mean.

No, really, do you know what I mean?llll

Still at it with your 'conflicting good,' intellectual contraption and stuck in the hole you dig for yourself.

Why not have a look at this;
How long can you Hold Your Breath?
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=194655

That is something practical not the typical intellectual contraption, it may prop you out of your deep hole.

I believe KT has good intentions, but you are stuck in such a deep shit hole, it would be very unlikely for anyone to contribute any assistance.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher

Posts: 2773
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

### Re: on discussing god and religion

Prismatic567 wrote:
I believe KT has good intentions,
Why, thank you?
Unexpected. My crankiness level will go down.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher

Posts: 2646
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

### Re: on discussing god and religion

iambiguous wrote:
And, really, how is this relevant to the intent of the OP?

Me, I'm not looking for "simple" answers. On the contrary, given how I construe these relationships I always assume that the answers will be hard. But that is at the very least. What intrigues me [far more] is how any particular individual makes a distinction here between "I" as dasein and I as his or her TRUE self. And then in how they come up with an argument that obviates conflicting goods by showing us how we can attain the objective good [an objective truth] instead.

b
As far as I can tell you are looking for simple answers. You want others to provide a convincing case, in this case about God, since this might help you with 'how one ought to live'. But in the above quote here you seem to realize that issues of self - which would include yourself - must necessarily be on the table. If your behavior does not match what you claim your intentions are, then this is relevent. How can one possibly help you in your quest if you do not seem to know what you are doing?

If your approach to knowledge is limited, as some of us have suggested, how can that issue not possibly be relevent. But your approach, obviously created by your dasein, is, for some reason, sacred to you, off the table, sacrosanct. You will not try any other approach to knowledge gaining. Yet, we must take at face value that you want to achieve the goals you say you have and never once do you actually show a willingness to see how dasein might be affecting your approach, to see for example if achieving your goals could happen in another way.

The person who spends the most time saying that what we believe and do depends on dasein is utterly unwilling to consider that his approach could be amended to achieve this goals.

Anyone moving into this area will get a message indicating how ridiculous it might be that we know something about you better than you do.

Below of course you imply that you know what I am really up to and why I feel hostility. IOW performing this act your consider ridiculous when it has to do with you. IOW hypocrisy.

Back in the OP when talking to Zinnat you are shocked that the definition of the I is something he sees as irrelevent.

The 'I' and it's definition is relevent, as you point out. Since you are always going on about how we need to ground the issue, and deal with a specific case...

how the fuck could you as a specfic individual NOT be the most relevent case when it comes to helping you figure out 'how you ought to live'?

But this yis always the last thing you want to focus on. And it is the only thing you are not willing to change or question.

Coquettish assholery is still assholery.

Other people here take responsibility for their reactions. You think you are not responsible or even really affecting anyone.

But now all this doesn't bother me.

Why? Because you are not the audience of my posts about you.

You do not listen. You do not learn. Once I truly got this in my gut, I could feel sympathy for you again - which I did much earlier.

And the interest comes only in how others relate to what you do and will continue to do.

IOW this is for the gallery. Why? Because they can learn and I can learn from them. A process of development can take place.

I could learn from you before, because even dealing with sometone who does not change and cannot change while proclaiming to desire above all else to change can be useful, even if the how of that usefulness is not clear during much of the process. But there's a limit.

But noticing what happens around the edges of you, where change can and does take place, there I can learn.

But you know better about my hostility. Good. I know I cannot change that or anything else about you. And you cannot change any of it in dynamic relation to me. Your posts will retain the same form and general content and certainly the same approach until you can no longer post. It is certainly one form of life.
Last edited by Karpel Tunnel on Fri Feb 01, 2019 8:41 am, edited 2 times in total.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher

Posts: 2646
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

### Re: on discussing god and religion

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:
I believe KT has good intentions,
Why, thank you?
Unexpected. My crankiness level will go down.

I believe most who corresponded with IAmbiq has good intentions [out of natural empathy] to jolt and help him out of that deep hole he had dug for himself.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher

Posts: 2773
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

### Re: on discussing god and religion

Prismatic567 wrote: Still at it with your 'conflicting good,' intellectual contraption and stuck in the hole you dig for yourself.

Why on earth would I not be at it? Like many here, I am quite aware of all the moral and political conflicts that have pummelled the human species now for centuries. Resulting in, among other things, all manner of grotesque human pain and suffering. Now, some deal with this through God and religion. And others through one or another secular narrative revolving around one or another rendition of humanism. Still others embrace nihilism or narcissism. Or choose to embrace a sociopathic approach to human interactions in a No God world.

What separates them from me, however, is that they have found one or another frame of mind -- foundation -- allowing them to make that crucial distinction between "one of us" [who think about these things the right way] and "one of them" [who don't]. Or to embody a "me against the world" attitude.

They have an intellectual and/or psychological font onto which they can anchor "I". And [more or less] this comforts and consoles them.

I don't. "I" am ever drawn and quartered, fractured and fragmented by an understanding of "self" here that revolves both existentially and from context to context around dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

Culminating in oblivion.

Prismatic567 wrote: Why not have a look at this;
How long can you Hold Your Breath?
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=194655

That is something practical not the typical intellectual contraption, it may prop you out of your deep hole.

I can only assume you are being facetious here. What on earth does that have to do with that grotesque human pain and suffering embedded in dasein, conflicting goods and political/economic power?

Prismatic567 wrote: I believe KT has good intentions, but you are stuck in such a deep shit hole, it would be very unlikely for anyone to contribute any assistance.

All I ask of KT and others is for them to provide me with examples from their own life. How are they not down in that hole themselves. In fact, KT went on and on in another thread about his own rendition of pragmatism. But then like others here [both objectivists and non-objectivists] he gets "cranky" when that doesn't work for me.

It doesn't work because I won't agree with his point of view. It can never be that he won't agree with mine.
Objectivists: Like shooting fish in a barrel!

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

iambiguous
ILP Legend

Posts: 33918
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

### Re: on discussing god and religion

iambiguous wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote: Still at it with your 'conflicting good,' intellectual contraption and stuck in the hole you dig for yourself.

Why on earth would I not be at it? Like many here, I am quite aware of all the moral and political conflicts that have pummelled the human species now for centuries. Resulting in, among other things, all manner of grotesque human pain and suffering. Now, some deal with this through God and religion. And others through one or another secular narrative revolving around one or another rendition of humanism. Still others embrace nihilism or narcissism. Or choose to embrace a sociopathic approach to human interactions in a No God world.

What separates them from me, however, is that they have found one or another frame of mind -- foundation -- allowing them to make that crucial distinction between "one of us" [who think about these things the right way] and "one of them" [who don't]. Or to embody a "me against the world" attitude.

They have an intellectual and/or psychological font onto which they can anchor "I". And [more or less] this comforts and consoles them.

I don't. "I" am ever drawn and quartered, fractured and fragmented by an understanding of "self" here that revolves both existentially and from context to context around dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

Culminating in oblivion.

Prismatic567 wrote: Why not have a look at this;
How long can you Hold Your Breath?
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=194655

That is something practical not the typical intellectual contraption, it may prop you out of your deep hole.

I can only assume you are being facetious here. What on earth does that have to do with that grotesque human pain and suffering embedded in dasein, conflicting goods and political/economic power?

Breath is the most fundamental element of life which is more fundamental than dasein, conflicting goods and political/economic power, and everything else.

Let say your Maximum Retention Period [MRP] is 30 seconds.

If I were to hold your nose and close your mouth shut, before 30 seconds you would have felt terrible and desperate thus try to push my hands off, and if I persist and will not let go, you will likely kill me so that you can breathe, agree?

Generally, a normal average person can survive without breathing for up to 4 minutes or more.

If you are a moral person why would you kill me at the 30 seconds mark and not at the 4 minute mark?

The answer is, the respond is involuntary and you have no choice but to kill so that you can breathe. But note, you have the option to increase your tolerance level thus also the moral competence.
My point is;
If you can train yourself to increase your MRP and tolerance to 4 minutes, then you would only likely to push me off or kill me if you have to at the 3:30 minutes mark.
As you can see there is an improvement in your tolerance level from 30 seconds to 4 minutes.

At present there is a tolerance level [subconscious] to what you deemed as grotesque human pains and sufferings embedded in dasein, conflicting goods and political/economic power.
I believe when you increase your MRP to 4 minutes, you will have a different tolerance level for the effects of grotesque human pain and suffering embedded in dasein, conflicting goods and political/economic power, and you will respond to them in a different light, i.e. less sensitive to be affected by them.
From this you will have a greater positive outlook to life than being stuck in a deep shit hole because your tolerance is too low.
You can measure this tolerance level via the tests in the OP as linked above.

The expected changes are the following;

1. Your CO2 tolerance to panic- will increase.
2.The oxygen level in your blood will increase
3. Your immunity levels will increase
4. Your cognitive level will be heightened
5. There are other positive changes

Note the above is not bullshit, they can be objectively tested and verified.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher

Posts: 2773
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

### Re: on discussing god and religion

Prismatic567 wrote:Breath is the most fundamental element of life which is more fundamental than dasein, conflicting goods and political/economic power, and everything else.

Breathing is an objective fact of life. It is rooted biologically in the evolution of life on earth.

But each and every one of us breathe in and out in a particular context construed from a particular point of view. And sometimes that point of view can even devolve into suicide. You choose to stop breathing [presumably] forever and ever and ever.

The "On Discussing God and Religion" thread was created for breathers on this side of the grave. In order to ponder the choices they make here and now as that is thought to impact their fate there and then. On the other side of the grave.

Breathing from the cradle to the grave is just a fact of life. Like a heart pumping blood. Like a brain producing thoughts. So, what on earth does this...

Prismatic567 wrote:[list]Let say your Maximum Retention Period [MRP] is 30 seconds.

If I were to hold your nose and close your mouth shut, before 30 seconds you would have felt terrible and desperate thus try to push my hands off, and if I persist and will not let go, you will likely kill me so that you can breathe, agree?

Generally, a normal average person can survive without breathing for up to 4 minutes or more.

...have to do with the OP?

You go on:

Prismatic567 wrote:If you are a moral person why would you kill me at the 30 seconds mark and not at the 4 minute mark?

The answer is, the respond is involuntary and you have no choice but to kill so that you can breathe. But note, you have the option to increase your tolerance level thus also the moral competence.

In what particular context? In aborting the unborn? In cases of murder? In the context of war? Regarding Hitler's gas chambers?

Moral competence? Says who in regard to what?

Either that or I am completely missing your point.

Note to others:

What crucial point of his here am I missing?

And, please, bring that point down to earth. Note where, how and why the behaviors of some can result in dramatic changes in the breathing of others.

Is this really and sincerely meant to be taken seriously? Or are legs being pulled?
Objectivists: Like shooting fish in a barrel!

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

iambiguous
ILP Legend

Posts: 33918
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

### Re: on discussing god and religion

iambiguous wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:Breath is the most fundamental element of life which is more fundamental than dasein, conflicting goods and political/economic power, and everything else.

Breathing is an objective fact of life. It is rooted biologically in the evolution of life on earth.

But each and every one of us breathe in and out in a particular context construed from a particular point of view. And sometimes that point of view can even devolve into suicide. You choose to stop breathing [presumably] forever and ever and ever.

The "On Discussing God and Religion" thread was created for breathers on this side of the grave. In order to ponder the choices they make here and now as that is thought to impact their fate there and then. On the other side of the grave.

Breathing from the cradle to the grave is just a fact of life. Like a heart pumping blood. Like a brain producing thoughts. So, what on earth does this...

Yes, breathing, heart pumping blood, eating, walking, etc. are also fact and basic activities of life.
But all human activities has a range of competence which will influence one's well being and spirituality [re this forum section].
I presume you know what are the negative consequences to one's health, well being and spiritual if one has a bad heart and blood circulating system.

Note this;
Shortness of Breath Symptoms, Causes and Risk Factors
https://www.lung.org/lung-health-and-di ... risks.html

Note the long list of potential diseases related to a shortness of breath in the above link.

Thus the competence of one's breathing ability will correlate with better well-being and spirituality.

Prismatic567 wrote:[list]Let say your Maximum Retention Period [MRP] is 30 seconds.

If I were to hold your nose and close your mouth shut, before 30 seconds you would have felt terrible and desperate thus try to push my hands off, and if I persist and will not let go, you will likely kill me so that you can breathe, agree?

Generally, a normal average person can survive without breathing for up to 4 minutes or more.

...have to do with the OP?

I have stated a below average performance in one's breathing ability has a close correlation with one involvement with God and religion.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=194667

You go on:

Prismatic567 wrote:If you are a moral person why would you kill me at the 30 seconds mark and not at the 4 minute mark?

The answer is, the respond is involuntary and you have no choice but to kill so that you can breathe. But note, you have the option to increase your tolerance level thus also the moral competence.

In what particular context? In aborting the unborn? In cases of murder? In the context of war? Regarding Hitler's gas chambers?

Moral competence? Says who in regard to what?

The above is in a general moral context.

Either that or I am completely missing your point.

Note to others:

What crucial point of his here am I missing?

And, please, bring that point down to earth. Note where, how and why the behaviors of some can result in dramatic changes in the breathing of others.

Is this really and sincerely meant to be taken seriously? Or are legs being pulled?

As I had stated if you were to objectively measure your breathing rate, and make necessary improvements to it, you will likely change your outlook to all the points you have raised in this thread wherein you are stuck in a deeps..t hole you have dug by yourself.

So if there are improvements in your breathing competence [I guess it is low], i.e. NRP [normal breath retention period] or MRP, that will bring changes and new vista within yourself, not others.
For example if you quickly run out of breath while running only 50 feet, then subsequent doing breathing exercises and able to run 300 feet without running out of breath would be an improvement. Note my focus is on the spiritual [secular] context.

So why not give it a try?
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher

Posts: 2773
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

### Re: on discussing god and religion

Prismatic567 wrote:Yes, breathing, heart pumping blood, eating, walking, etc. are also fact and basic activities of life.
But all human activities has a range of competence which will influence one's well being and spirituality [re this forum section].
I presume you know what are the negative consequences to one's health, well being and spiritual if one has a bad heart and blood circulating system.

Note this;
Shortness of Breath Symptoms, Causes and Risk Factors
https://www.lung.org/lung-health-and-di ... risks.html

Note the long list of potential diseases related to a shortness of breath in the above link.

Thus the competence of one's breathing ability will correlate with better well-being and spirituality.

Yes, but this still revolves largely around biological imperatives embedded in the evolution of life on earth.

Of course: This thread starts with the assumption that the breather is doing all that can be done to keep on breathing. It's the correlation between healthy breathing and the behaviors we choose in order to sustain a healthy "spiritual" existence that I aim to explore here.

As that pertains to the part abour existing -- breathing? -- on the other side of the grave. As this pertains to God and religion.

Prismatic567 wrote:I have stated a below average performance in one's breathing ability has a close correlation with one involvement with God and religion.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=194667

Note a context such that the manner in which you construe breathing is connected substantively to the behaviors you choose here and now as that relates to your conjectures regarding your own particular "I" beyond the grave.

Instead, you prefer a "general moral context". That way your argument here can, in turn, be but generally applicable.

You say "try this" but you don't show me how it already works for you when contemplating the points raised in the OP.

Out in your own particular world with respect to any particular context in which the relationship between morality on this side of the grave is considered in the context of immortality and salvation on the other side of it.

The stuff of God and religion.
Objectivists: Like shooting fish in a barrel!

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

iambiguous
ILP Legend

Posts: 33918
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

### Re: on discussing god and religion

...we cannot know.

Then we agree that we cannot know. And, since we cannot know, it follows that you do not know if God is an impossibility or not.

We cannot know through experience that what we experience is God or not. We can however deduce it.

So, who wins?

But the most fascianting thing about the folks who go back and forth here, is that winning and losing can always remain just a "state of mind".

Only it never stops there does it?

What we believe is true about God or No God is what motivates us to behave as we do. Either in our own company or in the presense of others. And here the whole truth is beside the point when those behaviors precipitate actual consequences.

And then the rest is history. Literally.

But what else is there? However exasperating one's reaction might be to discussions of this sort, all the more exasperating still [for some] is in accepting that there does not appear to be a way to make that reaction go away.

The answer [if there is one] comes on the day we die. The part where God or No God takes on a whole new meaning. If, in fact, it actually does.
Objectivists: Like shooting fish in a barrel!

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

iambiguous
ILP Legend

Posts: 33918
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

### Re: on discussing god and religion

duplicate post
Objectivists: Like shooting fish in a barrel!

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

iambiguous
ILP Legend

Posts: 33918
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

### Re: on discussing god and religion

iambiguous wrote:What we believe is true about God or No God is what motivates us to behave as we do. Either in our own company or in the presense of others. And here the whole truth is beside the point when those behaviors precipitate actual consequences.

This is the actual consequences where there is a God.

35462 Deadly Attacks by Islamic Terrorists Since 911
https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/TROP.jpg

Therefore if humanity can wean itself off the idea of God as real in the future, then there will be more [ZERO] deadly attacks such as the above.

So it is useful for humanity to discuss and understand what drive and compel the majority into theism, and why SOME theistic ideologies and theists are so deadly dangerous.
You on the other hand prefers to sulk in that deep sh1thole you have dug for yourself.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher

Posts: 2773
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

### Re: on discussing god and religion

Prismatic567 wrote:
iambiguous wrote:What we believe is true about God or No God is what motivates us to behave as we do. Either in our own company or in the presense of others. And here the whole truth is beside the point when those behaviors precipitate actual consequences.

This is the actual consequences where there is a God.

35462 Deadly Attacks by Islamic Terrorists Since 911
https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/TROP.jpg

Therefore if humanity can wean itself off the idea of God as real in the future, then there will be more [ZERO] deadly attacks such as the above.

In my view, what humanity must wean itself off of is objectivism. Look at how many deaths there have been as a result of political ideologies like fascism and Communism. And many of these folks were anything but religious. But they all share in common the belief that on this side of the grave there is a Real Me able to be in sync with The Right Thing to Do. It's just that some attribute to themselves the "intellectual courage" needed to accept that there is no beyond the grave for "I".

But my own particularly brutal pessimism is derived from the historical fact that so many others have died as a result of policies pursued by the nihilists. Those who wrap their own moral narrative around "show me the money". Those who own and operate the global economy.

And this can get really surreal in that some of them can argue for one or another God in sync with global capitalism; while many in the libertarian and Objectivist ranks rationalize this plunder in the name of Reason. Or the "virtue of selfishness".

Prismatic567 wrote: So it is useful for humanity to discuss and understand what drive and compel the majority into theism, and why SOME theistic ideologies and theists are so deadly dangerous.

In my view, what drives and compels any particular "I" to embrace objectivism [of any orientation] is rooted historically, culturally and experientially in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

Or embrace nihilism [of any orientation].

And this thread was created in order to explore the motivations embedded in "I" in any particular context. On this side of the grave. With or without God

Prismatic567 wrote: You on the other hand prefers to sulk in that deep sh1thole you have dug for yourself.

The shithole I am embedded in is largely circumstantial. And [here and now] it is largely beyond my control.

Again, I have plenty of distractions that still manage to provide me with lots and lots of fulfillment and satisfaction. Indeed, the way in which some here imagine me could not be further from the truth. Still, it's only a matter of time now before the distractions themselves give way to one or another rendition of The End. And if the pain and the suffering is agonizing enough I may even come to embrace Jim Morrison's own rendition of that: beautiful friend.
Objectivists: Like shooting fish in a barrel!

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

iambiguous
ILP Legend

Posts: 33918
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

### Re: on discussing god and religion

I'd had a long day in the city once, I was feeling exhausted and overwhelmed by the crowds in the streets, so I ducked into a church that I saw down a side street. There was a Romanian beggar inside the doorway and the pews contained only a few very old people. They noticed me and I seemed to be a distinct oddity to them. My youth and the fact I wasn't a foreigner or a parasite, I assume.
A church is a very serene building. Even in spite of the monstrosity on the cross displayed everywhere. We should definitely have these holy places.

Is there really getting around this part for atheists? Sure, some will no doubt gag on it. Sentimental bullshit that has nothing to do with the brute facticity embedded in an essentially meaningless existence grounded in a dog eat dog survival of the fittest.

On the other hand, the evolution of life itself resulted in beings who are in fact able to experience things like this.

That some are not able to connect it to anything other than flukes intertwined in the random mutations of genes doesn't make the arguments of the more "spiritual" among us go away.

Here it is in one recollected context. And [so far] seemingly beyond any of us being able to pin down definitively what it means.
Objectivists: Like shooting fish in a barrel!

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

iambiguous
ILP Legend

Posts: 33918
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

PreviousNext