on discussing god and religion

You have posted there. Many, many times. Just click on your name. Click on ‘Search User’s post’, then scroll down.

I’ve addressed this above. The historical narratives are clearly in dispute. And capitalism is bursting at the seams with its own horror stories. But, again, it would seem your point of view is that Communism is to be construed only as you portray it. The right way.

Okay, but, for all practical purposes, that seems to be the way it works. Otherwise you would offer us your own views on communism while acknowledging [as I do] that others [with very different life experiences] may well see it in other ways. Ways that they are able to rationalize based on a different set of assumptions regarding human interactions.

All this thread does is to provide an outlet for the believers – a discussion enabling them to connect the dots between here and now and there and then.

What’s that got to do with the point I’m making? There are the material obligations engineers must embrace if they ever get around to building the most effective wall for Don Trump; and there are the moral obligations that folks all along the political spectrum endlessly argue about regarding whether the wall ought to be built.

No, my premise is that conflicting arguments do exist all along the political spectrum. Arguments the objectivist proponents already insist do reflect a more knowledgeable perspective.

Clearly, if “the Gods” are not deemed to be omniscient and omnipotent, then it must somehow be established how “for all practical purposes” the existential relationship between them and “mere mortals” really does work.

And I’m merely pointing out the obvious. This: that when [historically] “the Gods” reconfigured into a God, the God, my God, the overwhelming preponderance of the true believers themselves ascribed omniscience and omnipotence to them.

Look, either the God that one believes in is deemed omniscient or He isn’t.

If so, human moral interactions would [necessarily] be judged from that frame of mind. If not then it would appear that some human interactions are not known by God. They would be judged only by other mere mortals subscribing to whatever particular set of behaviors they deem to be either right or wrong.

Or you might choose a behavior that no one at all is privy to. Then what? Well, as long as you can rationalize it to yourself, you’re good.

Yep, that’s the way it would work alright. But what about those who come along and insist that gambling itself is immoral. With an omniscient God, it either is or is not “a sin”. But in a no-God world how exactly would mere mortals go about deciding that?

Well, Christians can Google it. They can find sites like this: biblestudytools.com/topical … ing-a-sin/

They can read them. And, afterwards, the objectivists among them can decide that it either IS immoral or that it is NOT immoral. Period. That they are “more knowledgeable” about it.

Me? Well, in my own rendition of a No God world I tumble down into my dilemma above.

How about you?

But there a world of difference between being a gambler who proves he is more knowledgeable about playing poker and being an ethicist who alleges to be more knowledgeable in deciding if one ought to play poker for money at all.

And how about strip poker? [-o<

Did you understand any of the points that I was trying to make?

Nope, not even one. :character-willie:

Phyllo, note the ongoing contradiction…

He creates a situation in which one 1) presumes moral/value judgments then, see the bolded value judgment 2) says he can see no way to make one objectively and 'wonders
’ if we can show him how one does that. Objectivists are bad, they make ‘objective value judgments’, and these lead to horrors.

He accused me LOL of being an epistemologist. But he does not seem to realize that his posts claim ONLY to be about epistemology - since he has no way of knowing what is good or bad, good or evil - despite his motivation being precisely that, an urge to reduce the horrors caused by objectivists. If he truly thinks there is no way to know the objective good, he might as well talk about a sports team, because otherwise, this is only a discussion of epistemology, something he thinks is a bad thing to be, a la Will Durant. Talk about irony, since they just stack up and stack up.

If one points this out to him, he repeats his challenge, since his behavior and contradictions are not relevent in a discussion with him.

The only possible end to the discussion is precisely what he accuses objectivists of demanding: agreement with his values and epistemology.

The coquette posture of ‘wondering’. I’m just… I simply had this realiziation…

I understand why women took on the coquette role, when they were not allowed to take initiative or be self-assertive, the role shown so creatively in films in the 40s and 50s. Why he plays the coquette is known only to him and his therapist.

One of the really interesting questions is :

What would the world look like if God was around running it?

It think that people would still be making decisions based on their limited skills and knowledge. IOW, they would still be making the same sort mistakes that they make now.

Would God swoop down and smite them immediately when a mistake is made? Would he undo the consequences of the mistake?

That seems incredibly intrusive and oppressive. What kind of human life is that?

Is the natural consequence that people sit around waiting for God to tell them what do? After all, if He makes all the decisions then you might as well not think for yourself.

God is just another entity that you have a relationship with.

You can love, hate, obey, defy, ignore God.

You are an important part of the relationship.

Of course it’s been my experience with objectivists over the years that when they accuse you of not understanding their points, you are really being charged with not agreeing with them.

Call it, say, the Satyr Syndrome. :wink:

Imagine if you could pluck 1,000 people at random from around the world. You gather them together and you note this for them.

What would it mean to them? How would they react to it?

Which God? Understood in what manner? In what particular context?

And, sure, while it might be argued that God is just one more thing in your life to interact with, who would really believe that?

And “you”? Your identity? How would it not be an existential contraption with regard to God and religion.

Yes, you can choose to discuss these things in any way that you wish in your day to day interactions with others. But it would seem [to me] that in a philosophy venue, the gap between what you believe is true and what you able to demonstrate is in fact true about God would involve considerably more scrutiny.

Let us then just agree to disagree regarding what that entails.

I presume the existence of morality and value judgments because human interaction revolves around rules of behavior. And clearly in each community it must be decided what those rules will be.

Now, can these rules be predicated on an objective morality? If you think so, note a context in which values might come into conflict, and describe the behaviors that you would either prescribe or proscribe.

Show us how you would go about differentiating them.

And, historically, the objectivists are often thumped by the nihilists when it comes to horror stories.

For example, the nihilists that own and operate the global [capitalist] economy today, pretty much wrap their moral narrative around “show me the money”.

And this is the world they own and operate: statisticbrain.com/world-po … tatistics/

Wealth and power and self-interest is generally what they worship.

Communism, on the other hand, is an ideological contraption. The horrors that it precipitated often revolved around the dictum that you are either one of us or one of them. The either/or mentality of all objectivists. It then becomes a matter of how authoritarian you are willing to be. And [of course] the extent to which you have the political power to enforce your rigid doctrinaire agenda.

With communism [as with fascism and other such dogmas] the nihilistic horrors often revolve around the assumption that the end justifies the means.

Again, bring this down to earth. Note the sort of conflicted human behaviors that precipitate horrors. For example, with abortion some argue that the horror revolves around killing babies, while others insist that, on the contrary, the horror revolves around forcing women to give birth.

Now, how would a competent epistemologist address this? What can in fact be known here such that it is able to be demonstrated as applicable to all of us?

Or you pick the issue and the horrors it can bring about.

All I can do here is to note that I do not construe my own argument as any less an existential contraption. And that in a world bursting at the seams with contingency, chance and change, a new experience, relationship or idea might propel me in another direction. As has been the case many times in the past.

What I suspect however is that this common reaction among the objectivists to my frame of mind “here and now” revolves more around my speculation that it is applicable to them as well.

Good and bad as “existential contraptions” rooted in dasein just freaks them out. The idea that in a No God world construed by some to be essentially meaningless and absurd, “I” can rest only on the “intellectual contraptions” they concoct “in their head”, is just too discomfiting to seriously consider.

After all, look what is at stake: the comfort and the consolation derived from the conviction that right and wrong behavior must be distinguishable. Why? Because they have in fact already distinguished them.

And that’s often when the focus shifts from dealing with people like me, to dealing with all the other moral/political objectivists who share the conviction that right is right and wrong is wrong. But then insist it is their own agenda that nails this.

If an actual existing God made His presense known, everything would revolve around what He either could or could not know, what He either could or could not do.

Though, sure, there may well be any number of folks not aware of His existence. Or, after He made it known how His omniscience could be reconciled with human autonomy, some might freely choose to defy Him. Though here that would seem to be predicated on just how clear God made it regarding the consequences of defying Him.

Exactly! What actually would happen?

Well, God would be around to explain that, right?

This can only be connected to what the actual existing relationship is between this God and any particular mere mortal.

What it means to them or how they react is not something I have control over. I put it out there and get some feedback.

I notice that I don’t get any particularly thoughtful feedback from you.

So you’re in a philosophy venue and nobody is able demonstrate the truth about God to you.
In fact, nobody has been able to demonstrate the truth of any value judgements to you.

If I don’t demonstrate it, then that’s just in line with your expectations.

All you’re doing is sitting there going … “No, not good enough. Next …”. Over and over and over.

Ever have a discussion where you are not dismissive?

You agree but post no content. #-o

Why bother.

IOW if you believe in God on good grounds, you should be able to demonstrate the existence of God via text to a skeptic. Anyone want to parse that for all the silly assumptions in there. Of course some theists are silly and think they can do this. And they are nicely counter-melodied by atheists who think that theists should be able to do this.

Don’t forget … it has to be demonstrated in such as way that “all rational men and women are obligated to accept it”. :evilfun:

Not that he has any clear idea of what "rational " means. That’s just another contraption, isn’t it? :laughing:

More to the point, in living lives that may well be very, very different from your own, how might that feedback be construed as either constructive or destructive?

In either a God or a No God world.

Perhaps then you should stop reading my posts.

On the other hand, would any feedback suppotive of Communism be construed as thoughful by you?

But my point is to suggest that narratives relating to God are largely existential contraptions anchored subjectively/subjunctively in dasein.

You tell me: What [u][b]IS[/u][/b] the truth about God?

They would first have to note how, with regard to their own conflicting behaviors with others, they not down in the hole that I’m in.

All I can do then is to react to what they tell me. And in the either/or world there are countless things that can in fact be demonstrated to be true for all of us. My “expectations” here are almost always in sync with what is.

Indeed, I eschew a “dismissive” attitude here time and again.

Huh?

Until we are able to establish precisely what the relationship would be between an existing God and any particular mere mortal, how on earth could any “content” be realistically speculated about?

Go ahead, provide us with a hypothetical relationship.

Come on, let’s not forget what is at stake here: immortality, salvation and divine justice.

Which God then? Which Scripture?

Maybe it’s just me, but that would seem to be something a mere mortal would want to be rather certain regarding.

Could be either depending on the content.

I need the laughs.

Obviously yes.

But you have this weird idea about how and what I think, so you believe my answer is always “no”.

You have that “objectivist” stereotype and you can’t get past it.

You have your “INTELLECTUAL CONTRAPTION” stamp all inked up and no matter what I write, you’re going to use it.

And why not in a world where there are so many things that can be so demonstrated.

My point is that historically any number of moral and political objectivists insisted that the is/ought world could be construed in much the same way: right/wrong, good/evil, true/false.

And God help those who refused to become “one of us”.

You know, if there is a God.