No, I inevitably turn discussions of God and religion into exchanges regarding the actual behaviors that people choose on this side of the grave given that which they believe or would like the fate of “I” to be on the other side of the grave.
Or to discussions of theodicy.
Or the efforts of those who do believe in a God or a No God religious path to at least make an attempt to demonstrate to us how they demonstrate to themselves that what they believe “in their head” can be demonstrated to in fact be true. Especially given that there are hundreds and hundreds of conflicting paths out there…and with so much at stake.
Finally, discussions that revolve around the chief component of own philosophy here: the role that dasein plays in forming individual points of view about God and religion.
And I am only interested in your own consideration of nihilism given the extent to which you will explore that with me given the manner in which you connect the dots between morality here and now and immortality there and then.
Your thread? This thread? Or all of your threads and posts? Let’s pin that down. If you want my disturbing arguments out of your head altogether then go all the way and insist on that.
Demonstrate to me that what I suspect of your own intellectual honesty and integrity is, sadly enough, all too true.
For example here…
…you configure into just one more of my many feckless Stooges.
Though I’ll refrain from using the C word.
After all, in your own way [as with Felix and others], you do attempt to explore all of this in a more sophisticated manner than the Kids and the Fulminating Fanatics. So, sure, I do wish you well in taking your own precious “comfort and consolation” all the way to the grave.
Can anyone honestly say, given the far reach of human understanding, that science can accurately explain all there is to know of the human condition? To say so would suggest an arrogance not even acceptable by major scientists. This sort of thinking is more characteristic of Dawkins, not by Einstein.
“Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.”–Einstein. This aptly apples to Dawkins" assertions of religion–blindness. So we get to the point where we are asked to believe dasein, conflicting goods and how what we believe an afterlife will be as affecting this life are the sole possible ways of interpreting existential awareness or are the only ways one can speak of the here and now human condition. Surely, such descriptions smack of poverty of the intellect or at best spiritual blindness.
My purpose is not to waste time persuading the blind how to see. It is in espousing the freedom of thought available in human potential and natural possibility.
These are not abstract concepts, but here and now realizations.
Iamb,
Yes. Please steer clear of everything I post at ILP since it only encourages your regurgitation of your personal beliefs. I’ve heard them ad nauseum. My philosophy is not so much concerned with the other side of the grave as with what we can think here and now about our future on this Earth. Besides I see reincarnation as a more moral human outcome than the old reward and punishment afterlives.
God is physical in acts of creative evolution, metaphysical in projections of becoming.
God is the situation and its cause. Without God there would be nothing.
God is present in one’s awe of Nature’s bounty and beauty.
God is also present when two or more people of good will come together in one accord.
God is present in the hunger for righteousness.
God is present in experience of God, about which words fail.
God is unconditional, universal Love.
The part strives to reunite with the Whole. The God within is a part of the God outside the body of consciousness. Reclamation is God’s desire. Spiritual masters recognize the longing for completion as evidence of God’s inner Self, the God within. Creation separates to reunite. The individual eye (I) is a part of the whole vision.
I don’t think Dawkins is a stupid man but he is ignorant of many philosophical subjects. The meaning of stupid is different to many people, however. I told you before, more simply that, I think he is a troll.
I would say that he has damaged his own reputation.
I have my own belief on creation, that I am sure Dawkins would happily argue with me about, but I would not spend any time on it because I don’t think I would get any benefit out of it.
Creation by random reactions of certain chemicals, perpetuated by fortuitous advances through evolution, is an idea that suffers from lack of an answer to the inevitable, moral question–“Why.” This is a question a child might ask. Whereas the child might be satisfied with the answer How, an adult needs needs to hear about the Why. Evolution without purpose suggests humans without purpose. But humans are meaning addicts, which is why the Why persists. That God did it, regarding Creation and Evolution, leaves the question Why. Science is good at telling us how. Religion is supposed to tell us why. Can the two be complementary?
False. I need a sex-robot indistinguishable from a real woman, except that she never says no. Sadly no such thing exists. Same as God. Peopl think they need an answer to the meaning of the universe, so they just imagine one.
You have things exactly backwards. Real needs, rather than just whimsical ideas, are only present because they already exist in nature, otherwise no natural selection would have required them.
God is not a need, anymore than a sexbot is a need.
“I need a sex-robot indistinguishable from a real woman, except that she never says no.”
I have a sex bot and when the batteries are low, she’ll say ‘not tonight honey I’m tired’ in a creepy male Taiwanese accent. You’d think they at least make a sexy female voice. I dunno maybe I got the settings wrong.