-->
@Tarik
Wanting to be rewarded and not punished.
How very self involved of you.
don't have any observable reason to careBut I said that already.
Ok then why do you care?
Our most basic axioms
Posts
Total:
1,302
-->
@secularmerlin
Because I believe in an afterlife.
-->
@Tarik
So bottom line you don't think being a good person or caring about others is worthwhile unless you are getting something out of it?
-->
@secularmerlin
Sure let’s go with that.
-->
@Tarik
And you don't see how that position might be construed as being very selfish?
More selfish say than the position that we she charitable and kind and look after human wellbeing both individually and for the species as a whole regardless of the personal cost or consequences of doing so?
-->
@secularmerlin
And you don't see how that position might be construed as being very selfish?
So? What proof do you have that I shouldn’t be?
-->
@Tarik
What proof do you have that I shouldn’t be?
Well even if you are only doing things for personal gain you still stand to benefit from the fostering of human wellbeing in general so there is a selfish argument for secular morality.
So basically
IF you are caring for others for their own sake THEN it is reasonable to foster human wellbeing.
And
IF you are only doing things for the sake of personal gain THEN all things being equal it is reasonable to foster human wellbeing because your own wellbeing is included
But
IF the only reason to have any moral standard is the fear of a cosmic hall monitor waiting to spank you for your misdeeds or give you a lollipop for behaving THEN there is no reason to maintain any moral standard at all UNTIL you have both demonstrated that the hall monitor exists and determined what the hall monitor is basing his decisions about spankings and lollipops on.
-->
@secularmerlin
THEN there is no reason to maintain any moral standard at all
That’s what I’ve been saying, yet you still have your “standards” you live by that baffles me.
-->
@Tarik
IF and ONLY IF the only reason to have any moral standard is the fear of a cosmic hall monitor waiting to spank you for your misdeeds or give you a lollipop for behaving THEN there is no reason to maintain any moral standard at all UNTIL you have both demonstrated that the hall monitor exists and determined what the hall monitor is basing his decisions about spankings and lollipops on.
Please look at my other two above syllogisms to see why fear of a cosmic hall monitor is not the ONLY POSSIBLE REASON.
-->
@secularmerlin
That’s a pretty vague standard considering there’s no consensus around a single definition of well-being, harm is also just as controversial considering not everyone agrees on what is and isn’t objectively harmful.
-->
@Tarik
To some degree that is true. Sometimes we do not know in advance what will promote wellbeing. It is less vague than the standard that a being who may or may not exist may or may mat not hold. In addition you have admitted to the same problem of not always knowing what is "good" as you seem to be demanding that I solve.
I don't always know what will foster the most wellbeing but I can observe that some things (food, shelter, social interaction etc) are necessary for humans and that lacking these things can harm or even kill humans. I know what my goal is. It is well defined and especially in hindsight we can make objective statements about the effect that something had on the wellbeing of some person or group of people. I cannot explain why human wellbeing is important beyond the fact that I am human and I am important to myself and by extension other humans take on value. You are like me and I therefore consider care of you to be self care. It feels good to do something that you imagine makes someone else feel good. This puts definite limits on behavior. Feeding someone is "good" and killing someone is "bad".
You don't know what some god(s) expect from you and you cannot demonstrate any. There is no readily available reason to say that any god(s) exist or that any god(s) which exist care about, judge or even notice human behavior, morality or rights. In no case is it made clear to us before we die what if anything is expected from us in order to attain any particular afterlife or if any afterlife even exists. You don't (or haven't shared) what exactly the moral standard is. The standard is the standard of some higher power is beyond vague and so you have no real direction. So far the reasoning you have given me could be used to justify any behavior whatsoever.
-->
@secularmerlin
I cannot explain why human wellbeing is important beyond the fact that I am human and I am important to myself and by extension other humans take on value.
How do you know that’s an example of well-being when there’s no consensus around a definition?
-->
@Tarik
How do you know that’s an example of well-being when there’s no consensus around a definition?
With some degree of confidence greater than my confidence in some higher power or intrinsic meaning.
My starting assumption is that God is real.
-->
@Bringerofrain
My starting assumption is that God is real.
Ok and why is that your starting point?
-->
@secularmerlin
With some degree of confidence greater than my confidence in some higher power or intrinsic meaning.
SM, it is only you that applys a meaning --intrinsic or not--- for your experiences.
As for a "higher power", you may say it is the synergetic effects of;
1} Gravity ( ), --contraction aka mass-atraction---
2} Dark Energy )(, --repulsive aka cosmological constant----
3} fermionic matter, bosonic forces and any collection thereof ex humans, trees, planets, etc.
We think { most complex Metaphysical1 { spirit-1 }, about something { occupied space finger, toe etc } ergo we exist via our sensorial { 31 bilateral nerves , 12/24 cranial nerves, brain etc } occupied space.
We experience memory of past sensorial experiences and may communicate { via access to intellect } that, to self and others.
We appear to have access to Metaphysical-1 { spirit-1 } mind/intellect/concepts, that, do not occupy space, have no energy, no charge, no spin, etc.
-->
@secularmerlin
There are great philosophical reasons to believe. However I was an atheist for most of my life. Even when I was going to church as a little kid I was still an atheist never believed the b*******. However once I decided to just take a leap of faith and believe things started happening. it's like God started to reveal himself to me. It's odd to explain but history even changed it seemed like. When Christians used to say you have to believe to see I thought it was confirmation bias working on them. However I think there's something more in the universe. It's not just confirmation bias. Jung n talked about this quite a bit. He discussed synchronicity. I would say if you just start believing he'll show himself. I don't know why this is but I suspect it has something to do with God being a lover of free will. He wants you to have free will and knowing he exists would take away your free will to love him or to try to know him. You see if you know he exists then there's always that hanging over you the belief that he could snap his fingers and and everything. However if you choose to take a leap of faith and love him and believe in him well then you have come to him of your own free will. hell even if you take a leap of faith and believe in him but hate him you have come to him in your own free will. I do think it matters what your perception of God is when you choose to believe as well. For example most people when they choose to believe in God believe in the god a materialist would believe in. A guy who is separate from the universe or separate from the world but who created and rolls over the world.. the problem with that is this just not an accurate description of God so he's not going to necessarily reveal himself when you believe in him that way. You would have to believe more along the lines of a god who creates the world kind of from himself. He create the world through speaking it or believing it into existing. You see the world is made up of God's instantaneous thoughts he is a creator and his being is creativity. If you believe in the correct God or have the correct vision of who God is then he will reveal himself to you. Just as he has revealed himself and two people before us who spoke of them.. the first I thought the ancient philosophers were just trying to deal with the concept of death however it's something different than that. They believed in the same God I'm talking about I would look into neoplatonism for the type of God that is real and wants you to know him.
-->
@ebuc
SM, it is only you that applys a meaning --intrinsic or not--- for your experiences.
As for a "higher power", you may say it is the synergetic effects of;1} Gravity ( ), --contraction aka mass-atraction---2} Dark Energy )(, --repulsive aka cosmological constant----3} fermionic matter, bosonic forces and any collection thereof ex humans, trees, planets, etc.We think { most complex Metaphysical1 { spirit-1 }, about something { occupied space finger, toe etc } ergo we exist via our sensorial { 31 bilateral nerves , 12/24 cranial nerves, brain etc } occupied space.We experience memory of past sensorial experiences and may communicate { via access to intellect } that, to self and others.We appear to have access to Metaphysical-1 { spirit-1 } mind/intellect/concepts, that, do not occupy space, have no energy, no charge, no spin, etc.
Good point. Sometimes defining is believing. If the cosmos, conscious or not, exactly as it exists outside human ego is being defined as "god" then "god" becomes a logical necessity.
-->
@Bringerofrain
My most immediate problem with this proposal is that I have no idea how to choose to believe something. I can be convinced of things but that is not a choice. Beyond that I am glad to know that you are aware of confirmation bias. I am curious to know your specific definition of god and to detail your methodology in determining the specific difference between god doing stuff and stuff happening for any other possibly unknown reason?
-->
@secularmerlin
It's fine not to believe. Your choice.
I would say God is like the dreamer. He is asleep and dreams us into existence. I would say my view of God is maybe closely defined as deistic. If you're a familiar with hermeticism or neoplatonism it's that sort of view of God. The difference between what maybe he causes and what would be caused by the big bang or something like that is non-existent. God is the cause of everything he created this story he is in constant creation of the story and so anything that happens his hand is what has made it happen.
The problem with explaining occultt or more esoteric ideals in terms of what the belief they hold is that it's very complicated. for example that's why occultists willl use the tree of Life as a tool for understanding God. You use the tree of Life as a way to kind of classify things that you can't understand on an intellectual level. The brain is not prepared to understand something is complicated and is complex as God not in a detailed way anyway. So what we use is we use symbols and meditation and we try to clear our mind because clearing our mind will allow room for God to enter it. I am a part of some secret society and can't explain too much you'll just have to find a teacher on your own if you don't understand.
There is a such thing as the first step in occult initiation. The first grade as some will call it, and the first grade, what is required for initiation is a belief in God.
You can't understand God without symbols and meditation and other abstract ways to build intuitive knowledge. Kinda like how you can only learn to ride a bike by riding it.
You can not describe to me how to ride a bike, any better than I can describe to you how to believe in God.
I could guide you if you want though. God is mind. Knowing that God is mind I can teach you exercises that will teach you that all is mind, once you know all is mind, it is easier to know the essence of God and to believe.
These exercise wouldn't merely be tricks you play on your reticular activation system, they would be legitimate ways of experiencing the fact all is mind and understanding that in order for that to be true, God must exist. Would you take on the experiment or is it I possible for you to believe through experiential learning like you would with riding a bike?
-->
@Bringerofrain
And what would you say if I told you that others have suggested a similar process but whose definition of god does not match yours?
How shall I as an outside observer determine which of you is correct if indeed either are if you are using the same methodology and your positions are both unfalsifiable?
-->
@secularmerlin
With some degree of confidence greater than my confidence in some higher power or intrinsic meaning.
If I argued in favor of either (which I didn’t) that comparison would’ve been fair but that hasn’t been my argument over the course of this discussion, so don’t use me to avoid answering the tough questions.
If you don't like the impression of god I have gotten from your posts (that of some cosmic hall monitor who spanks the guilty) perhaps you should reevaluate how you discuss the matter.
But I’m not discussing the matter so I would appreciate it if you refrain from your sarcastic assumptions.
-->
@secularmerlin
You can learn that all is mind with the following experiment. https://www.lady-lion.com/try-this-manifesting-experiment/#:~:text=Visualise%20yourself%20climbing%20up%20the,feeling%20of%20climbing%20your%20ladder.
Jung also discussed synchronicity a lot so you can look into that.
If you tell me other people have suggested similar experience and have a different opinion of what God is, than I would just respond by saying, maybe they are right and I am wrong. Maybe we are all wrong. Your discovery of God and understanding of God will not look like mine. That is fine. I don't have a monopoly on knowledge and a lot of people know significantly more than me and have more accurate views of God.
Why did you choose the name Merlin?
-->
@secularmerlin
Good point. Sometimes defining is believing. If the cosmos, conscious or not, exactly as it exists outside human ego is being defined as "god" then "god" becomes a logical necessity.
Believing, in that which we have arrived at via rational, logical common sense pathways of thought, that, are based in observations of environment --Universe--- is easy.
Proofs is a whole other story that only leads some people into rabbit hole of ...'cant believe without proof'...type of thinking.
I dont believe the car approaching me is going to cross the center line and hit me, so a certain amount of driving involves believe, trust and faith on histroical experiences of self and others.
-->
@Tarik
If I argued in favor of either (which I didn’t) that comparison would’ve been fair but that hasn’t been my argument over the course of this discussion, so don’t use me to avoid answering the tough questions.
Well...
Fish or cut bait.
If you aren't arguing going to argue your position you really don't have the right to question mine.
I don't believe in any god(s) because they haven't been demonstrated and you are not even arguing that one could be.
You don't have any arguments I find compelling and you haven't really explained exactly what I need to justify or why in order for humans to behave in exactly the way I observe them too.
Let me know if you want to at least finish those syllogisms. I really would be interested in knowing how you would complete them.
-->
@ebuc
Believing, in that which we have arrived at via rational, logical common sense pathways of thought, that, are based in observations of environment --Universe--- is easy.Proofs is a whole other story that only leads some people into rabbit hole of ...'cant believe without proof'...type of thinking.I dont believe the car approaching me is going to cross the center line and hit me, so a certain amount of driving involves believe, trust and faith on histroical experiences of self and others.
I couldn't get put of bed in the morning if I didn't have faith in the floor to hold my weight.
-->
@secularmerlin
you really don't have the right to question mine.
I do on the grounds that your opting to argue yours.
I don't believe in any god(s) because they haven't been demonstrated and you are not even arguing that one could be.
Then what’s the point of saying that?
you haven't really explained exactly what I need to justify
You can start by answering this question straight up instead of attacking views I’m not even arguing.
How do you know that’s an example of well-being when there’s no consensus around a definition?
-->
@Bringerofrain
a lot of people know significantly more than me and have more accurate views of God.
How did you determine this? How did they demonstrate this accuracy?
-->
@secularmerlin
I think it's a safe assumption given that there are people who have spent more time than me studying God and who are more intelligent than me. I could be the most knowledgeable person on the planet, but I doubt it.
I don't have any specific people in mind I think know more, it is just my humble opinion that I don't know shit and I have a lot to learn.