Religion

[leicsmac]

“Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.” - Marcus Aurelius

[st albans fox]

6 hours ago, Benguin said:

 

This is very similar argument to the argument of historical induction. 

 

Even if every known religion was 100% falsifiable, nothing has been argued against the existence of a diety. After all it might be the case that a creator made the universe but has not revealed himself in the form of any religion. 

 

That said, I am a Christian so am obliged to defend Christianity rather than a generic diety. 

 

Of the thousands of alleged religions, it is only really a handfull that are not falsifiable and have any real following. After all if God exists in a personal sense, we would expect the correct religion to have a somewhat large following. 

 

Of those handfull of religions, Christianity is by far the most compelling as we have lots of historical facts that are best explained by the resurrection. In all religions that have even a shred of evidence, Christianity is about a relationship with God. In most others it is about outweighing your good with evil, karma etc. I think this allows us to draw a distinction from other religions. 

 

I also think its Important to draw a distinction from what you described and what Hell actually is in my worldview. Hell is separation from God, Christianity preaches that we have free will to choose to trust in Jesus or reject him. Since God loves us, he will not force us into his presence against our will, so those who have rejected him are granted their desires to be apart from him.

 

Pascal's wager is rubish. No one should bet on God. If one wants to live by their spirit God will reveal himself. If one wants to live by their flesh, God will not stop them. 

you will admit that you’re a tad biased ??? 

[Benguin]

7 hours ago, leicsmac said:

“Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.” - Marcus Aurelius

Ahh good quote but philosophically flawed in afraid. 

 

What is meant by good life? What is meant by just? 

 

Also here is a more accurate translation of the quote, the one you have posted is a misrepresentation of the quote. 

 

 

You may leave this life at any moment: have this possibility in your mind in all that you do or say or think. Now departure from the world of men is nothing to fear, if gods exist: because they would not involve you in any harm. If they do not exist, or if they have no care for humankind, then what is life to me in a world devoid of gods, or devoid of providence? But they do exist, and they do care for humankind: and they have put it absolutely in man's power to avoid falling into the true kinds of harm. If there were anything harmful in the rest of experience, they would have provided for that too, to make it in everyone's power to avoid falling into it; and if something cannot make a human being worse, how could it make his life a worse life? 

 

Edited 21 July 2020 by Benguin

[Suzie the Fox]

17 hours ago, HighPeakFox said:

"And another thing I won't discuss is religion
It always causes a fight..."

Me neither usually, but i found the comments in the unpopular opinion thread and this one to be very interesting. I like to see views from both sides and i personally feel its been done in a very amenable manner. Kudos to all the posters not getting personal  

[HighPeakFox]

36 minutes ago, Suzie the Fox said:

Me neither usually, but i found the comments in the unpopular opinion thread and this one to be very interesting. I like to see views from both sides and i personally feel its been done in a very amenable manner. Kudos to all the posters not getting personal  

I was quoting a song, but yanno......

[leicsmac]

4 hours ago, Benguin said:

Ahh good quote but philosophically flawed in afraid. 

 

What is meant by good life? What is meant by just? 

 

Also here is a more accurate translation of the quote, the one you have posted is a misrepresentation of the quote. 

 

 

You may leave this life at any moment: have this possibility in your mind in all that you do or say or think. Now departure from the world of men is nothing to fear, if gods exist: because they would not involve you in any harm. If they do not exist, or if they have no care for humankind, then what is life to me in a world devoid of gods, or devoid of providence? But they do exist, and they do care for humankind: and they have put it absolutely in man's power to avoid falling into the true kinds of harm. If there were anything harmful in the rest of experience, they would have provided for that too, to make it in everyone's power to avoid falling into it; and if something cannot make a human being worse, how could it make his life a worse life? 

 

I think it's reasonably simple - "just" is they judge you fairly for the deeds in your life and a "good life" is one where you seek to enhance the future of as many people around you as you can. Of course, we could get bogged down in semantics and sophistry about how such moral outcomes are defined and compared, but I think we've covered that ground before and frankly I don't care to again as neither of us is going to shift.

 

Seems from the second quote there that Aurelius believed in the gods, but also at least considered the possibility that he might be wrong about their existence. Which, quite frankly, puts him ahead of many of the monotheists I hear about today.

[Benguin]

12 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I think it's reasonably simple - "just" is they judge you fairly for the deeds in your life and a "good life" is one where you seek to enhance the future of as many people around you as you can. Of course, we could get bogged down in semantics and sophistry about how such moral outcomes are defined and compared, but I think we've covered that ground before and frankly I don't care to again as neither of us is going to shift.

 

Seems from the second quote there that Aurelius believed in the gods, but also at least considered the possibility that he might be wrong about their existence. Which, quite frankly, puts him ahead of many of the monotheists I hear about today.

There are fundamental flaws with morality and justice in the atheistic misrepresentation of the quote but as you say, happy to park that debate. 

 

My biggest philosophical concern with the version you posted is it does not account for free will. It is logically coherent that one can live a good life but not want a relationship with God and given there is the scenario where a loving God exists who would, in his loving nature, not force anyone into his presence, it logically cannot follow that "they will not care about how devout you have been"

 

Fortunately Marcus Aruellius didn't assert this and no serious philosopher could. 

[StriderHiryu]

Going slightly off the current topic in this thread, how many people on the forum come from a religious background, but then gave up on their religion? And if so what sort of reaction did it create?

 

Fortunately my family were not too religious, or rather believed that each person should make their own choice, so whilst my mother tried many times to get me to go to church many times, she eventually respected my decision and made peace with it. I actually went to a nephew's first communion last year and my mum asked me how I felt, to which I responded "I felt like I was forced to spend an hour and half sitting among 150 crazy people." Maybe a bit militant but that's how I genuinely felt and even she laughed when I said it. Everyone in my family has a ruthless honesty streak!

 

But whilst I had good parents who encourage free thinking and discussion, religion can be a huge stigma that can mean life-changing decisions needing to be made if you don't believe. I have a friend who is gay who has not spoken to any of his family in over 10 years, and I have another friend who is an Asian girl that has not spoken to her family after she started going out with a non-Asian man. She ended up breaking up with that guy, but married an English guy but still hasn't been able to make peace. She did speak to her brother a few times, but it's clear the door is firmly closed. She has "disrespected" her family.

 

This is one of the things I personally find so despicable about religion. Believe what you want to believe (within reason), OK fair enough. We must all have a set of codes and values we adhere to. But to then judge others for NOT believing the same things you do seems so hypocritical. And to then be prepared to do sinful actions such as making people feel lonely and upset, casting them out of the family or in extreme cases things like honour killings is truly absurd to me. 

 

For me I try to treat everyone in the world in a way that I would like to be treated myself. That way we can all get on with another and not resort to stealing from one another or trying to kill each other etc. I don't think you need to subscribe to a religion to be a decent person, and in fact think a lot of people who are deeply religious are actually incredibly flawed people.

[Benguin]

4 minutes ago, StriderHiryu said:

Going slightly off the current topic in this thread, how many people on the forum come from a religious background, but then gave up on their religion? And if so what sort of reaction did it create?

 

Fortunately my family were not too religious, or rather believed that each person should make their own choice, so whilst my mother tried many times to get me to go to church many times, she eventually respected my decision and made peace with it. I actually went to a nephew's first communion last year and my mum asked me how I felt, to which I responded "I felt like I was forced to spend an hour and half sitting among 150 crazy people." Maybe a bit militant but that's how I genuinely felt and even she laughed when I said it. Everyone in my family has a ruthless honesty streak!

 

But whilst I had good parents who encourage free thinking and discussion, religion can be a huge stigma that can mean life-changing decisions needing to be made if you don't believe. I have a friend who is gay who has not spoken to any of his family in over 10 years, and I have another friend who is an Asian girl that has not spoken to her family after she started going out with a non-Asian man. She ended up breaking up with that guy, but married an English guy but still hasn't been able to make peace. She did speak to her brother a few times, but it's clear the door is firmly closed. She has "disrespected" her family.

 

This is one of the things I personally find so despicable about religion. Believe what you want to believe (within reason), OK fair enough. We must all have a set of codes and values we adhere to. But to then judge others for NOT believing the same things you do seems so hypocritical. And to then be prepared to do sinful actions such as making people feel lonely and upset, casting them out of the family or in extreme cases things like honour killings is truly absurd to me. 

 

For me I try to treat everyone in the world in a way that I would like to be treated myself. That way we can all get on with another and not resort to stealing from one another or trying to kill each other etc. I don't think you need to subscribe to a religion to be a decent person, and in fact think a lot of people who are deeply religious are actually incredibly flawed people.

I agree with a lot of your sentiments, I can't speak for other religions and certainly don't speak as authorative of Christianity but I'm not sure how anyone can claim to be a Christian, whilst forcing someone else to be. One of the fundamental beliefs of my religion is that we all have the choice to hear the gospel and accept it or reject it. All we can do is put the case across but if someone doesn't want to accept it, that it their choice. 

 

 

[Dr The Singh]

16 hours ago, leicsmac said:

“Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.” - Marcus Aurelius

A very Sikh perspective, and hence why Sikhs dont prostylise, and dont believe we need to convert the world.

Edited 21 July 2020 by Dr The Singh

[Jon the Hat]

 

 

• On 20/07/2020 at 14:53, Benguin said:

  Just a question to the atheists. 

   

  Are you nihilists and if not is it just that this worldview is suppressed, or do you have good reasons to suggest there is an alternative in a life without a divine creator? Always been curious of this, having myself rejecting nihilism in my athiest days but for no good reason. 

  I am a humanist, which to quote the website means someone who:

• trusts to the scientific method when it comes to understanding how the universe works and rejects the idea of the supernatural (and is therefore an atheist or agnostic)
• makes their ethical decisions based on reason, empathy, and a concern for human beings and other sentient animals
• believes that, in the absence of an afterlife and any discernible purpose to the universe, human beings can act to give their own lives meaning by seeking happiness in this life and helping others to do the same.

[Benguin]

15 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

 

 

• I am a humanist, which to quote the website means someone who:

• trusts to the scientific method when it comes to understanding how the universe works and rejects the idea of the supernatural (and is therefore an atheist or agnostic)
• makes their ethical decisions based on reason, empathy, and a concern for human beings and other sentient animals
• believes that, in the absence of an afterlife and any discernible purpose to the universe, human beings can act to give their own lives meaning by seeking happiness in this life and helping others to do the same.

Interesting. Few questions. 

 

When trusting the scientific method, are you not using your own reasoning to determine truth? 

 

When making ethical decisions based on reason, empathy and concern, are these not all relative to one's own disposition? 

 

When acting to give one owns life meaning, would you agree that this is using one's own subjective reasoning to decide what meaning that is? 

 

And given that this isn't metaphysical and acted out, does it not follow that any meaning prescribed to one's life is illusory? 

 

This seems like a plaster placed on the arm to protect from a wound of nihilism to me personally. 

 

It's an interested worldview though, I've noticed more prominent figures are describing themselves thus, recently. 

[brucey]

4 hours ago, Benguin said:

There are fundamental flaws with morality and justice in the atheistic misrepresentation of the quote but as you say, happy to park that debate. 

 

My biggest philosophical concern with the version you posted is it does not account for free will. It is logically coherent that one can live a good life but not want a relationship with God and given there is the scenario where a loving God exists who would, in his loving nature, not force anyone into his presence, it logically cannot follow that "they will not care about how devout you have been"

 

Fortunately Marcus Aruellius didn't assert this and no serious philosopher could. 

I’ve never seen this Aurelius quote before, but what are your thoughts on the more famous quote by Epicurus?

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. 
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. 
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? 
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

 

[RumbleFox]

22 minutes ago, Benguin said:

Interesting. Few questions. 

 

When trusting the scientific method, are you not using your own reasoning to determine truth? 

 

When making ethical decisions based on reason, empathy and concern, are these not all relative to one's own disposition? 

 

When acting to give one owns life meaning, would you agree that this is using one's own subjective reasoning to decide what meaning that is? 

 

And given that this isn't metaphysical and acted out, does it not follow that any meaning prescribed to one's life is illusory? 

 

This seems like a plaster placed on the arm to protect from a wound of nihilism to me personally. 

 

It's an interested worldview though, I've noticed more prominent figures are describing themselves thus, recently. 

Hiya

 

Really enjoying your long messages, I genuinely like hearing apposing world views, thank you.

 

Again you often seem to talk in riddles, I think designed to blind and confuse.

 

We trust the scientific method because we have seen it work. Science tells us if we step out of a window we will fall, if we eat raw chicken we will get I’ll, if we turn in a light the room will be illuminated. These are as “true” as anything can be. Are they based on a subjective view of the world? Maybe, but that is as true as anything can be. When you look before crossing the road it is because empirical data tells you it is wise. The scientific method is simply that.

 

Ethical decisions are based on ones own disposition yes but that is learned, and taught and refined. We stand on the shoulders of giants in many ways. Do we sometimes get things wrong? Yes. Do some morals and ethics change as we enlighten ourselves? Of course. But these are strengths not weaknesses surely? I would rather our collective ethics be added to, improved and refined over time. Slowly, very slowly we as a species are improving, getting better. Yes we have blips, yes we have regression but on the whole the trend is upwards. For women, poor people, people of colour, homosexuals, this is the finest time to be alive in the history of our species. I know it’s vogue to think the worst but we are very lucky to be living right now. At 39 I’d be considered an old man in eras past. As a working class person I’d have no idea of leisure, or the world beyond these shores or of art on previous centuries. 
 

I genuinely cannot see why giving ones own life subjective meaning is troublesome? Can you please explain to me why this is a bad thing? Moreover, why does life have to “have a meaning”? The universe does not owe us meaning, it owes us nothing . I suspect you think that is depressing but I do not.  I enjoy life, I take the small pleasures where I can and the big pleasures when they come. I love my family and friends and I hope some may remember me when I’m gone but I don’t feel a need for “meaning”, I’m not that arrogant. I’m just trying to make the most of the precious time we get on this little green planet. 

 

X

 

 

[Benguin]

3 minutes ago, brucey said:

I’ve never seen this Aurelius quote before, but what are your thoughts on the more famous quote by Epicurus?

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. 
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. 
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? 
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

 

It's not a good argument imo it's to simple and inductive in a similar fashion to the ontological argument for the existence of God, which is terrible btw hence why I haven't posted it. 

 

The definition of evil implied presupposes the existence of God. As evil according to an objective standard cannot exist without an absolute standard. If in reality the implied definition of evil is wrong and its evil based on a subjective standard, then we are unable to compare it to an absolute standard as the latter can disagree with the former. So this can conclusively be described as an argument against God's providence not existence. 

 

So to make an argument against God's providence it has to use the defenition of evil whereby there is an absolute standard. Given that humans are not the standard of good and evil but God is, it ignores the fact that God could be able to stop evil and want to but either we have misidentified something as evil or God's ultimate plan will stop evil. 

 

From a Christian perspective, we believe we live in a fallen world where evil exists and that God has solved this problem with the cross. Though people might get sick or murder occurs, we believe that all of this is taken away by God and he will build a new earth for those who choose him. 

[Benguin]

16 minutes ago, RumbleFox said:

Hiya

 

Really enjoying your long messages, I genuinely like hearing apposing world views, thank you.

 

Again you often seem to talk in riddles, I think designed to blind and confuse.

 

We trust the scientific method because we have seen it work. Science tells us if we step out of a window we will fall, if we eat raw chicken we will get I’ll, if we turn in a light the room will be illuminated. These are as “true” as anything can be. Are they based on a subjective view of the world? Maybe, but that is as true as anything can be. When you look before crossing the road it is because empirical data tells you it is wise. The scientific method is simply that.

 

Ethical decisions are based on ones own disposition yes but that is learned, and taught and refined. We stand on the shoulders of giants in many ways. Do we sometimes get things wrong? Yes. Do some morals and ethics change as we enlighten ourselves? Of course. But these are strengths not weaknesses surely? I would rather our collective ethics be added to, improved and refined over time. Slowly, very slowly we as a species are improving, getting better. Yes we have blips, yes we have regression but on the whole the trend is upwards. For women, poor people, people of colour, homosexuals, this is the finest time to be alive in the history of our species. I know it’s vogue to think the worst but we are very lucky to be living right now. At 39 I’d be considered an old man in eras past. As a working class person I’d have no idea of leisure, or the world beyond these shores or of art on previous centuries. 
 

I genuinely cannot see why giving ones own life subjective meaning is troublesome? Can you please explain to me why this is a bad thing? Moreover, why does life have to “have a meaning”? The universe does not owe us meaning, it owes us nothing . I suspect you think that is depressing but I do not.  I enjoy life, I take the small pleasures where I can and the big pleasures when they come. I love my family and friends and I hope some may remember me when I’m gone but I don’t feel a need for “meaning”, I’m not that arrogant. I’m just trying to make the most of the precious time we get on this little green planet. 

 

X

 

 

Because the original question here, is how does one escape nihilism without God? I totally respect your thoughts on this, and when I was an athiest I absolutely prescribed my own meaning to life. It does however all seem illusory though, which is fine BTW, but not a genuine cure for nihilism but rather a placebo. Do you think nihilism is false? 

[RumbleFox]

4 minutes ago, Benguin said:

Because the original question here, is how does one escape nihilism without God? I totally respect your thoughts on this, and when I was an athiest I absolutely prescribed my own meaning to life. It does however all seem illusory though, which is fine BTW, but not a genuine cure for nihilism but rather a placebo. Do you think nihilism is false? 

But nothing you have said here, in the post I responded to nor any other post thus far says anything of the validity of god. One could argue for the pros and cons, I may even admit the idea is comforting but saying “nihilism is bad” doesn’t make it untrue, nor does it make a valid case for a Devine being? Nihilism may very  well be “real” if there is no god but what does that have to do with “proof”? Just because a thought is uncomfortable to you doesn’t make it impossible, nor the alternative probable? X 

Edited 21 July 2020 by RumbleFox

[Dahnsouff]

49 minutes ago, Benguin said:

Interesting. Few questions. 

 

When trusting the scientific method, are you not using your own reasoning to determine truth? 

 

When making ethical decisions based on reason, empathy and concern, are these not all relative to one's own disposition? 

 

When acting to give one owns life meaning, would you agree that this is using one's own subjective reasoning to decide what meaning that is? 

 

And given that this isn't metaphysical and acted out, does it not follow that any meaning prescribed to one's life is illusory? 

 

This seems like a plaster placed on the arm to protect from a wound of nihilism to me personally. 

 

It's an interested worldview though, I've noticed more prominent figures are describing themselves thus, recently. 

It’s weird, these are interesting discussions but for some reason, the bit in bold I found quite insulting. I am sure that was not your intent, but I read  it as such, and that is on me.

Judging the reason I believe it stems from that I found it a little sanctimonious and you are distancing yourself from the evidential approach to judging our reality in favour of an equally personal  definition of truth, albeit found in dogma.
 

Please forgive me if I have caused offence, it was certainly not my intent.

[FoxesDeb]

1 minute ago, RumbleFox said:

But nothing you have said here, in the post I responded to nor any other post thus far says anything of the validity of god. One could argue for the pros and cons, I may even admit the idea is comforting but saying “nihilism is bad” doesn’t make it untrue, nor does it make a valid case for a Devine being? Nihilism May very  well be “real” if their is no god but what does that have to do with “proof”?

Err excuse me but where's the kiss? xxxxxx

[Benguin]

1 minute ago, RumbleFox said:

But nothing you have said here, in the post I responded to nor any other post thus far says anything of the validity of god. One could argue for the pros and cons, I may even admit the idea is comforting but saying “nihilism is bad” doesn’t make it untrue, nor does it make a valid case for a Devine being? Nihilism May very  well be “real” if their is no god but what does that have to do with “proof”?

Nothing and I never suggested it did. My original post was essentially suggesting either nihilism or theism are the only rational positions. 

 

I'm not trying to argue for the existence of God with this particular post. 

[RumbleFox]

4 minutes ago, Benguin said:

Nothing and I never suggested it did. My original post was essentially suggesting either nihilism or theism are the only rational positions. 

 

I'm not trying to argue for the existence of God with this particular post. 

Well I am an atheist and not a nihilist so I contest your argument? 

[Benguin]

4 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

It’s weird, these are interesting discussions but for some reason, the bit in bold I found quite insulting. I am sure that was not your intent, but I read  it as such, and that is on me.

Judging the reason I believe it stems from that I found it a little sanctimonious and you are distancing yourself from the evidential approach to judging our reality in favour of an equally personal  definition of truth, albeit found in dogma.
 

Please forgive me if I have caused offence, it was certainly not my intent.

Sorry if that came across insulting but surely that doesn't attract from its validity? 

 

Given that the post I was replying to posits that there isn't a metaphysical source of knowledge, anything one knows is based only on their own reasoning. Even when following scientific sources, one has to discern the information using their own reasoning. 

[Benguin]

1 minute ago, RumbleFox said:

Well I am an atheist and not a nihilist so I contest your argument? 

That's great, all though I personally don't feel any good argument had been made, (not just by you but by anyone in the world) against nihilism assuming God doesn't exist. 

 

That's only my opinion of course

[Benguin]

Also, am I the only person who believes in God on the forum? I'd love some more contributions from a theistic perspective. 

[Dahnsouff]

Just now, Benguin said:

Sorry if that came across insulting but surely that doesn't attract from its validity? 

 

Given that the post I was replying to posits that there isn't a metaphysical source of knowledge, anything one knows is based only on their own reasoning. Even when following scientific sources, one has to discern the information using their own reasoning. 

In the case you describe it is a certainty, my apologies.

So it is the origin of an individuals ability to reason in an ethical manner that is under discussion? (I.e.; Do we need theological guidance to be truly just?)