Actually no direct harm that I can think of. And what if she came over one day offering casual sex?

Unless you want to preserve a relationship with your neighbor, you might not want to bang their wife, but it's not you transgressing against them in this case, it's the wife who would be doing the harm (potential, emotional or otherwise).

How do we measure one kind of harm against another?

It's a good question, and the answer is with great tedium...

After we've hammered out shared values (to go on living for instance) we can then begin to compare one harm against another by looking at how much one kind of harm damages various moral values compared to another kind of harm.

We can actually get pretty deep into economics and political theory using only this value as a goal (although additional agreeable values certainly help, such as freedom of thought, physical freedom, and a chance to earn a living).

It's hard to be precise when we start getting into many and complex varieties of harm, and having a hierarchy of values can be somewhat helpful, but inevitably it comes down to the persuasive power of how a given individual subjectively perceives the various harms in question. We can have a surprising amount of agreement by debate and persuasion concerning what's more harmful, but inevitably there are some dilemmas where no shared position can be had and hence no moral agreement or system can function.

When we cannot agree about what's more harmful, morality breaks down. If we were slave-gladiators set to fight to the death in an arena, would you forgive me for not agreeing that your life is more valuable than my own? :D

There are two huge areas of fuzziness that I think cannot be resolved.

The first is whether the harm is the expected harm or the actual harm. All sorts of confusing situations arise in which one sets out to be kind but accidentally causes pain, and vice versa. One can try to dispel this by talking in terms of expectations, but further problems arise with that. — andrewk

This is one type of dilemma not eliminated by my razor butter knife, but deciding how to deal with these cases is not always a problem. Some people might like to debate what levels of risk of harm to others we should tolerate, and environmental factors (such as the risks posed on a space station) also seem to alter what levels of risk we might or should be willing (or capable) of living with. The only heuristic here is to ask if the degree of risk and the severity of the potentially harmful ramifications are low enough to be acceptable.

The second is what does it mean to 'cause' harm. It may be that my decision to buy magazine X rather than magazine Y is the last straw that breaks the back of struggling magazine Y, which then folds, its editor suicides and her family is plunged into misery. Causes are a very fuzzy concept to try to pin down to something as clinical as a razor. — andrewk

Not all forms of harm are immoral, but all forms of immorality are harmful. Probably the best answer I can give to this tricky dilemma using my razor is that this kind of harm is the justifiable kind. After all, it's not as if the business failures of an entire company can be morally pinned on a single discretionary consumer. And it's also true that in our free market society we need ineffective companies to fail because we want companies which perform desirable services. If not buying a magazine can be construed as harm through inaction, it seems eminently justifiable as it would be equal and opposite the harm of purchasing an unwanted magazine.

I'm not willing to discount the possible immorality of inaction, but this particular example isn't quite there. Keep in mind though, this kind of inaction dilemma can also be wielded against most moral frameworks. But the strength of this razor isn't that it solves dilemmas, it's that it simplifies them. In the case of risky behavior or chance of direct or indirect harm, it clarifies what's being wagered against what, and in the case of harm through inaction it applies same as it would to most other dilemmas: "what's the harm, and is it justifiable?".

When we weigh one harm against another to see what's justifiable (along with environmental context), unless there's a clear and simple answer moral arguments of this kind descend into uncharted complexity. Ask someone if they think the 1/30k chance of dying in a car crash (along with the possible risk of killing other people) makes driving in cars immoral or too risky and they will likely tell you no. Ask someone if they think the far more likely chance of dying in a car while DUI makes it immoral or too risky, and they will likely tell you yes. Basically this implies that there's some in-between where inherent risk becomes marginal if it's statistical likelihood is acceptably low (a subjective thing; the classic moral paradox of trading freedom for security) or perhaps if the severity of the outcome is acceptably minimal.

To repeat, I agree with the OP as a broad moral principle, but I don't see it as a razor because it will still leave lots of dilemmas and contrary outcomes. — andrewk

Maybe I'm giving it too much credit to call it a razor, but I do think it is an often forgotten and often required heuristic to simplify moral conundrums. I do agree it leaves many or even all dilemmas intact, but it also shaves away quite a bit of fat that gets in the way of answering them with persuasive power.

I wasn't giving an entire quantum theory of mind, I was explaining how appealing to quantum mechanics to justify claims of free will are inherently flawed: it's because randomness does not equate with freedom.

Emergent properties are in fact determined by lower levels. The lower level complexity is why we consider it emergent.

The separation has to do with the lower level complexity through which higher level phenomenon are created.

Explaining free will in terms of Quantum Mechanics is a category error, because Psychology doesn't reduce to Physics. — Galuchat

Doesn't it?

What do you suppose it reduces to?

Metaphysics?

*stares off into empty space*

P.S, I wasn't explaining free will in terms of QM, i was refuting it in terms of QM.

First of all, you're right, we don't have true free will. Our minds are thinking machines which are governed by physical processes. Technically we cannot be absolutely sure this is the case (the no true free will bit), but the evidence for it is overwhelming (I.E: brain damage alters decision making/personality). It's an infinite regress that goes back to the big bang.

Quantum mechanics tells us that when it comes to the (far as we can tell) most fundamental particles that exist (i.e: an electron), they behave in a probabilistic fashion which may or may not be a truly random factor which can interfere with the linear progression of the causal universe. However, even if this is the case, at best we can only hope for random behavior in our most fundamental parts trickling upward through the mechanics of the brain to provide variation in conscious behavior and human will. This isn't free will as we normally envision it, but rather a will informed by randomness. Such a random will might be undetermined by Newtonian physics, but it IS determined by quantum mechanics. So yes, it's quite accurate to view our actions as a collection of prior causes.

What this means is that criminals aren't themselves the original cause of their crimes, and therefore should not be held inherently guilty. Likewise the virtuous aren't themselves inherently the cause of their own virtue. This doesn't change the fact that we still need to take action against criminals if we want to live in a criminal free society, and that we still need to go through the process of studying how to be virtuous if we want to live in a virtuous society.

One reaction I often see to this brand of determinism is something like: "Well if everything is predetermined then why don't I just sit here on my couch instead of going to the ball game?". The answer is that the results of the ballgame are totally unpredictable by anyone, so it's exciting to go and find out. Sitting on your couch forever might be what's determined to happen, but you cannot possibly know that until it happens to you. Maybe it's determined that you will become the person of your dreams, and the only way to find out is to actually try and see. Because it is impossible to predict future choices, it makes no difference from our perspective whether or not those decisions are predetermined. In other words, it's a useless fact. Fate and destiny might exist but we have no advanced access to it.

So we have the complete illusion of free will and mostly need to behave as if we have it if we want to get the things we're predetermined to want, but this understanding is only really useful as motivation to look under the surface when trying to understand human behavior rather than chalking everything up to simply broad internal characteristics.

In light of Russia admitting spetnaz involvement pre-referendum, annexation might be a fair word regardless of what the Crimean population actually wanted, but I still wonder how much of the west's vigorous condemnation of this move is built around self interest rather than sympathy for the Crimean's loss of sovereignty.

It wasn't. There wasn't anything like a real referendum, such as what the Scots had. Before Russia made its play, there wasn't even much of a separatist movement there; it was just a sleepy and neglected province, more-or-less content to eke out a living from Russian and Ukrainian summer vacationers. But once the invasion got under way, local authorities toppled, Ukrainian media shut down and the propaganda of fear and patriotism revved up, I think it is plausible that most of the population would have voted to join Russia. But they weren't even trusted with their voices. — SophistiCat

I'm not saying this isn't the case or even out Kremlin-character (the degree of Russia's involvement pre-referendum), but I would like to see evidence as to the extent before I entirely discount the "democratic" narrative RT and it's echo chambers have stuck to.

What concerns me I guess is that both sides seem to care less about the Crimean people than they do about getting what they want and spiting the other, so I'm often left not knowing who's account contains more deceit.

If that were so, Russia would've been happy for Ukraine to have Crimea: that battery is shelling their own! Now and in the foreseeable future Crimea is a drain on Russia's resources. And I am not just talking about the international sanctions. — SophistiCat

What interest could Putin have in Crimea if not economic? Oil and natural gas (and it's increasing scarcity), is to my knowledge what gives the Russian economy it's strength, and so keeping it out of the hands of economic competitors becomes increasingly valuable while the cost of oil extraction rises. This means Russia gets to sell even more oil and at an even higher price in the long run, doesn't it?

One of the most difficult pieces of the puzzle is actually taking into account the real world as it exists. Different situations and states of affairs in the world (such as resource scarcity) might make different economic theories more or less effective (and moral one's too if you think about it).

Like many moral dilemmas, the most satisfying answers come from looking directly at specific situations where as many factors as possible can be eliminated (which simplifies the questions).

First try to understand the world you're in, as it is necessary if you want to draw global conclusions regarding economic and moral theory. For now it's enough to have a solid understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the various theories you encounter, you don't actually need to hammer a stake into one.

Getting screwed by a world-class villain feels every different than getting screwed by a clown. The villain makes you feel good about yourself, but with the clown things just get weird.

When it comes to "Trump's agenda" I wouldn't be so quick to assume that he even has one beyond securing his own legacy. He is seemingly willing to entertain just about any idea. When the military comes to him with a risky operation they're rearing to execute, Trump will give the nod. If the Republican party could come with a coherent set of asks for medical insurance reform or other bills, he would happily put his name on it (like so many pieces of real-estate he doesn't actually own). It seems like he will do whatever he thinks people will love him for. The only solid promise he actually made was to build a wall, beyond that he's a political and ideological hurricane.

At least the world-class villain operates with precision so as to not risk binging the entire house down...

That said, America needs electoral reform and a shake up of the two party system more badly than ever, so I'm actually grateful for Trump because he just might irreparably damage the corrupt status quo of contemporary Washington politics. It's risky but I'm ready to roll those dice.

Tact.

It's a courtesy that politicians keep their sloven corruption thoroughly closeted. We're already being physically and mentally fucked, we don't need to be emotionally fucked too.

If you lose enough money at a Casino they treat you real good. Not because they feel bad for you, but because they don't want you to hold it against them.

I don't believe Trump would sell out American interest for Russia, but I do believe he would sell out on American interest if it's in his own interest.

:D

EDIT: Ideally we side with the Crimeans. This is one of those points in the narrative that both sides play fast and loose with, which is why I find it interesting.

Clearly both sides just want Crimea to be a part of their economic batteries and not the other's.

annexation of Crimea isn't accepted. — ssu

I'm curious if calling this an "annexation" is actually fair. If the Crimean people really wanted to be Russian and voted for it, should we really feel so bad for Ukraine that we tell the Crimeans they aren't allowed to join Russia?

Whether or not their referendum was representative seems a relevant question.

I always knew my life was empty, but I didn't know why until I saw the opening scene of 2001. I was born to dance around a monolith, to do it's bidding, and embrace it's glorious boons.

Oh! Heh, I thought you thought my suggestion itself was sarcastic!

To be honest I'm not quite sure if sarcasm is the right word for this scene. This movie definitely has people taking themselves far too seriously, but it's hard to tell how far out it is by Japanese standards.

I looked into japan and sarcasm, and it turns out that it's harder to pull off because unless you're the social equal or better, then being sarcastic can be considered rude.

That said, in the scene I linked, I'm almost positive that he apologizes to the pork completely un-ironically and un-sarcastically! (tis a serious metaphor for love me thinks).

Up until now all the Trump shenanigans have been not illegal. Not releasing personal finances and being a moron as a president are totally above board, even though the former ought to be.

If he did tell the FBI director to shut down an investigation pertaining to his own election campaign, that's blatantly a conflict of interest. This is compounded by the fact that Trump then fired FBI director Comey and took full credit for it on national television.

Trump says: Shut down the investigation.
Comey says: No.
Trump says: You're fired and that's 100% my decision.

Their either need to prove that trump demanded Comey end the investigation, or that Trump fired Comey because he would not end the investigation, as far as I understand it. (conflict of interest + obstruction of justice)

It's not easy to prove intent in either case as he can walk back the allegedly obscure language ("I hope you can drop this Russia investigation") and he has plausible deniability provided by the Justice Department and some other source who advocated he fire Comey (while he did take credit for the decision on T.V, he can always defer to the reasoning of the advice he claimed not to have acted on).

But I'm starting to think that Trump might finally be showing signs of wear. Rather than endure extended investigation and opposition from all sides (now more than ever) he might want to save face and go down as an undefeated legend by resigning. It gives him his freedom, he can keep on with his MSM lies and hate angle, and America is spared the investigation and can try to recover and reform in the next election, hopefully having learned several sore lessons.

I'm interested to see what a Trump resignation or impeachment could do for reform movements within both major parties and maybe even for a third party. Once the American people see first hand how nauseating a daily circus becomes, they're going to crave seriousness, consistency, and depth.

TL;DR: I'm hoping that the failure of the Trump presidency is going to be like an old-school father forcing their child to smoke an entire pack of cigarettes in one sitting to instill a deep seated sense of disgust for them. Personally I'm not above the use of such corporeal punishment if the behavior we're trying to stem is harmful enough. More Trump... MORE!

Any movie that makes you think might be fit for the philosophical category. It makes commentary on human nature and evolution for sure. It's not extremely philosophical (indeed it's a psychological story) but I think it is satisfactorily so.

Pandorum is very under-rated! (even though the other movies are better cause hollywood budget chicanery)

Remember to let me know what you think of it!

Yea you're right, Tampopo isn't quaint. It deals with the most philosophically piercing questions known to man!

P.S: I know that you're looking for the most philosophical movies, but I also know you're looking for satisfying philosophical movies. When I tried to think of a satisfying philosophical movie to suggest, all the ubiquitous candidates fell away and Tampopo jumped out at me as the most memorable. As a film with such humble philosophical aims, it's able to achieve masterful delivery.

A woman sets out to learn to cook the perfect bowl of ramen noodles...

Have you ever seen it?

This is far from a top philosophical movie because it's subject matter is quaint, but "Tampopo" (1985) is a film that somehow satisfied me more than any other overtly philosophical movie I can think of.

It's about life, love, and joy from a Japanese perspective, through the lens of food.

Here's one such quaint but satisfying scenes:

The best label I can find for myself is agnostic soft atheist...

People are beginning to drop the R and I words on a daily basis it seems (resignation and impeachment)...

Even before Trump and Hillary won their respective nominations, I figured that Trump was the only hope for Hillary to actually get herself elected...

I wanted Trump to win though, because I predicted that if he did win then it would only be so long before his entire administration comes crashing down under the weight of his ridiculousness..

Remember how ridiculous the campaign was? Well it's gotten steadily more ridiculous, and this is not sustainable :)

My long term hope was that if America can actually impeach Trump or shame him into resignation that the next time around people people will be so fed up with the circus that actual reform have get a chance to get off the ground.

I for one feel entirely unvictimized. A much better tune. — Wosret

How dare you marginalize my lived experiences!?

Heh... All I really want is for the ad-hom laden contrarians of the world to at least try to put some substance into the mud they sling...

Is that really such a lofty expectation?

I hope she decides to stay long enough to explain to me how the thousands of words I've written in this thread in defense of transgenderism is really just prurient speculation and argumentative trollishness unleavened by basic facts or empathy.

The original post brings her up but fails to actually link an article or explore it. You can say her post is perhaps justifiably directed at Interpersona, who reacted to "a talk" of hers without adequately addressing her ideas, but all I've really done in this thread is defend transgenderism from attempts at moral condemnation.

I don't need to read anyone's article to criticize the ideas Interpersona raised...

You claim to have read the entire thread (which I don't believe), and you claim all of our opinions are horrible, but you haven't actually said anything or addressed anyone. Your comment reads as: maybe you should read my article before you prurient speculators force your stupid and reprehensible opinions on other people. Why do we need to read your article? Are you the central authority on transgenders?

Since you've not differentiated between any contributors to this thread, please tell me which aspects of my contributions were in anyway less than accurate or offensive.

I reckon I dislike post-modernism, but I don't always begrudge them the relativity and subjectivity in certain kinds of truth. Although in a lot of cases (especially where science has anything to say) this kind of thrust seems dogmatic and unwarranted. Many post-modernist rejections of certainty take different approaches to the relativity of truth, and perhaps some of them are onto something, but when this is misapplied all you get is the destruction of perfectly useful truth. "Race is a social construct" for instance is neither accurate nor useful, and it by definition discards the genetic reality that modern science holds as the objective differences between races. While it's true a specific distribution of genetic traits exists on a spectrum (i.e: the genetic trends of characteristics which delineate ethnic groups), to ignore that ethnic gene-pools do have different characteristics is to ignore reality.

Obscure language doesn't annoy me so long as meaning is not also obscured. I can deal with words I need to google, but I am severely annoyed when I need to both google words and guess what their intended use is due to vagueness and ambiguity.

I would gamble on instilling critical thinking skills and a generally clear portrait of the world they're about to grow up in.

If we can just get them started on the path to self-learning and development, and give them as much of a head start as possible, maybe they'll surpass us all.

How to make a child into a good thinker is tricky... Trick them into thinking that learning is fun, or at least show them that the product of learning is desirable?

This essentially amounts to positive and negative belief, which are poles I consider equal, so I don't see any veracity in your argument here. — Noble Dust

There's a difference between belief (in existence or non-existence) and lack of belief.

You keep referring to the atheist worldviews and atheist philosophy, but they don't exist. An atheist world view is whatever world view an atheist happens to hold, which is limited only to anything other than "believes god exists". Atheist philosophy is any philosophy not founded on belief in god.

That's really what I've been trying to argue against all along against your views, in this context. Actually, I'm not even sure anymore why this even matters. Basically, you're insisting on the absolute apophatic nature of atheism as it's given, and I'm saying "yeah, but so what? An apophatic belief assumes a cataphatic belief." So, tied into this position is an assumption that apophatic belief is not an evolution of cataphatic belief, just a side of a larger form of belief. So that would mean atheism and theism are sides of a coin, not linear phases (cataphatic to apophatic). Given all that, I do place some emphasis on apophatic belief in general, which may cast an ironic light on our discussion in general. — Noble Dust

Atheism isn't apophatic in nature because it doesn't claim to gain any knowledge about god through negation. Rejecting arguments, evidence, and reasoning for god's existence is not the same as claiming to know something about god through negation; it's claiming to know nothing about god: it's lacking belief. An absence of evidence for god is not evidence of the absence of god.

I have no atheist beliefs... Only lack of theistic beliefs, which makes me therefore an atheist... Why am I an atheist? Because of my rejections of theistic beliefs and my possession of agnostic beliefs (which pertain to the knowability of god, not whether or not I therefore believe).

Is this really the case in general, or just the case for someone like yourself who takes such pains to make these distinctions? And if the latter, how much do the distinctions matter within an atheist (sorry, a secular humanist..?) worldview? — Noble Dust

It's really the case in general, but the distinctions generally only matter when we're trying to explain what we believe, don't believe, and why, to other people.

No, no. Doubt applied to atheism could lead to theism. Or pantheism, for that matter. Or a more profound atheism. Surely this is obvious. Doubt just means questioning what you know to be true, in a philosophical context. Lack of doubt leads to fundamentalism, always. You're a smart cookie; don't fall prey to this tendency. — Noble Dust

For me and most atheists atheism is the statement that "I don't have knowledge or belief of or in any god(s)". How do I doubt that? I do have knowledge? Post-modernism is a rejection of knowledge, which is why the post-modernist expression of atheism usually takes the form of theological non-cognitivism.

But they represent arguably the first instance of atheistic philosophy taking on the world stage in an epochal context. This isn't to say that atheistic philosophy can't try again and become more robust. — Noble Dust

Give me a single solitary example, just one tenet will do, of so called "atheistic philosophy" that represents Stalin's Russia or Hitler's Germany. Stalin wasn't a secular humanist, and Hitler was a Christian along with his entire army: they weren't informed by atheism.

If secular humanism is what you were referring to though, then if you happen to live in a western first world country just take a look around you. The secular society you enjoy with modern laws informed by progressive moral standards is the product that rationally follows from my robust worldview. So far it's been more successful than any other set of basic principles in human history.

What's the difference? — Noble Dust

One is zealotry without understanding and the other would be an actual implementation of the ideals which founded the bolshevik party.

Ridicule should be reserved for intimate human relationships. If, for instance, you find yourself ridiculing a philosophy forum member, I'd advise you to consider what you're doing before you act. And, as much as I dislike Ted Cruz as much as you do, I would even say you should think twice before ridiculing a politician who is not a personal acquaintance of yours. Ridicule within the context of an online forum or the media's portrayal of a political figure that is fed to you is ultimately just projection and caricature, respectively. There are already too many crusaders who feel themselves to be uniquely enlightened who are clogging the airwaves with their ridicule of the Ted Cruz's and the Obama's of the world. We could do with less ridicule and more positive language; more positive philosophy; more positive spirituality; more positive religion, more positive atheism. — Noble Dust

I don't ridicule people, I ridicule ideas and beliefs, but with that said, there's a balance between ridicule and the salient criticisms contained within the ridicule which makes it more or less effective.

If I make fun of Trump's hands, then I'm getting nowhere and persuading nobody worth persuading. If I make fun of Trump's business failures and utter lack of experience, that's something else entirely. Not all ridicule is warranted, in my opinion it must contain valid criticism and be for a purpose. Lampooning corrupt politicians is highly honorable in this tradition.

Nowhere physically; and at no particular point in time. And there's no promise of any payment. Spiritual value is primary. So none of this analogy works in any way. — Noble Dust

So for me pain and pleasure are primary, and for you spiritual value is primary. Are you sure that spiritual value isn't a composite of emotional and intellectual pleasures?

But maybe you missed the moment when the clouds part and the sun shines through? Or maybe the stars? (Just drop it, I can do this all day, and it doesn't actually prove any point for either of us. I'll just keep doing it for the sheer fun). — Noble Dust

I'm still trying to explain my points to you, proving them comes afterward. My argument for atheism comes in the form of rebuke and rejection of theistic arguments. My argument for empiricism and comes in the form of science (generally). My argument for humanism comes in the form of existential value derived from pain and pleasure as a primary values. My argument for secularism is a combination of all three of these things: It's observable and demonstrable that secular societies better promote desirable moral values (we can discuss these) more effectively than theocracies.

Unless you've got proof of god up your sleeve my atheism is not at risk. Unless you've got the key to ultimate spiritual pleasure or some game changing primary value above and beyond pain and pleasure, my humanist values are beyond reproach. Unless you've got a vision for a society not partially founded on spiritual freedom (including freedom from spirituality; secularism) then I'm not about to erect any altars.

Ah! I too live in a mud hut, and I too am living!

I'm not sure how to interface with your analogy, because I don't feel I'm living in either a mud-hut, or an ivory tower. I think I grew up in the tower, spent some time in the mud-hut, and am now a gipsy, roaming abroad. What my final home will be is not of much concern to me right now. Perhaps I have none.

Maybe you should call your mud hut an igloo? A mud hut will definitely wash away easily, despite your admonitions that it won't. An igloo can withstand the cold of a God-less world! It's just your style! — Noble Dust

Metaphor and analogy are somewhere in-between poetry and prose, I figured it would help you to interface with my ideas since there is some persistent confusion.

So let's say you're a wanderer and run with that. If bad weather comes where do you take shelter as a gypsy? Do you camp out in the nearest shelter? To dispense with the metaphor, do you have any consistent foundation for your moral beliefs?

You may have only room for those three guests, but they could just as easily decide to leave, and I could easily recommend new guests for you! Guests who would give a different turn to your mud-hut social life. (See? I really can do this all day. I'll take it to the point of ad absurdum purely for my own entertainment). — Noble Dust

I was hoping that you would attack these positions so I could demonstrate how robust they are. Which additional positions would you recommend which wouldn't fit in with them?

I dunno, I would venture to say that everything is interdependent of everything else within the history of ideas. Unless you're of the persuasion that real, divine inspiration can occur, where something totally new cuts through the clouds... — Noble Dust

The question is really what meaningful interdependence do these ideas have (in my mind or in history)? We could probably find a common cognitive predecessor between ancient Greek stoicism and modern hipsterdom, but I don't expect the connection to necessarily mean much.

I tentatively agree with this concept and don't consider it to be particularity atheistic. But all of that said with some caveats as well. — Noble Dust

It's not particularly atheistic, but if you want to find a shared contributor between atheism, secularism, and humanism, that would be it.

The direct cause of (my) atheism isn't an idea upon which it is founded, but rather a failure of the ideas and arguments upon which theism is founded.

I am not a Nietzsche expert (The Gay Science has been traveling around with me in my backpack for some time now, waiting to be read), but it seems to me, from reading a lot about Nietzsche, that it's often forgotten that he actually said "God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers?" It doesn't seem like it was a triumphant atheistic statement of liberation. — Noble Dust

Why should the failure of theism causing moral quakes be considered a triumph for atheism? Remember, atheism isn't a set of beliefs, nor is it a "team". If theists share something in common because they believe in X, atheists don't necessarily share anything in common at all beyond lacking belief in X. Secular progressive morals and ideas were the eventual triumph, the death of god was it's beginning.

Perhaps, but post-modernism also was not beneficial to religion (Christianity, generally, in the west), either. I grew up with the notion that subjectivity and objectivity can't be reconciled to one another, and that objectivity always trumps subjectivity, thanks to a 40-years-late Evangelical obsession with fighting ever so valiantly against the notion of "subjective truth"....

...But that's just why post-modernism was beneficial to atheism. Atheism, like any worldview, requires a rigorous (or robust, as you say) critique of itself, if it's to continue to be a viable view for people. Why do you think Christian theology has survived for the past 2,000 years? Veracity. Indeed, atheism and Christianity both equally needed the challenge of post-modernism. Post-modernism, for all it's pastiche, panache and bullshit, is hugely a positive force in the evolution of human consciousness. It's an apophatic evolution; a negative evolution. The next step is to rid ourselves of it's shell with grateful hearts. — Noble Dust

Remember to separate secular humanism out from atheism here, as the former is the world view while the latter is in most cases a lack of world view. Perhaps post-modernist doubt can benefit secular humanist thought structure by forcing it to become more robust, but doubt applied to atheism has nowhere to go but to recede from the very language it is framed in (theological non-cognitivism). A theist might expect that doubt applied to lack of belief should lead to positive belief, but such a double negative of doubt is something else entirely...

But Stalinist Russia, and to some extent, Hitler's Germany were atheistic political endeavors, the disasters of which informed the disillusionment of the post-modern movement. Hell, even the soft-religiosity of the American nuclear family contributed to this disillusionment, and probably just as profoundly. I'm not specifically accusing atheism of spawning post-modernism, I'm trying to suggest that all sorts of things, including atheism and religiosity (the nuclear family, for instance), enabled post-modernism. I'm no post-modernist myself, but I often think it gets a bad rap for how unintelligible it is. But it's actually a movement that makes utter perfect logical sense, given the direction the world has moved in within the past 100 years. Unintelligibility was the next logical step of the competing strands of thought that met after the 2nd world war ended, and ended with such an existential swan song (or so it seemed). And the unintelligibility of "fake news" is the perfect logical next step. It aligns perfectly with the unintelligibility of post-modernism. Fake news doesn't miss a beat; rather, it was the next moment for us; it was obvious. — Noble Dust

You're drawing comparisons that use very broad conceptualizations. Stalinist Russia and Hitler's Germany hardly represent atheism to any extent. Hitler's Germany was Christian (not that they were driven by it), and Stalin's Russia was driven by bloody internal oppression in the name of communist ideals (in the name of, but not based on the ideals of). It's fair to link a decline in religiosity to atheism, but atheism founded on an empirical rejection of theist evidence (a scientific attitude) is precisely what post-modernists inherently reject. Cultural relativism appears as the moral result of post-modernism, which is quite far from secular humanism.

Fake news creates an air of unintelligibility but it's different than the post-modern variety: one is outright deception creating doubt in specific facts while the other is based on a rejection of reason. It's a product of social media and the internet, not post-modernism.

I don't see a grudge as being morally praiseworthy in any context. A grudge suggests harm done to one party by another, thus eliciting the grudge. The proper, moral way to deal with harm is not to perpetuate the harmful act itself through lambasting and lampooning (a sort of retaliation that places the harm back on the perpetrator; thus, a form of the perpetuation of the bondage to "The Other"; a form of oppression in it's own right). I'm not wise enough to say exactly how grudges should be dealt with, but I can at least see far enough ahead (and reference my own experience) to intuit how they shouldn't be dealt with. Of course, I hold my own personal grudges, I just don't hold one against the actual Christian teachings that I grew up with. — Noble Dust

Well by grudge what I mean is that if I hold a particular person to hold an immoral belief or position (especially when they think it's moral), then I attack their position. The grudge is shorthand for moral condemnation on my part. Ridicule, which is almost always a far lesser harm than the harm of the position I'm attacking, is only the tassel on the spear. When I hear someone say "we should carpet bomb the middle east" I actually think it's worthwhile to yank down their emotional, intellectual, and moral pants, especially where others can see. It's a learning experience for the observers, and a rehabilitative one for the sorry bastards who crumble at the sight of their own reflection.

This sounds more like a projection of your own experience unto the idea. I personally have had the opposite experience; I've found deeper and more meaningful spiritual concepts through the abandonment of the strict religious environment I grew up in. — Noble Dust

It was Nietzsche's projection first, but losing religion isn't the same as having god die. Until you lose your willingness to entertain (tentatively believe in) a spiritual notion of god, and have it be the basis for your existential/moral views, the old coot is still kickin. It sounds as if you have an expanded conception of god, not a dead one.

But what value do those real things have? How can value be predicated within the realm of the value itself? The value of currency, for instance, is (or was) predicated on the value of gold or silver, or whatever, not on the value of the paper that the money itself is made of. And now, we live in a world where paper money has no referent, which I think is analogous to the idea of an atheistic worldview with no spiritual referent. So again, it comes down to either spirituality or nihilism, with no room for anything in between. A meaningful atheism based on robust concepts of pleasure and pain is in this context analogous to the currency we currently use: paper printed by the government that has no actual value in and of itself; it's value is descended from former value, and not predicated on actual value. — Noble Dust

Pain and pleasure have intrinsic value: eat a chocolate bar or drop a T.V on your foot if you require demonstration of this. Emotional pain and pleasure have values as well. You're saying that pain and pleasure are fiat currency, but they're actually the base units of physical, psychological, and emotional well-being.

Even with American fiat, it's value is based on people's willingness to trade it for labor and commodities, and the value of those labor and commodities is determined by the amount of pain and pleasure (to put it roughly) they represent/enable. Everything humans do is about satiating our internal drives toward whichever specific goal comes into focus, and we choose goals based on what we think can offer physical, intellectual, and emotional pleasure (or avoid pain).

Where and when do you cash in your spiritual promissory notes for real value? Are your spiritual beliefs not of intrinsic value (with intellectual and emotional components)?

Why not travel between the two altitudes? — Noble Dust

Once you've been to the top of so many towers, you've already seen a majority of the peaks; and clouds are just clouds: pretty and without function.

Yes, and the towers to heaven I scrutinize include the towers of atheists like yourself. — Noble Dust

Enter my mud hut: It boasts livability!

It doesn't wash away easily even though it's made of mud, but It's really small. I only have room for some basic principles like "observations contain data pertaining to the real world" and "I want to avoid excessive discomfort as a goal" and "cooperation is almost always universally profitable toward avoiding discomfort". I've got no room for any intellectual shenanigans of any kind in here, so I welcome your inspection!

So far in my life, my enjoyment of getting lost has been more aesthetic than scientific. I'm not concerned with being lost for the sake of finding scientific proofs that have veracity; I'm more concerned with the state of lostness. I'm a poet more than a philosopher, and I mean that honestly, not pretentiously. — Noble Dust

I can't fully imagine why you value being lost unless it stems from a deep desire to find your own way, and if so you might eventually find you need something sharp to cut through the underbrush. Empiricism is one such sharp implement.

More classical! More Rachmaninoff!

Ok. For me, the utility of this is pointless, you are better off using your time elsewhere. But hey, each to themselves. — TimeLine

A screamer is a screamer. A person who wants to deceive themselves and others will; look at holocaust deniers. There is no point to it, basically, and if you choose the intellectual realm, set aside the emotions and communicate with those that will actually hear you.

No matter what you say, if people refuse to listen or read what you are actually writing or saying because of their personal views and vendettas, they will not hear or see a word that you write. — TimeLine

It's certainly more tedious to intellectually engage with the emotional, but it's definitely possible; I've done it many times (sure, it's not always worthwhile or successful). The answer to persuading a screamer is either to undermine their emotion or wield a more persuasive argument.

That is not the way that I see it; I feel the story ameliorates the importance of the subjectivity of the individual, that the intentions within matter more than the practice of offerings or giving. "For you are so careful to clean the outside of the cup and the dish, but inside you are filthy - full of greed and self-indulgence!" Very similar to the Ring of Gyges parable. The result between the brothers proves this. — TimeLine

So the ring of invisibility the insignificance that Cain felt when god favored only Abel? That's what caused him to feel jealousy. The moral of the story is that jealousy corrupts, but within the story we also have god arbitrarily valuing the taking of animal life as an offering over the harvesting of produce as an offering. What's wrong with fruits and vegetables? By god's logic Cain could have killed Abel as an offering to god, and he might have been very pleased indeed. His real mistake was not telling god he did it all for Him.

When it comes to Cain and Abel, I'm O.K with the mainstream moral lesson (about jealousy) but in the interest of criticizing the divinity of the entire document, it's important for me to point out and ask "Hey, what's this bit about god preferring the taking of life as an offering over perfectly good fruits and vegetables?". This is quite related to my point about the Issac tale, the sacrifice of Jesus, and my point about old testament sacrifice in general. Blood is the currency of forgiveness. Which brings me back to my original point: why does god need blood to forgive in the first place? Is it some source of power? Magic? Is god Gargamel?

Is there an option to set up a poll such that If i select "no" for "are you religious" that I then don't have to select a religion?

(add Pastafarianism? :p )

To the contrary, one can crudely make a vague map as such: Protestantism -> The Enlightenment -> The Death of God (a seed of modern atheism)-> Modernism -> The World Wars -> Post-Modernism -> Our Current Epoch (including fake news, etc) (what exactly do we call ourselves now???)....What I'm saying is that these various factors: fake news, atheism, post-modernism, are related. They all can't properly exist without one another, historically and politically. — Noble Dust

Sure they are related in some ways, but each of these thing you have named represent vast and diverse swaths time and thought; they aren't very interdependent.

The protestant reformation was an internal religious schism that eventually culminated in 'The Thirty Years War' whose conclusion marked the end of war between European states driven by theological differences. It was during this time that the atlantic system (of colonial slavery) began to ensure a steady flow of goods to Europe while renaissance thought and art began to take shape (thanks to wealth). After the thirty years war the French in particular started trading enlightenment ideas (largely thanks to their books, newspapers, salons, and coffé houses which offered them the media to do it and the atlantic system which provided them the affluence and free time required), which eventually lead to the French revolution (Louis was too much of a fancy pants in the face of the french population who lived day to day). Perhaps here we're at the most relevant development in favor of atheism, which was the notion that authority to govern should come from the people being governed, not from a divine representative of god called a monarch. This is not atheism, but having it makes cultivating atheism much easier.

Nietzsche kicked off the modern era by announcing god is dead to indicate that Christian moral foundations needed replacement, and after a brief nihilistic affair, secularism was the result. After the first world war secular humanism emerged as a product of rational and ethical inquiry. It's noteworthy that secular humanism plays a role in enabling atheism, but it should be understood that secular humanism is a kind of moral foundation which functions without theological claims; atheists largely adopt secular humanism because it's one of the main moral foundations available to them. The second world war and the ensuing half a century did to modernism what early modernism did to religious belief: it marginalized it; post-modernism is born. "Post-modernism" is a term I don't like using because of how vague it is (does that make me a post modernist? Damn it.) but in regards to what we're discussing, it wasn't beneficial to atheism at all.

Atheism had been around and didn't need post-modernism mucking up and doubting it's structure; Atheism came under fire for being too certain. "Theological non-cognitivism" is born, which essentially states that all religious language is meaningless because it refers to experimentally non-existent attributes of non-existent and ill defined things. To even say "god" is to pretend that anything of meaning is being said at all, and so they reject all theological claims and positions (even the atheist lack of position) and refuse to even talk about it... (Stinkin post-modernists am I right?)

I'm not sure what you mean by "fake news", but if you're talking about the modern phenomenon, then you're not talking about run of the mill manipulation through propaganda. Manipulative propaganda really took off during and after the second world war when governments realized just how effective it was for keeping their citizens well ordered. Our media outlets have been intentionally and unintentionally lying to us for over half a century. Fudging numbers, ignoring truths, focusing on and magnifying specific half-truths, and appealing directly to the deepest emotions they're able to appeal to. The new fake news is a phenomenon where extremely emotionally appealing and extremely fabricated "news" is able to make an impact in our media channels thanks to social media technology offering instantaneous means of transmission without also inherently providing fact-checking and vetting functionality.

Fake news is basically sophisticated face-book trolling for cash or political influence. The uncertainty it creates might resemble post-modernism but in order to find a common factor/progenitor we need to go all the way back to the creation of mass media (the printing press), which simultaneously created our ability to share/refine ideas and our ability to manipulate those ideas through lies and lies of omission.

Atheism isn't tied in any meaningful way to post-modernism or to "fake news" though, whether we're talking about new fake news or regular old propaganda.

Maybe I spoke wrongly or didn't express my view adequately; to the contrary, I view "losing one's faith" as the potential for acquiring "true faith". If I can make one more criticism, it's that I'm always struck by the black and white, "either/or" mentality of so many ex-members-of-Christendom like yourself. I'd rather not presume to know why you respond the way you do, and why I respond the way I do (to being raised within Christendom). But I find so much wisdom in a passive approach that is so careful to lay no inherent blame on teachings, but only on teachers; this allows one to assess the teachings with less of a grudge — Noble Dust

Some grudges I enact because it's morally praiseworthy to do so. Take any religious lampoon I've ever hurled, and in it you will find a morally repugnant target of my abuse. Mostly I paint religion in grey scale or full color, but there are parts of it that merit the black (and some parts the white as well). Pacifism is only useful so long as it's reciprocal, and condemning people to hell because they don't share beliefs is far from pacifism in the realm of ideas.

On what, then? At this point I would be inclined to say "on nothing" (I mean that formally, not pejoratively). — Noble Dust

I think I can see why you have this inclination, but honestly ask yourself this question: "if a view is not founded in spiritual beliefs does that mean it must be founded on nothing?"

Of course not, but this is Nietzsche's whole point in declaring god dead. When someone with Christian or spiritual foundations for their moral and existential views suddenly becomes bereft of that spirituality, they therefore lose their existential and moral beliefs too and are left with nothing.

Religious belief and spirituality are first constructed from nothing in a human mind, and generally it's all that mind will ever know in terms of existential belief. Non spiritual beliefs are similarly constructed from nothing as a starting point, but they do base themselves in real things. "I think therefore I am" and "pain and pleasure are real (and have inherent value)", are some basic facts upon which non-spiritual moral and existential views can be founded.

This to me speaks presciently to the untranslatability of your empiricism to my intuition. My view on that is best illustrated by my first response in this post. Do you at least see how me saying this is not at all an avoidance of your argument? We're both literally speaking different languages here, languages we seem to find satisfying enough to stake our claims on. — Noble Dust

I can understand where you're coming from, but don't hold it against me for defending my laboriously constructed (from nothing) existential and moral views (and my criticisms of some other moral views).

Getting lost in a forest of ideas is indeed enjoyable and perhaps necessary for intellectual development, but personally after spending so much time inside of it, I've become more interested in bushwhacking my own trails and setting fires where I think the forest could use some regeneration. For me the most enjoyable part of going to a new place isn't the being lost part, it's the process of discovering the whole.

I can honestly say that I very much appreciate this advice; not only because it's something that I've used as a metric for myself in the past, but because it's also a finicky standard that my desire for something ultimate often falls prey to because of it's inherent motive. Indeed, "if it really is an ultimate force, it can take it." As you say. Did you mean to hit on the very core of my philosophy here??? — Noble Dust

I didn't realize it would resonate so strongly with you, but I can very much relate to it myself. The perfection of an extraordinarily robust idea or belief fascinates me like flame fascinates a moth. I have spent a lot of time looking to find some, and so far I've been able to collect a handful of useful ones (i.e, the validity of pain/pleasure, the strength of empiricism, the reliability of reason). Compared to the ivory towers of divine existential purpose and moral authority, my moral and existential constructs appear as mud-huts which require constant maintenance. That's O.K though, because they do they job well and in reality I think require less upkeep than the great towers I grew up in due to their minimalism. From a tower the view is all clouds and mountain-tops, but down at the eroding shore you see everything up close in all it's confusing complexity. If you do inherently enjoy feeling lost, I'd bet that the unending challenges offered by scientific exploration would prove a source of much longer lasting value than the various top floors of the many metaphysical and ideological towers whose decorative spandrels give intrigue and purchase to those willing to climb them.

Scrutinize the living shit out of any tower claiming to have reached heaven. That's been my strategy for awhile now and so far they've all turned out to be babble.

What I am trying to say is that it is best to avoid that otherwise you look just as bad as the religious morons screaming insults before spouting the philosophy of love and virtue. You should see the PM's that I got :-# It is up to us to stand above the screamers who are really only defending their religious beliefs tooth and nail. — TimeLine

We're trying to do different things then I think: you aim to rise above the zealous and derive superior (rational in this case) moral value from scriptures, and I aim to descend into the intellectual realm of the harmfully zealous to confront them on their own terms; I aim to persuade them. I paint severe pictures because the intended audience is in a place where reason alone can be utterly unpersuasive. When I satirize and ridicule specific religious stories, traditions, and beliefs, I'm attempting to force people to think about content using discomfort as a driving force. It's about forcing people to answer questions they otherwise don't ask on their own because of the nature of their belief system (i.e, they marginalize and discard doubt).

It's not those invoking love and virtue that I address though (not unless they're looking to have their ideas tested), it's those who try to invoke (shitty (religious)) moral standards and wield them as if they're anything but plastic and abominable.

Comparatively, and upon reflection, you were angry and you missed my points on numerous occasions where suggestions that I never made were said to have been made, but you were never really angry at me, so I will have to agree here and apologise in a thankful way for your continuation of the conversation. But again, for instance the following: — TimeLine

...you're overly defensive because of your emotional love for Christianity? — VagabondSpectre


I do not want to say this again. I am not religious. I have no affiliation to Christianity and have never been to a church service. I appreciate the testimony of Jesus, but I see him as a man, a person who made sense to me and someone I respect for being capable enough to move my conscience. I have a high respect for some of the other prophets and saints in the bible too as their stories are beautiful, Jonah for instance, Joseph and the story between Solomon and Sheba. I read it historically but also analyse what the moral of the story is too and that is what I take from it.

Every person has the capacity to be genuinely moral people but history and religion has turned normal, moral nuances into mystical mysteries in order to solidify the highly imaginative illusions that the masses seems to rely on, but these are myths that take no literal place with me. People are not 'special' because they are trying to be good, in fact, religion intentionally creates moral hierarchies; being a virgin does not make you a saint just as much as meditating for a thousand days won't enable enlightenment, and these types of coded rules turn ordinary people away from believing they are capable of being moral because the suggestion is impossible to reach. That's bullshit. — TimeLine

Religion can also unintentionally imbue shitty moral standards into their mysticism which then poses a challenge to rational moral agents who would have people learn to wipe. Whether you are or aren't Christian (I'm well aware you're not religious) isn't really relevant though to what I've contributed to this thread, which is that there's a dark side to Christian love (yes I'm generalizing, but I'm doing so well within reasonable bounds).

My main concern in our discussion is to defend my moral critique of the damnation aspect in Christianity, so as you find me resisting your own interpretations of biblical scripture, keep in mind it's because I'm criticizing an interpretation that you evidently don't wield. And as I continue to accuse you of harboring love for Christianity, keep in mind it is in response to your continuous accusation that I'm harboring emotional hatred for it. I find many Christian tenets to be morally repulsive, disgusting, and even worthy of hate, but I've already become somewhat dispassionate in regards to how I feel about it.

That is a good point historically but Arabs were, so perhaps I will concede to the latter and the relationship between these "brothers" (Abraham is the father of monotheism) of different "mothers" (laboured a community) has always been rocky and distant. — TimeLine

You're trying to strain historicity from this, but why? Why not consult historical research? That said, historical/theistic genealogy isn't the take-away which concerns me, which should be clear at this point.

But, you can't call it the "Isaac parable" if you are interpreting it literally. Otherwise, it is no longer a parable. — TimeLine

Morally, metaphorically, literally, abstractly, historically, not at all: all are options for interpretation. My main target is the mainstream moral one, but if I can tag the other bases while I'm at it (even if only to reinforce my moral criticism), I'll do it.

It depends on where you are from; if I were a Yezidi girl, I would have been stoned to death by now. Giving unconditional love within within the restraints of social customs is the only way it is approved, but stand outside of that and you will be outcast and despised. It is easy to put on a 'show' of kindness, saying the right words, selecting the right approach by adhering to the right things that you know other people would appreciate, generally just putting on a false facade of goodness when the endeavour is solely to receive the love from others and not actually giving love, in the end there is never any actual reciprocation and thus they never actually produce anything. — TimeLine

I totally disagree. The more reliably you treat people as they want to be treated the more reliably they reciprocate. Such reliability is actually one of the virtues which causes us to place intrinsic value in the lives of those who display it. Surrounding one's self with reliable and moral people is both greedy and rational. There is indeed reciprocation. Yes some places have immoral customs, but reciprocation exists even in such places within whatever arbitrary bounds their customs mandate (usually customs which are religiously inspired and perpetuated I might note...).

It is exactly right but I personally have no use for the story apart from something like having faith in the promise. But with regards to geography and people, this is a historical approach of the time; when you read ancient texts, you cannot compare it with today but you need to understand how they viewed the world back then in order to facilitate a more accurate interpretation. — TimeLine

If we do go back to the origins of the story, we find a world in which human sacrifice was a known practice. Sacrificing things (offering them) to the gods for blessings is this ancient superstition that has existed for as long as humans have been stupid. That's the real meat behind the entire idea of sacrifice; that's why they do it. In the bible this idea is mainstay: first with livestock, then with Issac (but not in the end, as you say) and finally with Jesus himself. When I read the bible (around age 15) I couldn't understand why god wasn't pleased by Cain's sacrifice of fruits and vegetables but was very pleased with Abel's offering of dead animals; did Cain not work equally hard for his bounty? The answer can only be that to sacrifice a living thing is inherently a greater sacrifice (therefore worthy of more appreciation). Human sacrifice is therefore a greater sacrifice if we value human life more than animal life. The life of Jesus himself then becomes the greatest sacrifice of all. Christians spend a lot of time reflecting on the sacrifice that Jesus made so that we could be forgiven and it causes us to feel thankful to him for doing so, but they spend very little time asking themselves why they need god to forgive them in the first place, or why god needs a sacrifice in order to do actual forgiving.

Ancient belief systems are loaded to the brim with this kind of arbitrary superstitious baggage, and while they do manage to gather some useful moral positions, they also collect a whole lot of hooey. If you're looking to use reason to improve your morals, I recommend primarily using the non-fictional world because old world scripture only has so much to offer.

When people yell or raise their voice, they are either trying to beat the other person by being louder or they are subjectively fighting something unknown at conscious level. Calm down and be specific rather than make assumptions or generalisations. Say, the "Lutherans interpret such and such in this way" and others can easily respond to that. — TimeLine

Since I'm making a point about general Christian belief I have no option but to generalize to do so. You keep telling me to calm down and suggest I have been raising my voice, but why?

Do you feel as if I've been yelling?

When you eliminate the emotions, your disdain due to these former connections is gone and you can just read for the pure sake of reading, where you learn to make your own interpretations, rather than getting all pissed at what other people think. To do that requires one to become a rational, autonomous being. To be rational is someone with standards, the categorical imperative, the way in which you observe your own motivations and intentions and ensure objective clarity - autonomous - despite your feelings and emotions and the connections you have in both your past and present as you separate yourself and become the author of your own being or someone morally conscious where your sole motivation is to continuously will to improve yourself. — TimeLine

I feel like all I tried to do was make some jokes about god and the smurfs, and you've somehow been triggered into defense mode. You seem pretty sure that I'm filled with hate towards religion, but perhaps you're overly defensive because of your emotional love for Christianity?

You are quite simply fighting because you haven't cut your umbilical cord. — TimeLine

I think if we're honest, Timeline, as soon as the scissors came out of my bag you've been whaling at me in fear of having your own umbilical be cut.

— TimeLine

:’( Boys everywhere. I want a King Solomon. And no, I don't mean the actual King Solomon considering you seem to take everything literally, but a man who has wisdom. — TimeLine

It seems to me that 'boys' typically use ad hominem attacks to reinforce their non-existent arguments. You and I would never resort to such intellectual drudgery though, right?

I know. That is the point, it is my interpretation because I am completely removed from mainstream religion, I am completely removed from mainstream anything and in my own autonomy choose nothing but God and no, not a man on a cloud, not Jesus or the trinity, not whatever the heck people think, but reaching epistemically toward what is perfect. Through authenticity - that is, being downright honest to myself and eliminating all the illusions - my goals are ideals like virtue, righteousness, honesty, charity that I practice in real life in order to perfect. So, in Aristotelian terms I have transcended from the need for philia to the need for philesis by having a strong, emotional attachment not to people or institutions or communities, but solely towards the perfection of philia itself; thus my will or prohairesis is to only perfect love through my love of God which is, well everything and nothing. — TimeLine

So, you're defending biblical parables because you follow nothing but god (which is a placeholder term for "reaching epistemically toward what is perfect"?). How do you know epistemic perfection exists and that this is what you're reaching for? Why call it god?

Why do you feel the need to defend biblical parables and their mainstream interpretations if you're removed from mainstream religion?

Sorry buddy, but I am afraid I will disappoint because my interpretation is to view these stories as symbolic and not literal. I couldn't give a toss about how other religions interpret biblical referents. But if you want to discuss biblical hermeneutics independent of religion, than I am all for it. So geographical locations are often symbolically expressed through individual representations. — TimeLine

"Biblical hermenutics independent of religion"... Oh my... How does that work? Do we forget about everything religious and then abstractly interpret the texts however we want?

Sadly, the intent of the authors weren't independent of religion. You're treating it like poetry in whom you've found delightful subjective meaning... Good for you?

Geographical locations (I'm guessing you mean specific places in the holy land) are represented by people? Negative, the bible often talks about specific locations and even explains what they're called and why. If people are places, are places people?

The suggestion that Abraham is the father of the monotheistic religions implies that the lines of his progeny - Ishmael being a referent to Arabs or the Ishamaelites as their prophet Muhammad is a descendant of Ishmael and thus Ishmael represents Islam. Isaac being a referent to Israelites as they are decendents of Jacob, changing to Israel and thus the Israelites are references to Judaism. Isaac, being birthed really late by promise to Sara who represents the mother of good in comparison to the troublesome Hagar (troublesome Muslims?) and the "mother" represents a community of people, the fruits of ones labour, and as such the community is the promised land suggested to the Israelites who will live on through faith in God. The binding is a process historically used when slaughtering a lamb and a lamb represents innocence. — TimeLine

Holy fuck... :D

So the slaughtered lamb represents the death of the innocence of the Israelites? (or did they gain innocence that way)? Either way it doesn't make much sense because the Israelites didn't exist yet. What's more likely is that the lamb was intended as sacrifice which pleases god, much like how Abel pleased god by sacrificing livestock.

In the old testament those who please god earn god's love and blessings, and we please (and displease) god through sacrifice and submission (and no sacrifice and no submission).

Hagar definitely does not represent "troublesome Muslims" because they wouldn't exist for a thousand or more so years. Whoever wrote about Hagar certainly didn't know that one day Islam would form and then millennia later someone would find them troublesome.

But that said, God promised Abraham directly that his descendants would become as numerous as the stars and inherit the promised land. He didn't need to go through some weird "be willing to kill your own son" metaphor to elucidate on that promise.

So what I'm arguing here is that the original (and of course, mainstream) meaning of the text is vastly removed from your own interpretation. Whoever wrote it wasn't trying to say what you choose to take out of it. You're free to take whatever you want from it, and I won't condemn it unless I find it morally repugnant somehow (like the mainstream meaning of the Issac parable).

In the case of the Issac parable, the 'geographical interpretation' is pretty much nonsensical and everyone knows it's a story which demonstrates how Abraham was willing to put his own son to death because that's how much faith in god he had. It's a story about the moral supremacy of faith in god and that's the interpretation my original criticism applies to.

When Jesus said "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword," he is not talking about him bringing violence but that if you follow his preaching about finding your conscience and being loving, you will be outcast, ostracised and despised by the 'herd' or by conformists of any kind. You will run the risk of being persecuted and indeed the first several hundred years after Jesus' death there were many that turned to this preaching that were killed and persecuted. — TimeLine

You think having unconditional love for other people gets you persecuted or outcast from society? I don't. It makes people want to reciprocate; that's the golden rule.

But all you're really saying here is that by conforming to Jesus' teachings other conformists will persecute you. At the time that was certainly true, but it's not as if that means anything at all in today's world.

Foucault suggests that to bridge the gap of understanding between the reader and the author, you need to move closer to the language and intentions of the author rather rather than to force the text to conform to your own. You're creating your own meaning entirely. that's fine and all, but I don't know what's useful about the binding of Issac as a tale of innocence and geography.

I never said that. Hence the point of why it is impossible talking to you, just as much as it is impossible having a philosophical conversation with a drunkard. I said it is morality that leads to religion before it becomes corrupted by people, by codified rules and other institutional processes, infiltrated by the transferral of pagan rituals. But that has nothing to do with the bible. The statement that morality inevitably leads to religion is Kantian, hence the 'you know nothing about Kant' point. — TimeLine

It's impossible to talk to me because I committed a typographical error which you were able to notice?

Are you here to defend Kant or the "parabolic wisdom" in the scriptures? I'm still waiting for you to explain how my interpretation of the binding of Issac erred. Whether I know everything or nothing about Kant isn't what's being discussed and I refuse to chase your untamed geese. Explain to me what the moral wisdom in the Issac story is or at least trot out your own views.

Let me pace it down slower for you because clearly you are way too slow on the uptake. I agree that one should not follow a religion, but I don't agree that has anything to do with our ability to interpret the scriptures independent of religious influence. Jesus was a good guy. You are a moron. — TimeLine

If Jesus was such a good guy why does he intend to bring a sword to the world instead of peace? Why did he say the old testament law should still be followed? Why does he threaten non-believers or sinners (take your pick) with eternal damnation?

Please don't whip out some parabolic interpretation of hell to convince me that it's a helpful metaphor for self-disappointment or unhappiness or something equally silly. The religious ideas I address aren't the "hell is a metaphor" variety. If you want to feel like I'm attacking your personal Ideas, that's fine, but I'm attacking specific and mainstream interpretations of the Christian scripture.

If you don't want to follow a religion, why are you so prepared to fall on your quill in defense of "interpreting scripture independent of religious influence" in a positive way? Jesus was a good guy?

Is that your non-religious interpretation of Christianity? Is that your whole basis for objecting to my framing of old religious stories as substantively immoral?

You choose to read what you want, not what is actually being said and the language, tone, and attitude is so profoundly tiresome that I am almost confident that I could have a greater intellectual conversation with a bottle of tomato sauce — TimeLine

I read what's there, but you set your own standards: "God is the ultimate, the omnipresent, what we should aspire to by having faith in ourselves - that is, by not conforming or following by finding the will to autonomy and thinking for yourself"... So words like "suffer" is the unhappiness of being in a "hell" - a life lacking in moral consciousness - where the misery therewith is the "damnation" of never truly understanding the pleasures of the authenticity and autonomy of love.

I could probably (with some effort) try to navigate what you actually mean when you say things like "understanding the pleasures of the authenticity and autonomy of love" or God is aspired to through self-faith and not following or conforming, but why? If any of this has something to do with relevant interpretations of religious parables, do let me know. Your own personal Kantian Jesus is great - totally abstract love and a rejection of following and conforming to any morality but one's own rationally formed morality - but it's vastly removed from mainstream religion and the original point I happen to be ridiculing. Do you want me to go out of my way to start dissembling your (metaphysical?) belief systems and be your surrogate skeptic? Do you have any preference in humor? How dark do you like your satire?

If you're interested I have no qualms. Let's start with why you invoke god and religion in the first place: what benefit does that serve? If you want autonomy, then reason can give it to you in the same way it gives a good chess player autonomy in a chess game. If you want to promote love or a given moral value then just appeal to people's human emotions and explain to them how your moral positions (such as unconditional love for the other?) rationally promotes those values. Where and why does god need to come into the picture?

If you're not interested in making this a discussion about your personal moral or spiritual beliefs, then simply explain to me what the meaning of the binding of Issac parable is about...

You say:

I don't hate religion or the bible — VagabondSpectre


Before saying:

...these ancient and largely barbarous fairy tales — VagabondSpectre


That's just awkward. :-} — TimeLine

Just because I refer to something as a barbarous fairy tale doesn't mean I hate it. Hate is an emotional reaction, I'm making critical observations of scriptures and many of their mainstream interpretations.

Nope. Yet again, you fail to distinguish the difference between a hole in the ground and your nose. — TimeLine

I know you are but what am I? Teehee!

That explains a lot about why you are so angry. And one who has actually experienced life wouldn't chuck a childish fit and intentionally misinterpret what I say to suit his own ridiculous agenda. — TimeLine

My ridiculous agenda is to level criticism against a contemporary body of thought as it pertains to an ancient one. It's a very easy moral criticism to make in pointing out things like two she-bears mauling forty children to death because they ridiculed a bald man is a barbaric fairy-tale or that flooding the earth and drowning all humans because of sin is not only beyond fairy tale (yet people actually believe it) but is also morally repulsive in suggesting that death is what sinners deserve.

Listen, I know you don't like my irreverence, not too many people do, but I have the same right to it that you do to your reverence. What you call bastardization of Jesus' intentions I call what I was taught growing up. Like it or not pastors and preachers out there interpreting scripture at large do often make the interpretations which I'm specifically attacking. Hell as an existent place, Jesus as threatening to send you there, god as the one you should love above your own family, sinners who deserve to die: these are some of the actual ideas which I've attacked in this thread. Which of these do you think I've unfairly attacked?