No, I wouldn't consider Schopenhauer an atheist.

Haha okay!

What do you mean by the thumbs up lol? Thumbs up for what?

Do you include the scholastics and neo-scholastics in that assessment? — Aaron R

No, at least not all of them. St. Thomas Aquinas, or Augustine for example certainly don't turn God into an impersonal force. But Averroes does turn God into an impersonal force (first cause).

Which philosophers turn God into an impersonal force? — Aaron R

The Stoics, for example. Or Plotinus.

I wonder what anyone would have against the God of the philosophers. I like the idea of a God creating the world such that living a virtuous life would lead to flourishing as a human, and everything else is pure speculation. — anonymous66

Yes I obviously agree with God creating the world such that virtuous living leads to flourishing. The God of the philosophers is a phrase used by Pascal to represent what philosophers usually mean by God - something abstract, instead of Real that you can encounter right now. The Christian God for example is a personal God - you can have a relationship with God, indeed it's that relationship that makes all the difference. Whereas the God of the philosophers isn't a person - it's a "force" or something similar. The problem with that is that such a god means absolutely nothing to you in the end but an abstract concept - a story.

It is also ironic to note that well-established traditions usually give preference to apophatic expressions, i.e., basically agreeing with atheists regarding the shortcomings of language. — Mariner

I think the difficulty here is that there are many different paths advocated to getting mystical experiences, so many people don't know what to believe as true. For example, Buddhism advocates meditation, while Christianity advocates prayer and devotion. So the way of accessing mystical insight isn't clear - and for those who have never had any such experiences, they don't even know what mystical insight could refer to.

I'm an atheist simply because (1) I was never socialized into religion, and (2) by the time I learned about religious views in any depth, they struck me as completely absurd, and they've never stopped seeming so to me. — Terrapin Station

I'm sure you've heard of people who have had a sudden change of heart/personality - for example going from completely non-religious (of the militant kind) to religious. Or going from outright thug, gangster and mafia don, to upstanding member of the community. Or going from super-shy, agarophobic house-bound type to super-outgoing, friendly and social. Or from depressive, suicidal, don't wanna live another second, to completely in love with life and full of joy? What do you think accounts for such sudden changes if not a transcendental experience (or what participants would identify as a transcendental experience)?

By the way, just to illustrate that rationality/reason isn't all there is to morality. What's your position on the story of Abraham and Isaac? Was Abraham right to accept to sacrifice his son Isaac because God asked him to? This divine suspension of the ethical must be included in any real morality.

Kant' philosophy is about objective morality — TimeLine

That's the problem.

morality and compassion is merely a subjective experience — TimeLine

Exactly! But don't take this as relativism, it's not. Moral values are absolute, but they pertain to the subject not the object.

That is, we cannot verify whether your feelings of compassion are in anyway morally relevant; you could rape someone, and then feel compassion by them by helping them put their clothes back on. — TimeLine

Feelings of compassion are always morally relevant. Someone who - for instance - rapes someone and then feels sorry for the victim - has pangs of conscience - that person has a degree of moral consciousness left in him and can be redeemed. Don't forget Paul of Tarsus for example, who killed many hundreds of Christians before he redeemed himself through the grace of God. On the other hand the person who rapes someone and feels absolutely no compassion for the victim - that person is a son-of-a-bitch who deserves to burn in hell.

Morality can never be "verified" - except by God who knows what is in your heart. A person can live an outwardly perfect moral life - as verified by others - and yet be corrupt to the bone in the depths of his heart. Or he can be like me - a punk, motherf***er, son-of-a-bitch outwardly - and a compassionate person on the inside. External appearances are masks.

Objective Morality = Virtue Signalling

I wonder why you praise it so much.

autonomy. — TimeLine

Please. For 24 hours, don't use this word anymore >:O

Hence the 'fail to get it' bit... :-} — TimeLine

You got it smarty :P

Sarcasm is underlying hostility disguised as humour, a way to ward off someone who has historically failed to 'get it'. — TimeLine

Thanks for admitting you are hostile :D (Y) >:O

This 'realisation' that emerges as a revolution of character is still a conduct of thought and thus not beyond but rather a result of the faculties of cognition. — TimeLine

It's the result of the affective part of the soul, not of the thinking/rational part.

This identification with our conscience indicates a beginning of our autonomy and self-inhered responsibility to those in the external world where ethics becomes a practice. — TimeLine

Again the bombastic words. Dear God in Heaven. You just love talking about autonomy, rational agents, etc. don't you?

it is compassion with reason, not just some mystical gobbledegook where one can flout being compassionate without knowing why. — TimeLine

Sorry but this is so false. Compassion is ultimately without reason - without a why. If you have a why for being compassionate, then you're not really compassionate, you're just utilitarian. You're just being compassionate for a reason. That's like loving your child because he brings you money :s

Perhaps K was not prepared to be decisive for merely practical reasons; and was waiting until he could commit himself absolutely. Of course this waiting must have been cruel to R, so out of love for her he had to let her go in the end. — John

Well I think there's a bit of fabrication on the part of Osho there. K. decided to leave R. and not the other way around, but they were engaged at that time. So there was some commitment. There is a lot of speculation as to why K. broke off the engagement (an engagement which HE started).

I guess, as always, it is a matter of hermeneutics, but I would say the God of the Old Testament is a jealous God; deeply, perhaps pathologically, interested in human affairs. — John

The God of the New Testament is too. Hell is mentioned more often in the New Testament than in the Old. Many Jewish people don't even have much of an idea of hell. It's a popular idea that the OT is harsh and the NT is loving and kind, but it's not so black and white. The Revelation is likely a lot more brutal for example than anything in the OT.

To be decisive is not necessarily, or perhaps even often, to be wholly committed in the sense I was meaning, though. Decisiveness is often driven merely by practical considerations. — John

Check the two osho links above on decisiveness.

That entire post is a joke, right, and not a response to the problem of compassion? — Noble Dust

Well yes, because I take the question to be a joke too. I don't think I've been lacking compassion towards TL in our interaction here. Why would you think I have?

Simply calling her "sour bunny" doesn't mean I lack compassion.

http://www.osho.com/iosho/library/read-book/online-library-disintegration-kierkegaard-doubt-50aeb447-b83?p=29f22fe6b4f6c575b8ed4c38718e200f

https://livereal.com/psychology_arena/whats_the_problem/indecisiveness_osho.htm

These were both interesting thoughts, disregarding the lack of factual statements with regards to K.

So where exactly have you exemplified these characteristics of compassion here? — Noble Dust

Okay so let's see.

Soft - It's not hard, it doesn't press on you. — Agustino

Did I press against anyone?

Warm - It's like a warm feeling. — Agustino

I kept a nice and playful atmosphere.

Hot - It's intense. — Agustino

Definitely intense!

Tender - It's not harsh, it's gentle with you — Agustino

I think I was quite gentle, would you disagree? Look at this:

Clear bunny bunny? (L) — Agustino

At least she can feel she's in pink flying unicorn lala land surrounded by hearts now no? :p >:O


Yeahhhh - I kept it entertaining so TimeLine wouldn't get bored, you know. What's bad (or lacking in compassion) about that? Blame her, she started the dear creepy crust thing (jk) >:O >:O

But is that even possible if we are highly inquiring kinds of persons given to the love of free speculation? On the other hand perhaps integrity consists in holding everything absolutely open. — John

Well being inquiring is one thing, but being indecisive is another. I think indecisiveness is a problem - it means not being able to commit despite having (as much information) as possible / reasonable.

So, he did secretly believe in God (and not merely Spinoza's God) after all? — John

No but he appreciated the Old Testament view of God much more than the New Testament one so to say. A God not interested and largely indifferent to human whims and affairs - just like the God encountered by Job.

Yeah, sarcasm over, creepy crust. :s — TimeLine

Ok sour bunny ;) >:O

Define fellow-feeling? — TimeLine

Fellow feeling means being able to identify with others - their pains, suffering, etc. Fellow feeling emerges out of a - like you like to say - a metaphysical realisation that we're all one - or better said, we emerge from the same ground of being, we have a common source.

Let's say you know X is true but you really want to believe Y. If you believe Y you will not be acting true to the part of you that believes X. On the other hand, if you believe X you will not be acting true to the part of you that wants to believe Y. — John

Yes but would you lack integrity? You'd be truthful in your actions. You'll admit you want to believe Y, but can't because you know Y is false, and X is true.

To be honest I found his thoughts somewhat quirky and interesting, but pretty one-sided, especially when it came to religion. But I also acknowledge that he 'knew his shit', such as it was. — John

Well you don't have to agree with someone to find their thinking valuable. I found 180's thinking very valuable, but I rarely agreed with him. He actually agreed with me about one thing related to religion - that God treats human beings like straw dogs :P lol

Well isn't that just peachy, sweet cheeks. — TimeLine

It's so peachy the sound of it melts inside my ears sugar-coated babydoll!

An illusion is the belief that your feelings within this metaphysical realm is somehow free from the articulation of consciousness, and even if this is so, one can learn to cultivate compassion, hence the CI. — TimeLine

I don't live in a metaphysical realm, but one does not cultivate compassion by saying "uhhh it's my duty to be nice - it's my duty to be nice - it's my duty to be nice". One cultivates compassion by fellow-feeling and meditation.

Bet you can't wait to get married to your virginal, submissive, obedient, quiet, catholic girl born with no sense of taste or a personality? — TimeLine

Well, to answer your question sweet pickle, I think you'd lose that bet ;)

Is that how you define compassion? — TimeLine

Yes.

Soft - It's not hard, it doesn't press on you.
Warm - It's like a warm feeling.
Hot - It's intense.
Tender - It's not harsh, it's gentle with you.

Clear bunny bunny? (L)

I was just butting in for fun, but... — Noble Dust

You do have a tendency to bring your butt in from time to time :P

Bet you can't wait to get married to your virginal, submissive, obedient, quiet, catholic girl born with no sense of taste or a personality? — TimeLine

You have quite a dirty imagination. I wasn't making any sexual allusion there - just playing with words about the feeling of compassion itself. In fact, I had edited it and added stuff to it immediately, you should refresh the page.

but then popular music is not always the best music. — John

What do you mean here lol?

Well would you say I'm true to myself if I know X is false, but yet I choose to believe X is true? How so?

The compassion in this exchange is so palpable. — Noble Dust

It's good you like feeling it man. Is it soft, warm, hot, tender, loving and mysterious this feelin'?

Does it consist merely in honoring the good opinion of us held by our peers, or what? — John

Truthfulness towards one's own self?

Oh it's good to hear you find it nice, honeybunny. Compassion isn't derived - it's primal. It has to do not with the rational part of the soul, but with the affective one.

I think Kant has done a pretty good job rationalising morality. — TimeLine

I think Kant created a moral abomination with his categorical imperative. Schopenhauer was right - Kant was thoroughly deluded in terms of morality. Morality isn't based on imperatives, but on compassion. There can be no rationalising morality.

Even if you could know (per impossibile) that religion is false, and yet you were nonetheless able (per impossibile) to believe that it is true, and to do so would greatly enhance your joy of living, would it then be wrong somehow to believe? — John

No doubt that the religious are capable to have either far more meaningful or far more successful lives than atheists generally, so in that sense it would be good to believe. Many great poets were "God-intoxicated" - many musicians, philosophers, etc. There were also many leaders, commanders and conquerors who viewed themselves as doing God's will.

But at the same time there's the question of integrity - if you knew something was false, you'd at least lack integrity if you chose to believe it was true.

When you type in Google "philosophy forums" one of the suggested results is "philosophy forums 180 proof" - why do you think that is? Because many people have been searching for 180 proof when they're searching for philosophy forums. Why have they? Because 180 Proof was saying some unique shit that was sellin' like water in the dessert dawg :P

Hahaha, he's moved to another level. But let's be real -


Are you on that level?! >:O

I'm an atheist for the same reasons as Terrapin. I like some religious people, but doubt they understand atheism well enough to classify sub-divisions of it meaningfully. I accept certain sorts of experience as religious experience. — mcdoodle

A befitting #666 post.

Where would you place Schopenhauer? — Thorongil

Schopenhauer did not adhere to any religion, but he was a religious man nonetheless. He affirmed the existence of the transcendent through his philosophy.

180 Proof was here briefly (they're still in the members list), sometime ago, only made a few comments though. I think it was before PF collapsed. Perhaps we were just not interesting enough at the time (or even now). We did/do have less variety than PF did. — TheWillowOfDarkness

180 had stopped posting, except very rarely, at old PF too. 180 did not like the format of the forums here.

So... do you people really want a better discussion or do you just want me to stop challenging your beliefs? — Noblosh

>:O Why do you think you've challenged my beliefs? You think you've made me doubt them?

Are you a douche, obsessed with making fun of the Christian Old Testament, do you think Richard Dawkins represents the real presence of Christ, do you enjoy being a dick toward people who are religious, do you think that your disbelief in God makes you better, smarter, cooler? If you check boxed any of these, I'm sorry, but you're an idiot O:) — Heister Eggcart

>:O >:O >:O

So then what kind of belief do you hold, is it the perfect being god, a personal god. or? and why? — Cavacava

I believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - the Christian God - and not the God of the philosophers.

and why? — Cavacava

Because that's the conception of God that makes most sense of the world and that puts the human being in their right place - both exalted as the image of God - and as a finite creature who owes its existence to God (think of the story of Job).

Okay, then check my "Atheists" thread, I think there's things you can provide some unique insights there given your perspective.

I am agnostic, what type of atheist are you? — Cavacava

I am not an atheist.

That being said making the personal decision to disallow people from using or pressuring you with their agenda, whatever the reason, makes you a dick — Charrison94

I disagree. They may say you're a dick, but that's merely their way of trying to peer-pressure and force you to obey their will by making you feel bad about yourself. Disallowing people from using you is the right thing to do - it's about respecting your own self, and demanding the adequate level of respect from others if they want you to be their acquaintance/friend.

Okay so basically you have this neighbour who is a woman whose husband is always out. She uses your gf to stay with her kids, while she goes fucking around with other men on the pretence that it's a family emergency. Then when you tell her about it, she keeps lying. There's not much to respect in such a person. She's "desperate and lonely" - big deal. It happens, life ain't easy. But one's reactions determine one's character - and lying and deceiving you in order to use your time is completely wrong.

Common man... why are you purposefully being such a sophist? It's crystal clear that you're making absolutely no effort to engage in discussion, and because of that it's difficult to reply to you.

If you were a dictator, you'd worry more about that than about the little armed rebellion your massive security forces easily put down. — Srap Tasmaner

Not true. If I were a dictator I'd worry most about those close to me betraying me, or organising rival factions. They control the power, not the public. The public can be used BY THEM to overthrow me. The public is always a political tool, never an actor. The public always requires someone to be led by. So someone from my entourage can use the public's lack of satisfaction with me to overthrow me, but it will always be someone who has control of state apparatus, whether it is secret services or military. They can quickly move the public to act, backed up by part of the state.

Talk is important — Srap Tasmaner

Talk changes nothing. It may even be good for smart dictators. Let the dogs bark is one of the most effective way of appeasing public unrest, provided that the public isn't too intelligent to catch on. Just ask Michael, he likes applying the tactic ;)