The problem is what sort of meaning the belief system imputes. Religion imputed a telos that gave every day life a purpose; science as a belief system only imputes data.

Death metal like you've never heard, let alone imagined...

My thoughts are that I agree, up to the 'instead' (I have no time for certainty of any kind) and I disagree with everything after that. — andrewk

So you actually disagree with the entire premise. :P

I don't think the amount of religious belief or genuine religiosity has changed much. People who want to be religious still are, as they always were. — andrewk

You continue to either miss or ignore my argument. There is a section of the population that treats science as a religion. Pure and simple. Google some Neil deGrasse Tyson memes if you really need to.

What has changed is that people who don't want to be religious, or who do but don't want to conform to the locally dominant religious dogma, no longer have to pretend to believe it on pain of being ostracised or burnt at the stake. — andrewk

Is this really such an emotionally powerful argument for you and others at this point? I'm one of those people that you describe, except I've long since stopped caring about theological dogma that has to do specifically with Hell. Is that specifically your theological issue here, or are you just using using "burnt at the stake" as another convenient strawman as you did earlier in the thread?

Actually the word is derived from 'the people over the River Indus' i.e. Indians. Hinduism is not a religion, it is a plethora of religions and philosophies - theistic, polytheistic, atheistic and everything in between. — Wayfarer

Yeah, that's what I meant by putting it in quotes; I'm aware of the basic history.

Thanks, great stuff.

Also, you're actually obfuscating my argument. Your specific points are interesting to debate about, but they don't address my main argument. This is what I'm actually interested in:

religious belief hasn't been replaced by scientific certainty; instead, belief as a fundamental component of the human experience has been transferred from the religion of the masses to the scientific beliefs of the masses. — Noble Dust

Any thoughts?

>:O

war is an incredible waste of resources, — XanderTheGrey

Resources for who? Your statement suggests that resources are valuable, but you admit that you think individuals are not valuable. What makes resources valuable, given that people are not?

I think the most I would ever seek to do is help create an online movement that encourages mass murder, and murder-suicide, and addresses its true effects on the rest of the population. — XanderTheGrey

Why? What predicates the value of mass murder? "We need less people on the earth" in order to achieve what exactly?

Given his response to you, I think you might be right.

I think we're at an impasse; I'm not arguing from atheism. Are you?

I forgot to add perhaps; that even if I had no values, it would make sense for me to expetiment with adhereing to diffetent "patterns" as it were, rathet than devoting myself to the behavior of a loose unit. — XanderTheGrey

How would that make sense?

The point I'm trying to make here is that the greatest precived common values of the greatest precived majority of mankind: seen convoluted and construed in many areas, including this one; suicide, and homocide. — XanderTheGrey

Too many typos; not sure what you mean.

Those of us in the 1st world suffer from a terrible delusion that our everyday lifestyle choices are not responsible for the vast amount of suffering on the otherside of the globe; — XanderTheGrey

Maybe make an argument about this? Instead of stating it as obviously true.

Meanwhile a group of people were locked in a room together with enough resources to last each one 90+ years, it would be considered wrong if a smaller group claimed the majority of the resources as their own. Would it be wrong to those few people so that more of the others could survive? — XanderTheGrey

I think this is really the meat of your argument, right? Distribution of resources is a difficult moral dilemma when faced with real inequality that threatens lives. The issue here, within your specific argument, is again the same logical problem I brought up before when I asked "The more resources for who? Individuals who have no value?" Your argument begins with the emotional assumption that all individuals deserve proper resources. That emotional argument assumes individuals have value. You're beginning form a non-nihilistic perspective without realizing it, and erroneously arriving at a nihilistic conclusion because the inequality is so great when viewed emotionally. But you only think you're a nihilist because of your erroneous conclusions, because you haven't acknowledged the unconscious non-nihilistic assumptions you're making in order to begin to make your argument.

I'm just putting it out there to check people's thoughts. I don't have a clear-cut strategy on the issue. I don't even know where to begin.

Anyway, how would we define the Devil? — TheMadFool

Again, are you talking about The Christian concept of The Devil, or no?

If by 'religious need' you just mean the need that many feel to explore and express spiritual feelings and ideas, then I agree that it is likely an in-built feature of the human animal, that manifests in many, but not all, humans. — andrewk

Ok, we're not too far off from one another. I disagree that this only exists in some of us; however, I should clarify that I think that "spiritual feelings and ideas" are phenomena of the human experience that manifest in many ways, including "the scientific". Also the "nihilistic" sense.

But I don't understand the suggestion that such a need is 'descended from religion'. Such a statement sounds like it's either a trivial tautology obtained by equating spirituality with religion, or obviously false. — andrewk

Ok; spirituality might be a better term. The oldest extant religious texts are the Vedas, right? And "Hinduism" as a religion is really a 200-something-year-old western construct that tries to make sense of the ancient spiritual traditions of Indian religion and philosophy, from a specifically western perspective. So, "such a need" is maybe descended from spirituality, not specifically religion. Is that better for you, or no? That's an honest question. If that works better, then it doesn't much affect my argument. It looks like an issue of language.

Philosophy and people in general are very "knowledgeable" about the definition of God. They argue about it but everybody circles around omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence. The Devil is rarely discussed and I wonder why. — TheMadFool

Are you talking about the Christian God and the Christian Devil? If so, the Bible and other theological sources have info about the devil, within the context of that tradition. If not, then I'm too sure what you mean by "the devil".

If we can't find God directly, perhaps an oblique approach to the issue may help. What I mean is by analyzing what Evil means we may see the light. What do you think? — TheMadFool

Directly meaning what? The five senses? The five senses in conjunction with the mind, and it's interpretations of spiritual experience?

I think analyzing what evil means in order to find "the light" is an interesting prospect, but I haven't really seen you doing that yet in this thread.

As to a definition of the devil, I don't have one. I'm just addressing some issues I have with your argument.

It's a complicated topic for me, actually. But I get the sense you're making your argument purely theoretically and not with any actual real life implications regarding whether "The Devil" actually exists.

That was given after your OP; your OP began with the assumption. But yes, I also didn't read all the way through the thread; my apologies.

To fight or rebel against an omnipotent being (God) is clearly a stupid thing - moron.

Compared to an omnipotent being (God) anyone, even Satan, is obviously impotent. Add or subtract 1 or 1,000,000,000,000 to infinity (God) and we're still left with infinity (God). So Satan is, simply put, as insginificant as zero to God - impotent. — TheMadFool

The issue here is whether God is immanent, transcendent, or something else. That's basically the patent issue at hand with your dilemma, as far as I can see.

No words...

VALIS - Philip K. Dick :-O

Should I be worried by the fact that I can't put this one down?

If morality is dependent upon environmental factors, wouldn't it be subjective? — cincPhil

I'm trying to highlight that it's not either/or; begin with experience: experience tells you your environment determines some amount of your moral beliefs. That has nothing to say about whether or not an objective morality exists.

I agree with you on an emotional level, but we need to be able to make arguments against this kind of nihilism. These kinds of arguments should be welcome at the table. If these arguments aren't given a hearing then they continue to fester and grow.

On atheism, it is as you say, that morality is a product of socio-biological evolution. — cincPhil

I'm not saying that; I'm saying environment determines our specific moral positions. Atheism or theism doesn't come in to play yet because whether an objective morality exists or not doesn't come into play yet. I'm just making a simple acknowledgement of how environment determines our disposition towards morality.

I'm arguing that if God does not exist, then morality is just an evolutionary spin-off. It's a kind of herd morality, but it's not really true in any objective sense. — cincPhil

So far you've only asserted that; you haven't made an argument for that yet.

Taken on faith yes, but not in the same way, because the act of faith in science is consistently being vindicated in this world, whereas that in religious dogma is not.

The scientist says the light will go on if you press that switch. The average person has no idea why that should be so, but they take it on faith, press the switch, and the light does indeed go on. — andrewk

The example in the thread so far is the existence of quarks, not a light switch. So, we take it on faith that quarks describe things best; quarks don't vindicate themselves through experience the way a light switch does; at least not yet. So yes, scientific theories like the quark are in fact taken on faith in the same way as religious dogma; or, if not, then argue why that is; the light switch isn't compelling giving the context of the discussion so far; it's not a compelling argument.

But when the hellfire preacher tells us that unmarried couples will be tortured forever after they die, there is no confirmation of that in this world. — andrewk

This is an argument from emotion; surely you can come up with a more formidable argument from a religious perspective other than this strawman.

Address what? — andrewk

I acknowledge the confusion: I meant to address the idea that religious belief hasn't been replaced by scientific certainty; instead, belief as a fundamental component of the human experience has been transferred from the religion of the masses to the scientific beliefs of the masses. Please let me know if that's still not clear; this idea is very clear in my head but I don't always have the knowledge to express it properly.

Moral and existential problems are part of the human condition, and I'm not aware of anybody that seeks to deny it — andrewk

Maybe; there are the Elon Musks of the world who seem to equate technological progress with an almost teleological coming utopia. Maybe that's not entirely accurate. In any case, I didn't intend to group you in with those folks when I mentioned you, for instance.

As for 'transferring the religious need to another sphere of inquiry' I don't know what that means, or why you think it should be true. If you can clarify what exactly that claim means and provide some reasons to believe it, I'm happy to respond. — andrewk

I say "religious need" because philosophy in general and any given telos that assigns meaning to life are historically descended from religion. I'm not specifically making an appeal to a specific religion, or the preservation of religion in general, but instead I'm just using what I see as more accurate language which reflects the historical development of the history of ideas. When I say "religious need" I use the term metaphorically, but with the understanding that metaphor is just as descriptive as discursive argument. So, what seems to be lacking from an atheistic perspective (as well as I can see from outside that perspective) is not only a simple acknowledgement of this historicity of religious need, but also the potential ramifications of that historicity with regards to the state of the human condition. We need to assign meaning to life.

This strikes a personal cord with me. I've done things I regret. I've hurt people. And I know that if God did not exist, then I would embrace my animal instinct, you know? — cincPhil

Yes, you're not alone; everyone has done things they regret, and everyone has hurt someone else. It sounds like your shame for having done those things is leading to you questioning God's existence; yes/no?

For instance, I think what you mean is "if I believed that God did not exist, then I would embrace my animal instinct". From your theistic perspective, the prospect of God's non-existence presents a nihilistic void where animal instinct reigns. So your belief is what's determining the factors here. On the other hand, regardless of the existence of God, there are morally upright atheists and agnostics who exemplify moral behavior, regardless of whether their views are grounded metaphysically in something substantial. Social context forms moral positions; a metaphysical reality doesn't. That doesn't discount the possibility of a metaphysical moral reality existing. Hope that makes sense...

On atheism, what obligations, if any do we owe to other homo sapiens? — cincPhil

I'm a theist, so I won't speak for them.

My argument is not about what atheists believe. It is about the nature of morality if atheism is true. — cincPhil

Ok; can you expand on that?

I didn't feel accused, I was just clarifying. (Y) No apology needed. I'd still be interested to hear your responses to my questions.

I agree with you; I've tried to make similar arguments before. Basically, scientific evidence is "taken on faith" for the average citizen in the West, in the same way that theological conundrums were taken on faith by the average person for centuries. Rather than having ditched religion, the West has transferred the religious need to another sphere of inquiry; or more accurately, to another perspective from which to view "reality". But the same moral and existential problems remain.

I haven't seen any arguments from the likes of and others that actually address this concept. The usual argument is just "you're not portraying science accurately", without addressing the historical link between religion and science. The church said the same thing when their reign was threatened.

Another way to look at premise one is to say that if atheism is true, then morality is not objective. And that is precisely what atheism asserts. Any atheist worth his salt will tell you that you don't read morality into nature. Nature is red in tooth and claw. To quote Richard Dawkins, "there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference." — cincPhil

So you're argument here is that atheists don't believe in objective morality, therefore...what? Again, back to my question: Why are God and objective moral values inseparable?

There are many atheists around these parts who believe in some sort of definable morality, even if they don't choose the word "objective". Dawkins is kind of an atheistic piñata at this point, as far as I'm aware.

Now, which premise do you deny? — cincPhil

I'm not denying any premise, I'm asking questions about your premises.

Are you really willing to deny the objectivity of moral values and duties? — cincPhil

Nowhere have I done so.

the less people, the more resources available. — XanderTheGrey

The more resources for who? Individuals who have no value?

I say this a lot; you can't have soft nihilism. If individuals have no value, then resources for those valueless individuals also have no value.

Given that the Devil is the exact opposite of God — TheMadFool

Where is this given?

1) Why are God and objective moral values inseparable?

But first, you would need to make an argument for 2):

2) What's the argument for the existence of objective moral values?

so how can Salvation be an action, per se? — jancanc

To save is to prevent from "not-saved". The "not-saved" state is a negative state; death, harm, pain, etc. To save is to prevent this from happening; this prevention is necessarily an action.

"Will-less action" can only be a metaphoric expression — jancanc

"Will-less action" is nonsensical.

Agreed!

That doesn't follow from salvation being a willful action.

No.

Sort of. Compassion is a state of mind; Salvation is an action.

Why did this thread get renamed?

Not yet at least. It is necessary but not also sufficient. To get far you have to find a way that works. How can your music reach a wide enough audience? Who would recognise your music as great? How can you make people love it? A lot of this is marketing, and not really making music. Without the right marketing, even the greatest music will remain unknown. — Agustino

I'm all too familiar with all of that. (Y) Perhaps a topic for another thread.

I never really had someone who believes in me - that's how I ended up believing in myself in the first place. No one else would, and I needed it. It does help if you have a self-belief, like Schopenhauer did, in your own genius - that can pull you through many things. — Agustino

Interesting; I had a really great percussion teacher, but other than that, not much. But I did develop a belief in my own musical genius. But it hasn't gotten me far. I don't much believe in that line of reasoning. But I do still believe in my own genius; I just don't much care if others think of me as such.

In that it keeps you going. It keeps you hoping for a great future even when your present isn't so great. — Agustino

This doesn't do much for me; it must just be a personality thing. We're not really discussing philosophy proper at this point.

Yeah, I never really thought about it, but it's true when I do think about it based on my experience. — Agustino

I didn't mean to be condescending there, but that theme of lacking someone who believes in you has been a major theme in my life, so I made the assumption it was obvious. Learning about that constantly...

In my experience, it works. — Agustino

In what ways?

It's an interesting juxtaposition.

I see salvation as the supersession of compassion. The will is the genesis of both. The will, divinely impregnated, moves an individual to compassion. Salvation is a special case of compassion in which the will is suspended, but not abnegated, in the face of goodness (which motivates salvation).