What is so attractive about being a mere number? — Nikolas

Rather, what is so attractive in seeing other people as being mere numbers?

But one thing is obvious; liberty is being rejected for the security of becoming "a mere number" within a grand collective.

Democracy is forcing people into that. Because in democracy, the only hope for success that one has is success through sheer large numbers.

'God' denotes an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being. There's no dispute over that. And anyway, I stipulated that this is how I am using the term. But yes, if you are asking me if I am claiming to have proved God exists, then yes, I absolutely am.

But as with most people on this forum, you seem to have the focusing abilities of a goldfish. This thread is not about whether God exists, it is about the compatibility or otherwise of God with antinatalism and whether God's existence positively implies antinatalism. — Bartricks

None of the monotheistic religions is in favor of (absolute) antinatalism.
So someone is wrong here, you, or them.

Will you argue that you have better knowledge of God (in general, or in particular in reference to antinatalism) than they do?

Mind you, all you've got going is a dictionary definition of the term "God".
They have millennia of sacred texts, some of which are said to have been dictated directly by God.
Your dictionary definition of the term "God" is derived from those monotheistic texts, but the rest of your premises about God are merely your own inferences.

I don’t understand the masochism displayed by some of our more educated members to engage. I havent seen a single productive response from him. — DingoJones

There is something attractive about his smug certainty. Being able to prance around with a certainty like that -- that must be great! Yay!

I'm curious, and you may well decline to do this, but if you were a skeptic, hypothetically making a case against the notion of God (however this looks) what would be some directions you think might be fruitful? This question was put to theologian David Bentley Hart and he immediately said, 'The problem of suffering, especially the innocent and children dying of cancer.' or words to that effect. — Tom Storm

It depends who the intended audience for such a case against God would be. Some (many, most?) theists will not even listen to someone who disagrees with them.

The problem of theodicy is small fry anyway.

If Armstrong is right, then religion is not universally rational in some sense. It would be absurd to argue for such doctrines as opposed to simply evangelizing and drawing potential beneficiaries immediately into the practice, so that the apparently incredible becomes believable and believed. If such doctrines are, pre-practice, absurd or incredible, then most philosophers are damned. (I'm sort of joking, but the point is that a certain personality type will be turned off by the doctrines and never try the practice.) — j0e

Doing a religious practice can never convince a person who doesn't already believe.

But that's not an argument that they do in fact work once you try them. It's not, as clearly claimed, an argument for the 'truth' of religious practice. — Isaac

Here are some assumptions that religious people (of different religions) make and I learned them the hard way:
"If a person visits a religious venue for th second time, the only reason is that they believe what is being taught there."
"If a person reads a religious book, this means they believe it and are a member of said religion."
"If a person takes up a religious practice, this means they have committed to said religion."

When I explicated those assumptions and ran them by the religious people, they usually disagreed and had a more what would normally be considered rational, critical attitude. I derived those assumptions from the way religious people talked about others, esp. those that have "failed" and the "doubters".

In short, the religious have a vastly different attitude toward religion than an outsider. (Stick around, and I'll tell you more, I think I've figured this out quite well.)

For that, plenty of people have 'tried them' and found nothing at all, or even become worse people.

Of course. One isn't supposed to "try" those practices, one is supposed to just do them. Religious people will even quote Nike and Yoda for this purpose.

So unless you just beg the question (they obviously weren't doing it right, because it definitely works!), the evidence we have thus far seems to be that it either fails as a exercise in practical knowledge, or the teachers don't actually know what it is they're teaching - ie the success it appears to have in the few, is not, in fact, the result of the practice they think it is.

No. We're wrong to begin with when we think that there's something to learn, or to "know for oneself" when it comes to religion. Nevermind what official apologetics say.

Religious apologetics again. What a disappointment from such a genuinely positive start.

is such a nice person. Armstrong wrote an academic book. It takes a more crude and direct person to elucidate some points about religion in plain plain terms.

I get what you're saying (I think) but would that not be surmountable by personal report? If a hundred people attend Catholic liturgy and one of them is thus transported (and reports as much), the other 99 gain nothing (and report that), then does that not demonstrate that the Catholic liturgy is not teaching what it thinks it's teaching? — Isaac

Not at all. One doesn't go to mass to experience rapture. One does religious practices in order to do one's religious duty, not to get something from doing those practices. (And one is supposed to consider oneself fortunate to have a religious duty in the first place and to be able to carry it out.)

This is what I loved so much about Wayfarer's initial talk of the Mythos. It had this wonderful fallible sense of us all trying to grasp at the ungraspable, to express in myth the experience we have of life which, let's face it, presents to us as so much more than just the biology or physics of it.

I don't think religion (or spirituality) was ever intended for such purposes (such as approaching the "ungraspable").

A different question is if someone knows or is aware that they are bamboozling someone on purpose. In these cases you can say it's bad faith. — Manuel

But can it be said that the ordinary daily struggle for survival really is about acting in bad faith?

If we accept the Theory of Evolution, and with it, the idea of the evolutionary struggle for suvival, and along with that, Social Darwinism, then doing whatever one can in order to get the upper hand isn't acting in bad faith anymore. It's a necessity and it's normal.

And that's the big problem. Given how much time we may invest in a certain way of thinking that adopts certain belief sets, how are we going to discern when it is worth un-attaching ourselves to these beliefs, taking into consideration how much more time and effort is required to readjust ourselves? I think the younger we are, the easier it is to go through such big changes - not that it's easy in that case either.

But the more years accumulate, the more difficult it's going to be to change as you've spent more time with your beliefs while not yet seeing a good reason to abandon them. — Manuel

Yes. It's takes a while for cognitive biases to develop and to become firm. The man who cut in front of me in the waiting line said, among other things, "Who do you think you are?!" I'm guessing he operated from the bias that he's not going to allow a person visibly younger than himself and a woman at that tell him "how things really are". I never stood a chance. Showing him that there were still items on the counter from the customer before me was irrelevant.

I just don't know how other people live with other people's biases like that.

As for the willingness to accept flattery, that is a rock-solid example of the desire to believe something, which I think completely conforms to the distinction I am trying to describe. — Pantagruel

And sometimes, it's just more strategy.
I think that a philosophically inclined person is in comparison to the ordinary, extroverted, socially adept person like a muttering idiot in comparison to an academic. I'm not saying this to disparage philosophers or those so inclined, I'm one of them, after all. "Ordinary" people are experts in cunning, faking, pretending, social strategizing. They can do intuitively, in the blink of an eye, what a philosopher needs an hour for.

I think there are robust studies demonstrating that secular countries have happier citizens. Religiosity may not really be about God all that much and more about culture and community belonging. — Tom Storm

There are studies that show that religiosity plays a different role and has different effects if the person is living in a culture where the majority is religious of the same religion, as opposed to living in a country where one's religion is just one of many (and the country is officially secular).

E.g. https://www.livescience.com/18117-religion-happiness-countries.html

God and sin. A sheer unsolvable theological problem.[/quote]
It's unsolvable for Abrahamists. There are more theisms than just the Abrahamic onces. Hindu (mono)theism, for instance, doesn't face such problems.

The question is, is there a difference in the subjective experience of the believer who tends to believe in true beliefs, versus one who tends to believe in false beliefs? Is someone who believes in false beliefs guilty of the sin of bad-faith, that is of believing something which he knows at some level to be not worthy of belief? — Pantagruel

I don't think so.

An example: I was once waiting in line at the grocery store. I was second in line. So I was waiting, standing still in my spot at the checkout counter, looking around, waiting for the time to pass. When suddenly an older man cut in front of me, placing his items on the counter, ahead of mine, while the cashier still wasn't done with the items of the customer before me. I told him that he cut in front of me, that it was my turn. He insisted that I wasn't waiting in line at all, that I was idly looking around. I told him that it wasn't even my turn, that the cashier wasn't even done with the previous customer. The man didn't care. He kept repeating that I was idly looking around, and that I wasn't really waiting in line (and that as such, he had every right to cut in front of me).

I didn't get the impression he felt the least bit bad about his claims or the beliefs he held and expressed. I think it's similar with flat-earthers and so on.

Personally, I really don't find that I have a lot of "concrete" beliefs. I believe that some ways of acting are right and others wrong. I can't even begin to imagine the psychological and epistemological state of mind of someone who believes the earth is flat. I think that is more of a reaction to an overall state of affairs in which not a lot of things are really understood at all. — Pantagruel

Or the person has different epistemic priorities and different epistemic standards than a philosopher.

A bit of folk wisdom says "If you stand for nothing, you will fall for anything." I imagine that for many people, this is such an important motto and certainty such an important character trait, that they impel them to declare certainty by standards that are alien to a philosopher.

This also explains why the general image of philosophers is so negative: people generally seem to think of philosophers as indecisive, idle doubters, lacking character strength.

Look at Oprah's What I know for sure, for instance. Epistemologically, this is a nightmare, but for the ordinary person, this is probably what "knowing the truth" is all about.

You've literally just repeated, for the third time now, the exact deception I originally posted about. That entire post demonstrates (quite admirably) how science does not account for certain qualitative values.

It does nothing whatsoever toward demonstrating that any alternative study does account for those values. (As opposed to it simply claiming to do so). — Isaac

Yes, it's a claim. A claim made by relatively small, highly specialized groups of people. If one wishes to test those claims, one has to become a member of said highly specialized group of people and play by their rules. (Just like one has to earn some degree and other credentials in science (ie. become a member of the group called "scientists") if one wishes to properly understand the claims that science makes and to test them.)

If the claim of scientism (that science does indeed account for them) is dismissed, then a claim alone is clearly insufficient ground to believe any study does so satisfactorily.

This is an inescapable problem that applies to every field of study when observed by an outsider.

Which field of study does satisfactorily address the question "What is green?" Chemistry or linguistics? Or maybe physics? Psychology?

It does nothing whatsoever toward demonstrating that any alternative study does account for those values. (As opposed to it simply claiming to do so).

If the claim of scientism (that science does indeed account for them) is dismissed, then a claim alone is clearly insufficient ground to believe any study does so satisfactorily. — Isaac

As with all studies, one interested in a particular field of study has to play by the rules of said field.
This is true whether we're talking about the field of what is usually understood as "scientific study" or whether we're talking about what is usually understood as "spiritual study".
Staying within the domain of one field, one will not see the merit of other fields, nor be able to study them.

one's own experience is all that a person has, and all that is or can be relevant to a person.
— baker

True, but again 'all we have' is not sufficient to demonstrate that a study has a corpus of usefully shareable information either. — Isaac

Why would one want to do such a study?

Here I'm assuming you're talking about what is usually understood as "scientific study", and the topic are personal/private experiences.

By ratiocination. And yes, I have read such books. Is this going anywhere? — Bartricks

It's not clear how you can be sure that you know the truth about God.

"God" is a term whose native domain are monotheistic religions which offer competing or even mutually exclusive accounts of what "God" is.

Are you suggesting you resolved millennia of theistic disputes and figured out who or what "God" is?

You said:

Their virtue is not to be found in their metaethics, though. It is found in their commended actions. — Banno

from which I surmised that you hold that virtue can be found in metaethics, it's just that the virtue of Stoicism and Early Buddhism cannot be found in their metaethics, but is found in their commended actions.

I wondered how can virtue be found in metaethics to begin with.

Thank you for the passages.

No one doubts that but the question remains, so what? To what extent do we want to amplify or diminish this curiosity. — Tom Storm

On the contrary, how could one not be interested in this private experience and how could one not explore it?

I do wonder how one does phenomenology with any kind of rigour and if anyone can provide an example of a benefit it provides in more specific terms. — Tom Storm

It's pretty much what practice according to Early Buddhism is about.
See this article, for example: https://pathpress.org/notes-on-meditation/

Phenomenology may well study 'you looking out of the window', but what consigns it to the lesser status it suffers is not that, it's the fact that the corpus of information is derives from that study is completely ephemeral, having no anchor of 'fit-to-world' to hold it. — Isaac

Sure, the phenomenological perspective is useless for scientific purposes. But one's own experience is all that a person has, and all that is or can be relevant to a person.
Even when one contemplates the words of others (whatever those words may be about), it still comes down to one's own experience of those words.

What I never understand with Nietzsche is how the negation of all philosophy can itself be included with philosophy. — Wayfarer

Perhaps the same way that some Christians say that theirs is not a religion, but the truth.

Moral norms and values appear to have an external source. — Bartricks

But how can you tell whether you have the correct knowledge of them?

Honey, they are perfectly okay with you burning in hell for all eternity. They don't care what you think of them.

I started reading it, but it seemed too alien to me to continue. The way he describes Christians is nothing like what I've come to know Christians.

We answered that earlier. It's a metaphor. — Tom Storm

I have a hard time understanding the basic premise. The idea that there was once some kind of "golden era" or "an enchanted time" when people took religion seriously (including actually believing in God) seems alien to me.

I grew up among religious people in a monoreligious monoculture. Those people didn't take religion seriously. They took seriously the keeping up of appearance of religiosity, but beyond that, they were as indifferent toward their religion as they were to the air they breathed. It seems most likely to me that this is how it has been throughout history.

The idea that one can fight evil, and yet remain pure, untouched by it is extremely appealing.

What do people think about Nietzsche’s Death of God? — Tom Storm

Did God ever live?

In Western society, according to Weber, scientific understanding is more highly valued than belief, and processes are oriented toward rational goals, as opposed to traditional society, whereby "the world remains a great enchanted garden”. — Wikipedia, ‘Disenchantment’

What studies did Weber base such assessments on?

But they do have that Darwinistic, Nietzschean Übermensch power of presence to them.

But then again, maybe we're the ones making that power of their presence possible to begin with, by giving our attention to them.

I posit that the hatred is because they rob the world of magic — Tom Storm

How about asking them?

I don't think the New Atheists "rob the world" of magic. I feel the same way about them as I do about religion. Both are dogmatic, and in both cases, the lowly person in the pew/academic hall has no say in the matter. It makes no difference to me whether I go to church or to a science lecture at a university: in both cases, I'm expected to bow my head, unquestioningly believe what I'm told, and, for heaven's sake, keep my mouth shut. Oh, and pay them, the more, the better. To both of them, I'm just a faceless number, and at best, a source of money. This makes me feel redundant and unwilling to take seriously what they say.

To conclude, childbirth is immoral but is beautiful art, some may prefer this lifestyle, but that should be a decision for the child to make primarily as it must live in unison with it's parents. — ghostlycutter

In some Dharmic religions, it is believed that in order for conception to occur, the will of the prospective father, the will of the prospective mother, and the will of the prospective child need to be in accord. An implication of such an outlook is that in those religions, they believe that whoever was born, in fact wanted to be born, so people are deemed as being responsible for their own existence.

180 and I are aware of this. Stoicism and Buddhism have mush to recommend. Their virtue is not to be found in their metaethics, though. It is found in their commended actions. — Banno

How can virtue be found in metaethics?

Ancient systems like Early Buddhism are examples of virtue epistemology: they start with the premise that in order to know the truth, in order to know "how things really are", one needs to be virtuous. In such systems, moral behavior is a means to an end (the end being complete cessation of suffering).

My view is, these 'thinnest and emptiest concepts' are indeed of a higher order of reality, but unless you're able to comprehend them properly, they do indeed become empty words. As they were handed down and ossified into theoretical dogma, they lost all connection to reality, but that is a flaw in their exponents. — Wayfarer

Are you then suggesting that Nietzsche didn't properly comprehend those higher concepts?

( ;) )

They all have their spiritual claims, and in "my book" Christianity alone stands out as absurd — Gregory

It's not like the Christians care how they stand in your book.

How did you come to know about God?
Did God contact you?
Have you read books on the topic of God?

I'd put it this way: people care for – respect themselves – in so far as they develop habits for caring for – respecting – others.

That which is hateful to you, do not do to anyone.
— Hillel the Elder, 1st c. BCE — 180 Proof

This doesn't seem to be how people usually think and act, though.
"Do unto others before they do unto you" and "He who casts the first stone is innocent" seem to describe people more accurately. Generally, respecting oneself doesn't seem to have anything much to do with respect for others by way of one being conducive to the other. If anything, people generally seem to conceive of respect for others coming at the cost of self-respect, so that one has to choose: either respect others and disrespect yourself; or respect yourself and disrespect others; but you can't have both.

There’s some remark from one of the ancients that I can never source, along the lines of, without the consolations of philosophy, man would be the most unfortunate of all creatures. The idea is that because humans can perceive something beyond death and suffering, then the awareness they have of death and suffering, by virtue of their intelligence, is no longer the curse it would be. But that is exactly, precisely the kind of sentiment that Nietzsche repudiates, as far as I know. — Wayfarer

Can we find some passages that directly speak about this?

What is the source of your thoughts about God?

No I don't see the problem. They are both true or both false. These are not logical absolutes, they are folk sayings applied to individual situations. — Tom Storm

I think they are similar to the way language allows one to sometimes say "I'm wearing brown shoes", and other times to say "I'm wearing black shoes". Ie. it's not the case that one is objectively true and the other false, but that in a particular context, one is true and the other is not.

When it comes to idioms/phrasemes, the matter may seem a bit more difficult because idioms/phrasemes can look like bits of universal wisdom that is supposed to apply regardless of context.

I think a solution to this is to remember that every linguistic utterance a person makes at any given times is just a use of words intended to bring across a particular meaning, and a less or more clear expression of the person's intention to communicate in the first place. And also, that idioms/phrasemes can be "translated" into neutral language (which can be quite verbose, though -- we use idioms/phrasemes to say more with fewer words).

To use an earlier example:
cleaning up after a messy party - many hands make light work
Someone in that context can utter the words:
"Come on, folks, many hands make light work!"
or
"Come on, folks, if everybody does some of the work, we'll be done with the cleanup sooner and nobody will be very tired afterwards!"

In that context, by saying "many hands make light work" the speaker intends to say "if everybody does some of the work, we'll be done with the cleanup sooner and nobody will be very tired afterwards". But the latter isn't as economical and as encouraging as the former.