12 Jan 11
Originally posted by LemonJelloBut you and epiphinehas should quit pretending like this constitutes some basis on which you can claim inherent meaning to our lives.
When that extrinsic agent is the one responsible for the existence of all other agents, there is a presumption that creation came about with a purpose in mind.
Be that as it may, that still would have nothing to do with establishing that our lives are inherently or intrinsically anything. According to your view, God has provided for ...[text shortened]... that in the nonexistence of God, all worldviews somehow become "equal"? Premise 1 is…?[/b]
I think this is where we are passing one another without a proper joust. The terms inherent and intrinsic are fairly close to one another in general meaning, albeit with slight distinctions. Where as the former suggests an adherence or connection, the latter speaks more to an inseparable aspect. Either way, they both speak to the value associated with the thing, and in our case, human life.
The believer holds that man is made in God's image and as such is intrinsically valuable. That value is also considered inherent, as that image has only been bestowed upon man, not animals or any other living creature. What makes man man, according to the Bible, is the image of God--- which is inseparable from the creation of man.
As believers, we submit ourselves to thought experiments when we consider the argument of the antitheist. We do not believe it is actually possible to exist without God and remain man. We believe attempts to do so are disastrous to any who try as well as all who are impacted by those attempts. Our acquiescence of the point should not be construed as though such a thing is even remotely possible. it is strictly from the standpoint of the theoretical that we even consider the idea. In view of the absurdity of the hypothetical, our assertion of meaninglessness is more toward the futility of which the philosophers speak of openly. If an outside, immovable standard does not exist, then pragmatism is the order of the day... at least for now. Today's pragmatism will not necessarily agree with tomorrow's, and so forth. Moreover, if the only meaning which can be derived out of life is what is invented by those who posses it, now pragmatism has taken on a whole new look: mine versus yours versus his versus hers versus theirs.
There is not an 'ought' to be had which does not appeal to some equally low-level authority, thus, all authorities are equal. We cannot even say that we ought to be pragmatic: what's the use? What 'good' is it to perpetuate the human race? What 'good' is it to be 'good' to one another--- especially in light of the now-assumed rule of life: survival of the fittest?
I would suggest you do more study in ethics: there are already many ethical theories consistent and compatible with atheism that are not only consistent with what you require but actually entail what you require.
Such ethical theories as you describe are dishonest. Not only do they mimic the platform of justifiable morality, they cannot remain consistent even within their own structure. Man (who he claims is not to be trusted) is the standard of measure.
13 Jan 11
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWell you can start by just considering the well being of people with no reference to religion.
[b]But you and epiphinehas should quit pretending like this constitutes some basis on which you can claim inherent meaning to our lives.
I think this is where we are passing one another without a proper joust. The terms inherent and intrinsic are fairly close to one another in general meaning, albeit with slight distinctions. Wh ...[text shortened]... own structure. Man (who he claims is not to be trusted) is the standard of measure.[/b]
13 Jan 11
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseWhy, what makes religion a bad thing that you cannot care for people with it,
Well you can start by just considering the well being of people with no reference to religion.
after all everyone gets to set their own standards, why would someone's beliefs
about religion be 'bad', are you to suggesting that? You are going to die just like
all people of faith, if there is nothing at the end like some believe what does it
matter that some believe in religion and some don't, if they all end up as nothing
anyway? The only time as I see it anyway where it matter would matter is if
there is something more, that something more will matter more than our views
on any topic.
Kelly
13 Jan 11
Originally posted by KellyJayI certainly do appreciate your passion, and I believe your heart is in the right place. But the fact that you have such aversion toward the idea that you (and I and everyone else) will just cease to exist really has nothing to do with whether or not that is in fact the case. Just like your repugnance at the idea that we have descended ultimately from very humble beginnings really has nothing to do with whether or not that is in fact the case. Just like your approval of this idea of ultimate cosmic justice really has nothing to do with whether or not that idea has any actual referent. I would hope at the end of the day that we can discuss these issues through the give and take of reasons that actually bear on whether or not such things are in fact the case. That is where these discussions seem to fall short.
No, I do not promote a magical anything in the sky, I promote that we will all give
an account for our actions and they will show themselves for what they are and
there will be nothing magic about it. The simple truth of it all will be made clear,
if you are an honest person you will not have lied, you will not have stolen, if
you are a loving person yo ...[text shortened]... rds
for good and evil, it is the God who created us and the universe we are living in.
Kelly
You guys still have not really explained why exactly; even granting for the sake of argument that, say, my life will "end in nothing" and that there is no "external standard" for our moral navigations and that there is no ultimate justice, etc; you have not explained why this means my life cannot have non-ersatz meaning and genuine content. A lot of what you talk about has really no relevance in the here and now, and unfortunately for the sake of all your future talk, the here and now always has the "advantage of actuality" over the past or the future. You say this will be done; and that will be made clear; and the other will be settled; and etc, etc. But why should I care if none of your promises come to fruition (supposing I even understood the full propositional content of your promises about ultimate cosmic justice and the like, which I frankly do not)? I have a life to live right here and now, and it is no less genuine for the fact that someday I will die and thereby cease to exist; it is no less genuine for the fact that there is no external standard for morality such as what you describe; it is no less genuine for the fact that ultimate cosmic justice is a fantasy; etc, etc.
13 Jan 11
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThe believer holds that man is made in God's image and as such is intrinsically valuable.
[b]But you and epiphinehas should quit pretending like this constitutes some basis on which you can claim inherent meaning to our lives.
I think this is where we are passing one another without a proper joust. The terms inherent and intrinsic are fairly close to one another in general meaning, albeit with slight distinctions. Wh ...[text shortened]... own structure. Man (who he claims is not to be trusted) is the standard of measure.[/b]
Does the believer have any good reasons why that conclusion should follow? From the fact that man is made in God's image (supposing this is the case), how exactly does it follow that man is intrinsically valuable?
In view of the absurdity of the hypothetical, our assertion of meaninglessness is more toward the futility of which the philosophers speak of openly.
I am not sure I understand what you are trying to say. I understand that you think man without God is somehow a preposterous state of affairs. Regardless, surely you do agree that it is at the very least broadly possible that your belief that God exists is, in fact, false? In the thought experiment, you were basically supposed to consider on one hand the actual world as you take it in which God exists; and on the other hand a world where God does not exist but is otherwise maximally similar to the actual world as you take it in which God exists. But since, even in the actual world, it is at least broadly possible that your belief in God's existence is mistaken, these two worlds on the different hands are basically identical except for some considerations that are externalist with respect to you (like whether or not one of your beliefs happens to be, in fact, true). In either world, our lives just as they are in and of themselves are basically identical as far as I can tell; but as I understand your view, it would hold that in one of these worlds our lives are meaningless, whereas in the other world our lives have meaning. Based on considerations that are simply definitional to the term, I would have to conclude that whatever meaning your view ascribes to our lives, it is only of an 'extrinsic' sort.
Today's pragmatism will not necessarily agree with tomorrow's, and so forth.
Your talk about pragmatism is really not relevant. An atheist is not committed to pragmatism.
13 Jan 11
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThey are words written down by men to make it seem somehow humans are elevated on some scale beyond animals, thus allowing the leaders of the religious to maintain power and to instill their own vision on the world, including reducing women to at best second class citizenship and to allow for slaves, slave trade and all that goes with it.
What does 'made in God's image' mean? Is this a visual image or something else?
Utter rot of course and unimaginably arrogant.
13 Jan 11
Originally posted by LemonJelloDoes the believer have any good reasons why that conclusion should follow? From the fact that man is made in God's image (supposing this is the case), how exactly does it follow that man is intrinsically valuable?
The believer holds that man is made in God's image and as such is intrinsically valuable.
Does the believer have any good reasons why that conclusion should follow? From the fact that man is made in God's image (supposing this is the case), how exactly does it follow that man is intrinsically valuable?
In view of the absurdity of the hypothe ...[text shortened]... talk about pragmatism is really not relevant. An atheist is not committed to pragmatism.
The believer has plenty of reason! In the same way that some have re-thought the golden rule (he who has the gold rules), the person who is responsible for all of existence is the arbiter of what is good and acceptable. What He calls good is good. Being made like Him, therefore, is good whereas not being like Him is bad--- or better, being not like Him is bad.
I understand that you think man without God is somehow a preposterous state of affairs.
Not necessarily. Prior to becoming a believer, I was "without God" in my own thinking, but not consciously. In other words, I hadn't become consciously aware of the prospect. Once the possibility was raised, my search began. From the perspective of that previous unconscious state, I concede the plausibility/possibility of arriving at a dead end: that 'earlier me' had nothing going into the proposition, thus unprejudiced towards the outcome. However, the conscious state of resolution cannot now consider the proposition in any other manner than as an absurdity.
For instance, prior to becoming aware of one's self, we can imagine being in that state and never arriving at self-consciousness. However, once 'awoken' from that naïve state we acknowledge the impossibility of closing Pandora's box.
Based on considerations that are simply definitional to the term, I would have to conclude that whatever meaning your view ascribes to our lives, it is only of an 'extrinsic' sort.
You're benefiting one view without warrant. One cannot raise the proposition of God's existence and then return to the state of pre-proposition, so to speak, as though the topic was not ever considered. It can be argued that the unconscious person--- upon consideration of the prospect--- can arrive at a different conclusion, but I cannot think of even one person in history of whom such a description would fit.
There is not an antitheist alive or dead who simply had two thoughts:
1) I wonder if there is a personal God behind all of this; and
2) Nope!
Every antitheist with whom I've had any contact, of whom I've read or heard lecture/pontificate, makes one thing very clear about their conclusion: it comes as a result of careful, thorough--- painstaking, even--- application of logic and/or reason. In other words, they held it up as though it was true and then laboriously tore it down, piece by piece.
But the conscious, self-aware mind cannot break itself from the proposition of God. Consider the brilliant, highly-intellectual folks throughout history who have obsessed on the topic, even saving their dying breath to utter their continued defiance, after dedicating their life's work to it. Call it reverse faith.
But the unwarranted benefit is to consider both views as on equal footing. Whereas one points to a sure foundation, the other resembles an M.C. Escher drawing.
Your talk about pragmatism is really not relevant. An atheist is not committed to pragmatism.
I concede there are other ideologies one could consider themselves beholden to. However, perhaps due to my limitations here, I cannot think of a consistent view which does not employ pragmatism.
13 Jan 11
Originally posted by sonhouseMonkey sez: "Whut?"
They are words written down by men to make it seem somehow humans are elevated on some scale beyond animals, thus allowing the leaders of the religious to maintain power and to instill their own vision on the world, including reducing women to at best second class citizenship and to allow for slaves, slave trade and all that goes with it.
Utter rot of course and unimaginably arrogant.
13 Jan 11
Originally posted by LemonJelloI'm never said your life or anyone else's doesn't have meaning without God, I
I certainly do appreciate your passion, and I believe your heart is in the right place. But the fact that you have such aversion toward the idea that you (and I and everyone else) will just cease to exist really has nothing to do with whether or not that is in fact the case. Just like your repugnance at the idea that we have descended ultimately from ve ...[text shortened]... e; it is no less genuine for the fact that ultimate cosmic justice is a fantasy; etc, etc.
have maintained it is only between your ears while your alive, once we are all
gone, than all meaning anyone ever had will be gone with us. The reason for that
is that it all stops and starts with us, and we are the judge of ourselves if we have
started by no cause other than some cosmic accident. I think justice screams in
us, when we hear about or witness crimes like the shooting that occured here we
know deep within us something is wrong, an ameba wouldn't there would no need
to, we are just acting as we always do, nothing new here. We are always justifying
ourselves, we feel the need too, and that need is because we know that justice is
real and it isn't something we can blow off, those who do act without feeling right
or wrong are deeply distubed people not to be trusted at all, there is something
really broken within them.
I also maintain it is our being created by God that instills within us this notion of
right and wrong, amebas do not have those thoughts it just acts like all other living
creatures they do what is that nature to do, our nature has been damaged by sin
so we have thoughts about what should and should not occur along with a cry for
justice when something happens that we feel should not have.
Kelly
13 Jan 11
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage=================================
What does 'made in God's image' mean? Is this a visual image or something else?
What does 'made in God's image' mean? Is this a visual image or something else?
==================================
I think of it as a glove is in the image of a hand. This is metaphysical though. Man is made in such a way that he is like a vessel or container. His spiritual and metaphysical being is in the shape of God such that God Himself could fit comfortably within man.
Genesis says "according to our image, after our likeness". Likeness may be something more outward. Image I think of like a glove is made in the image of a hand for the purpose of containing the hand.
It is profound to me and I probably will contemplate this for many years to come.