Originally posted by epiphinehasWell, one thing I would say is that your life on earth - based on what you post here - has a subjective meaning that you arbitrarily ascribe to it. So that makes us somewhat the same in this respect. Of course, our subjectivities differ. You also use the word "objective" in a way that strips it of its conventional meaning and alters its relationship with the word "subjective".
Would you agree that your life on earth has no meaning outside of what you arbitrarily ascribe to it?
Originally posted by epiphinehasYes and no. Yes, Buddhism doesn't posit a Creator God. That much is true. But neither is Buddhism ultimately nihilistic (like atheism), since Buddhism presupposes Karmic Law (a moral absolute) as well as the immortality of the soul via reincarnation.
[b]If "a-theism" is a belief that no gods exists, then Buddhism is a "a-theistic" religion...
True.
Atheism is not "a 'light' of objective meaninglessness". From where did you get this?
If we assume that the atheistic/naturalistic world-view is correct, then we must conclude that the universe is impersonal and the mere product of chan ...[text shortened]... Law (a moral absolute) as well as the immortality of the soul via reincarnation.[/b]
Seems that the premise of your OP is defeated here. You seem to be admitting that Buddhists can have moral absolutes without the necessity of having a God. Seems reasonable that you should also admit that they can have a "meaningful life" as well. From what I can tell, ultimately you are arguing that atheism cannot have moral absolutes or meaning because you define atheism as not having moral absolutes or meaning. It's seems like the only way that your "Yes and no" answer would make sense.
Originally posted by John W BoothDeclaring your own sense of meaning - which is, after all, a set of aspirations and surmises - to be 'objective' simply does not, in and of itself, make it so.
What you are describing here is a subjective meaning of life making up the world-view held by Christians, not something that you can describe as "objective meaning". Declaring your own sense of meaning - which is, after all, a set of aspirations and surmises - to be 'objective' simply does not, in and of itself, make it so.
People subscribe to your ...[text shortened]... t alter the fact that we are talking about speculation and faith, and not objective facts.
If it would please you, I can refrain from the use of the term 'objective', as it isn't essential to the point I'm making. That point being, basically, that human existence, according to atheism, has no meaning outside of what individuals arbitrarily ascribe to it. Given this, atheists cannot live consistently. Either they must be nihilists, or practice self-deception (i.e., create meaning for themselves and ignore the fact that the meaning they create is merely a fabricated meaning without ultimate consequence). I honestly haven't the faintest clue how you cannot see the plain truth of this.
People subscribe to your set of beliefs for subjectives reasons and then tell themselves that they are objective reasons. It is called 'certainty'. The fact that it happens all the time does not alter the fact that we are talking about speculation and faith, and not objective facts.
Regardless of whether Christian theism is true or not, the fact is, Christians are able to live consistently while atheists are not.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI admit that atheists can have a meaningful life, just not one consistent with their world-view.
[b]Yes and no. Yes, Buddhism doesn't posit a Creator God. That much is true. But neither is Buddhism ultimately nihilistic (like atheism), since Buddhism presupposes Karmic Law (a moral absolute) as well as the immortality of the soul via reincarnation.
Seems that the premise of your OP is defeated here. You seem to be admitting that Buddhists can ...[text shortened]... s or meaning. It's seems like the only way that your "Yes and no" answer would make sense.[/b]
2 edits
Originally posted by epiphinehasNo idea what point you're trying to make here. What do you see as "not consistent" for Buddhists? Your OP seems to define that as "without accidentally presupposing moral absolutes or pretending, even fleetingly, that their life has meaning". Yet you've admitted that Buddhists can have moral absolutes as well as meaningful lives without a god.
I admit that atheists can have a meaningful life, just not one consistent with their world-view.
Originally posted by epiphinehasI can just as easily assert that human existence, according to Christians such as yourself, has no meaning outside of what you arbitrarily ascribe to it and that you practice self-deception in as much as you create meaning for yourselves and ignore the fact that the meaning you create is merely a fabricated meaning without an ultimate tangible consequence
...human existence, according to atheism, has no meaning outside of what individuals arbitrarily ascribe to it. Given this, atheists cannot live consistently. Either they must be nihilists, or practice self-deception (i.e., create meaning for themselves and ignore the fact that the meaning they create is merely a fabricated meaning without ultimate consequence).
Our subjectivities differ, epiphinehas. Your use of the word "consistent" doesn't mean anything to me because I think you may be distorting it in the same way as you distorted the word "objective".
Originally posted by epiphinehasYou haven't the faintest clue? Really? Perhaps this is why your OP comes across more as an exercise in sophism rather than a genuine attempt to engage people whose world-view and sense of self diverges from yours.
I honestly haven't the faintest clue how you cannot see the plain truth of this.
Regardless of whether Christian theism is true or not, the fact is, Christians are able to live consistently while atheists are not.
You've dropped the word "objective", which has been helpful. Maybe now you should drop the word "consistently" for the same reason. It is unhelpful to recast terminology to fit the argument you seek to make. You might also leave words like "the plain truth" - certainly in the way you are using it here - to the likes of vishvahetu and josephw.
Originally posted by epiphinehasAny good Nazi can act consistently: all they have to do is to refuse the rigorous challenge of (subjectively) analyzing and interpreting the putative existential facts for themselves—and daring to draw ethical and aesthetic conclusions (meanings!)—in favor of arbitrarily accepting the “objective” “truth” of the given dogmatic ideology. And they might even point to the obviousness of it all (and such things as powerful conversion experiences, and faith) as a way of denying that they have actually made any “subjective” decision in the matter.
[b]Declaring your own sense of meaning - which is, after all, a set of aspirations and surmises - to be 'objective' simply does not, in and of itself, make it so.
If it would please you, I can refrain from the use of the term 'objective', as it isn't essential to the point I'm making. That point being, basically, that human existence, according ...[text shortened]... e or not, the fact is, Christians are able to live consistently while atheists are not.[/b]
LJ, in his post on the previous page, demonstrated pretty clearly the logical contradiction in your thinking. So, how do you objectively (?!) conclude that your god’s morality is, in fact, moral?—that is, that your god is morally perfect? How do you do that without applying your own subjective intelligence and interpretive (and ethical and aesthetic) functions? [And if you retreat to the Bible, I’ll simply repeat the questions in that regard…]
Also, your attempt at objectifying the word “meaning”—as if it were an element like molybdenum, or a physical force like gravity, having some objective existence in reality—seems to be a kind of category error. Meaning is an inherently interpretive concept—that is, the very concept itself implies a subject analyzing and interpreting the reality with which she is confronted; without that activity of analysis and interpretation, I’m not sure what the word “meaning” means. Again, LJ addressed this far better than I can—but, in a domain of pure objectivity (if such can be imagined), I suggest that the word “meaning” could have no other “meaning” than “just what is, as it is”, without any further assignment of “meaning”.
After all these years, you still insist on deceiving yourself about your own participation in deciding what has meaning in your life! And then criticizing those who will not follow you into that self-deceptive labyrinth…
Originally posted by vistesdA typically insightful post.
Any good Nazi can act consistently: all they have to do is to refuse the rigorous challenge of (subjectively) analyzing and interpreting the putative existential facts for themselves—and daring to draw ethical and aesthetic conclusions (meanings!)—in favor of arbitrarily accepting the “objective” “truth” of the given dogmatic ideology. And they might even ...[text shortened]... ur life! And then criticizing those who will not follow you into that self-deceptive labyrinth…
l thank you.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneWhat do you see as "not consistent" for Buddhists?
No idea what point you're trying to make here. What do you see as "not consistent" for Buddhists? Your OP seems to define that as "without accidentally presupposing moral absolutes or pretending, even fleetingly, that their life has meaning". Yet you've admitted that Buddhists can have moral absolutes as well as meaningful lives without a god.
The Buddhist belief system presupposes a moral absolute (Karmic Law) and the immortality of the soul (Reincarnation). Therefore, Buddhists living as if moral absolutes exist, etc., is consistent with their world-view. If an atheist were to hold that moral absolutes exist, this would not be consistent with their world-view (which, as I've mentioned, presupposes that the universe is a hostile environment, produced by mere chance, without ultimate purpose or value).
Originally posted by AgergSo you think slavery is a moral absolute, do you feel like you have to justify that
[b]but without God I don't see how you can have a moral absolute.
Was slavery always a morally bad thing for your god? If we look in your Bible, is it true we'll find no examples where this activity is endorsed by your God?
If not true then do you and all others who believe in "God" think slavery is OK?
If neither then where is this supposed absolute morality?[/b]
or do you think it was always a moral absolute everywhere at all times?
There are several things in scripture we can discuss, but I'd make them other
topics for another threads.
Kelly
Originally posted by John W BoothYour use of the word "consistent" doesn't mean anything to me because I think you may be distorting it in the same way as you distorted the word "objective".
I can just as easily assert that human existence, according to Christians such as yourself, has no meaning outside of what you arbitrarily ascribe to it and that you practice self-deception in as much as you create meaning for yourselves and ignore the fact that the meaning you create is merely a fabricated meaning without an ultimate tangible consequen ...[text shortened]... use I think you may be distorting it in the same way as you distorted the word "objective".
I don't believe I am equivocating here (in either case). It is not difficult to understand how I'm using the term 'consistent' in this context. In order to be consistent, you, as an atheist who believes, like Dawkins, that, "there is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference... we are machines for propagating DNA," cannot both assert the logical conclusions of atheism while simultaneously believing in moral absolutes. This is what most, if not all atheists do, of course, but nevertheless it cannot be called consistent.
1 edit
Originally posted by John W BoothA absolute morel would be a fact would it not? If everything is subjective, if we are
What you are describing here is a subjective meaning of life making up the world-view held by Christians, not something that you can describe as "objective meaning". Declaring your own sense of meaning - which is, after all, a set of aspirations and surmises - to be 'objective' simply does not, in and of itself, make it so.
People subscribe to your t alter the fact that we are talking about speculation and faith, and not objective facts.
all just making it up as we go...than what was bad could be good and what was
good could be bad....nothing would be certain and solid...it would always be a sea of
shifting sand. All values would be the same way, it could only be what we make it,
and anyone person's views inside or out side of belief in gods would be of no more
value than any others. Even the so called 'thinkers' would just be a group of people
whose valuse are at odds with others win or lose, who cares in the end?
Unless there is an end that has meaning beyond the now.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by John W BoothIt is unhelpful to recast terminology to fit the argument you seek to make.
You haven't the faintest clue? Really? Perhaps this is why your OP comes across more as an exercise in sophism rather than a genuine attempt to engage people whose world-view and sense of self diverges from yours.
Regardless of whether Christian theism is true or not, the fact is, Christians are able to live consistently while atheists are not.[/b " - certainly in the way you are using it here - to the likes of vishvahetu and josephw.
No such recasting of 'consistent' has taken place.
You might also leave words like "the plain truth" - certainly in the way you are using it here - to the likes of vishvahetu and josephw.
Forgive my incredulousness in the face of all this fuss over the meaning of words. I don't believe for a second that the meaning of what I'm arguing isn't plain as day. It seems everyone's a modernist until a little post-modern word play comes in handy for evading obvious conclusions.
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehasNot the case. We don't accept the definition of "meaningless" you just contrived to fit your religious world-view.
[b]It is unhelpful to recast terminology to fit the argument you seek to make.
No such recasting of 'consistent' has taken place.
You might also leave words like "the plain truth" - certainly in the way you are using it here - to the likes of vishvahetu and josephw.
Forgive my incredulousness in the face of all this fuss over the mean ist until a little post-modern word play comes in handy for evading obvious conclusions.[/b]
You might as well go the whole hog and with the assumption of morality sourced only from your god; argue we atheists are all a bunch of evil bastards dissuaded from our inherent desire to murder babies only through our inability to think rationally (since we're God hating atheists) and realise there is no reason why we shouldn't.