The Beatitudes

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Idiot is an insult born of exasperation. My fault. Sorry.

The argument is about whether words reflect reality--to my mind, this is patently absurd--but prove me wrong. Use words to describe an object in such a way that I cannot fail to appreciate its quiddity. Something simple to start off with--let's say your right eye. Then move on to some ...[text shortened]... e individual self. I simply maintain that it isn't real.--Why do you think Buddhism is wrong?

Use words to describe an object in such a way that I cannot fail to appreciate its quiddity.

Fail to appreciate? That is a Herculean task. What if you have no appreciation of the quiddity of the said object -- then no manner of persuasion would be sufficient?

Incidentally I don't deny the existence of the individual self. I simply maintain that it isn't real.--Why do you think Buddhism is wrong?

For that very reason -- and the pantheistic "problem of evil" that I had mentioned a while back.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Unfortunately, the most basic premises of Christianity are false: that the Christian God is instantiated; that He undergirds normativity. Since Christianity is false, we can lay epistemic obligations aside and go on to ask if it has any practical utility as a method for bettering personal circumstances -- and there again, I find Christianity decidedly in ...[text shortened]... words,
can you find an “I” that’s not just another thought,
another making of mind?

Unfortunately, the most basic premises of Christianity are false: that the Christian God is instantiated; that He undergirds normativity.

Are those truly the basic premises of Christianity? If you use the first within a materialist context, I would categorically deny it as a fundamental tenet (my fallible erudition notwithstanding); with the second I'd like to see your proof (or disproof as it were). The Euthyphro dilemma?

Since Christianity is false, we can lay epistemic obligations aside and go on to ask if it has any practical utility as a method for bettering personal circumstances -- and there again, I find Christianity decidedly inferior.

Compared to?

As a means of practice to peace of mind, Christianity is antithetical

Elucidate. Constant worry about salvation?

You've found Jesus to be rationally compelling? How convenient for you: that which you find rationally compelling also somehow matches Option "B" in your false dilemma.

No dilemma that I can see. It's all absurd, remember -- one option is as good as the other, so long as one's happy, eh.

The "self" is very, very tricky.

True, (and the rest was well stated btw) but a lack of cohesion in properly defining the ego, self, mind, soul or whatever else you wish to call it does not infer the absence of its existence.

Originally posted by Halitose

Incidentally I don't deny the existence of the individual self. I simply maintain that it isn't real.--Why do you think Buddhism is wrong?

For that very reason -- and the pantheistic "problem of evil" that I had mentioned a while back.[/b]

Would you mind explaining this one a little more, I looked for the post you referred to but wasn't able to find it...

Originally posted by Mister Meaner
Would you mind explaining this one a little more, I looked for the post you referred to but wasn't able to find it...

There is no "pantheistic problem of evil"; just an inability of Christian theists to conceive of any "God" that does not meet the "omni" conditions.

Originally posted by Halitose
Fail to appreciate? That is a Herculean task. What if you have no appreciation of the quiddity of the said object -- then no manner of persuasion would be sufficient?

[b]Incidentally I don't deny the existence of the individual self. I simply maintain that it isn't real.--Why do you think Buddhism is wrong?

For that very reason -- and the pantheistic "problem of evil" that I had mentioned a while back.[/b]

I would say it is a flatly impossible task. "There is a tree outside my window". Does that convey the reality of the situation?

Have you really looked into Buddhism? Do you get the point of the sort of story where a student says "everything is illusion" and the master slaps him in the face?

Originally posted by Mister Meaner
Would you mind explaining this one a little more, I looked for the post you referred to but wasn't able to find it...

I'll try and make some time to sketch it out in detail -- I think the thread that dealt with it was a couple months ago.

Originally posted by Halitose
[b]Unfortunately, the most basic premises of Christianity are false: that the Christian God is instantiated; that He undergirds normativity.

Are those truly the basic premises of Christianity? If you use the first within a materialist context, I would categorically deny it as a fundamental tenet (my fallible erudition notwithstanding); with the secon , soul or whatever else you wish to call it does not infer the absence of its existence.[/b]

You lost me right off the bat. In the first premise, I was using 'Christian God' (a little sloppily, probably) in reference to the Christian concept of God. So the first premise just says that the Christian God exists. That sounds pretty basic to me, and I'd be shocked if you were to categorically deny it. For the second premise, yes, the Euthyphro Dilemma outlines a refutation. Also, many normative claims that are supposedly divinely inspired are false -- many of them in reference to a purported obligation to display a sort of unconditional reverence. Such claims are not false merely in virtue of the fact that God does not exist in the first place; even under the condition that God were to exist, they are still false.

Given that its most basic principles are false, I really don't see any utility to Christianity. Generally, I don't see why we need to artificially mask the absurd when an absurdist stance is perfectly compatible with other practices that may calm the mind. More specifically, Christian doctrine consistently reinforces a negative and degrading perspective on humanity and other creatures. It also demands unwarranted, arbitrary beliefs. All of that is exactly what I don't need if I desire a calm mind. The arbitrary concept of 'salvation' is also ill-conceived: that one is necessarily in need of being salvaged only reinforces a debilitating pessimism towards one's ability to flourish. As it is, I cannot think of a single thing about the notion of heavenly reward that inspires right action toward contributing to a flourishing society: and that's because conscientious persons are aware that maxims of right action have nothing to do with selfish considerations of personal reward.

Your false dilemma seemed to be A. existential anguish or B. Jesus. And I just thought it seemed "too good to be true" how, of all the gods we could think up, the one you find rationally compelling also happens to be our one and only alternative to despair, forlornness, and anguish.

With respect to the self, I don't think it's a matter of "lack of cohesion" in proper definition; I also don't deny that there exist waves of subjective conscious experience.

Originally posted by LemonJello
No, it is an objective matter that I don’t need your concept of God – which, by the way, fails to be instantiated.

[b]We all need saved, on our own we are not worthy

Worthy of what, exactly? You don’t actually believe that, do you?[/b]

Well that presents the full issue doesn't it, with God there are
standards that have nothing to do with man's 'feelings' on any matter
we are subject to God; without God there isn't a standard to worry
about, there isn't anything to be worthy of. Like I said, only those that
believe in God need worry about the discussion of worth before God,
those that reject God are the only standard they ever concern
themselves with when it is all said and done, unless of course they
are wrong about God being real, since not acknowledging doesn't free
one from their responsibilities towards God.
Kelly

Originally posted by LemonJello
Christian doctrine consistently reinforces a negative and degrading perspective on humanity and other creatures.

This is hardly unequivocally true.

Christian doctrine teaches that an eternity of fulfilling bliss is the ultimate fate of the righteous.

Christian doctrine teaches that forgiveness is available to anyone who asks for it.

Christian doctrine teaches that, simply in virtue of being human, and regardless of physiological state, you have a sacred inalienable right to life.

Christian doctrine teaches that wealth is antithetical to spirituality.

I'm not mentioning the bad stuff. But surely this is enough to show that your previous assertion is probably overstated.

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
This is hardly unequivocally true.

Christian doctrine teaches that an eternity of fulfilling bliss is the ultimate fate of the righteous.

Christian doctrine teaches that forgiveness is available to anyone who asks for it.

Christian doctrine teaches that, simply in virtue of being human, and regardless of physiological state, you have a sacred i ...[text shortened]... d stuff. But surely this is enough to show that your previous assertion is probably overstated.

It depends on what version of Christianity you are referring to. In the Fundie theology we are exposed to here, the "righteous" are not required to do anything but prostrate themselves. This hardly seems to reinforce a positive image of humanity.

Originally posted by no1marauder
It depends on what version of Christianity you are referring to. In the Fundie theology we are exposed to here, the "righteous" are not required to do anything but prostrate themselves. This hardly seems to reinforce a positive image of humanity.

Well, given that (a) LemonJello didn't specify which subset of Christian doctrine was referred to, and (b) I am not adopting a minority interpretation of Christianity, I think my claim that his assertion was not unequivocally true still stands.

I don't, of course, find the fundie view anything but distasteful.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Spot on. I'd say the same applies to adherents of many faiths (would you agree that Christianity is a faith? I know you don't think it's a religion).

I'll concede that all faiths are a form of a belief system, with varying degrees of religiousity (verbotten). At their most base, they all require some type of alignment, and at their most complex, the rules for entry are legion.

I am of the mind that simpler is better and I further hold that if a belief system is dependent upon my perspicacity, it's likely the wrong path.

We are in agreement when considering that if most people really knew two things:
1. What their belief system teaches; and
2. The ramifications thereof,
they wouldn't hold to said system. Ain't love blind?

Originally posted by Mister Meaner
Would you mind explaining this one a little more, I looked for the post you referred to but wasn't able to find it...

1) The Pantheistic Problem of Evil’s first premise has the same basic core as the theistic one in substantiating the existence of “evil” – morally objectionable actions/events.

2) The second premise is that all is God and God is all.

3) To resolve the two seemingly contradictory premises, there are 4 resolutions regarding good and evil -- all problematic:

i) God is all good: This is obviously impossible, since evil must therefore exist apart from God. But, premise 2) states that God is all – nothing can exist that is not God.
ii) God is all evil: This is not possible either, since good must then also exist apart from God. Premise 2) refutes this position.
iii) God is both all good and all evil: This is a self-contradictory statement, since X cannot be both A and non-A.
iv) Good and evil are illusory: This is the common position for pantheists; but if evil is only an illusion, then ultimately there is no such thing as good and evil thoughts or actions. Hence, what difference would it make whether we praise or curse, counsel or rape, love or murder someone? If there is no final moral difference between those actions, moral responsibilities do not exist. Cruelty and non-cruelty are ultimately the same.

The second objection to the 4th resolution is that if evil is not real, then what is the origin of the illusion? Why have people experienced it for so long, and why does it seem so real? Despite the pantheist’s claim to the contrary, he or she also experiences pain, suffering, and will eventually die. Even pantheists double-over in pain when they get appendicitis. They jump out of the way of an on-coming truck so as not to get hurt.

If pantheism is correct in that reality is not moral - that good and evil, right and wrong, are inapplicable to what is, then to be right is as meaningless as to be wrong -- which kinda defeats the object of even having this discussion.

Originally posted by LemonJello
You lost me right off the bat. In the first premise, I was using 'Christian God' (a little sloppily, probably) in reference to the Christian concept of God. So the first premise just says that the Christian God exists. That sounds pretty basic to me, and I'd be shocked if you were to categorically deny it. For the second premise, yes, the Euthyphro Di ...[text shortened]... n; I also don't deny that there exist waves of subjective conscious experience.

You lost me right off the bat.

My bad. I couldn't see how the abstract concept of a divine, transcendental, creator Being could be false, so I assumed to mean a natural manifestation of the same -- which is what I had categorically denied.

Also, many normative claims that are supposedly divinely inspired are false -- many of them in reference to a purported obligation to display a sort of unconditional reverence.

Is this inherently problematic? I'm sure it assumes that one has experienced/believes in the Object of adoration.

Given that its most basic principles are false, I really don't see any utility to Christianity.

This is still very much under question.

Generally, I don't see why we need to artificially mask the absurd when an absurdist stance is perfectly compatible with other practices that may calm the mind.

Generally, everything is perfectly compatible with an absurdist stance.

More specifically, Christian doctrine consistently reinforces a negative and degrading perspective on humanity and other creatures.

I strongly disagree. Christian doctrine consistently reinforces the special position maintained by humanity as being created in the image (be this merely as "rational beings"😉 of God.

The arbitrary concept of 'salvation' is also ill-conceived: that one is necessarily in need of being salvaged only reinforces a debilitating pessimism towards one's ability to flourish.

What pray, causes existential anguish/despair?

As it is, I cannot think of a single thing about the notion of heavenly reward that inspires right action toward contributing to a flourishing society: and that's because conscientious persons are aware that maxims of right action have nothing to do with selfish considerations of personal reward.

Unless this "personal reward" is merely a continuation of right action, not the inherent motivation. Good point though about the obvious contradiction in being unselfish for the selfish reason of going to heaven.

Your false dilemma seemed to be A. existential anguish or B. Jesus. And I just thought it seemed "too good to be true" how, of all the gods we could think up, the one you find rationally compelling also happens to be our one and only alternative to despair, forlornness, and anguish.

Yeah. I guess I gave the impression of creating a dilemma. Not my intention at all.

It is not a case of "gods we [can] think up", but rather an examination in consistency of existing systems, since I would assume that if a God existed, this said Being would have initiated some form of revelation.

With respect to the self, I don't think it's a matter of "lack of cohesion" in proper definition; I also don't deny that there exist waves of subjective conscious experience.

If you claim that your "individual existence" is merely an illusion, would you not then be unafraid of dying, since this act would also be illusionary. Would death (or even suicide) not result in a better amalgamation of objective experience?

Originally posted by Halitose
1) The Pantheistic Problem of Evil’s first premise has the same basic core as the theistic one in substantiating the existence of “evil” – morally objectionable actions/events.

2) The second premise is that all is God and God is all.

3) To resolve the two seemingly contradictory premises, there are 4 resolutions regarding good and evil -- all problem ...[text shortened]... as meaningless as to be wrong -- which kinda defeats the object of even having this discussion.

This is sloppy reasoning and terminology. Unlike the REAL Argument from Evil, which is directed at a God with omni capabilities, this form fails to define its terms, particulary "good" and "evil", making the "argument" meaningless. Nor does pantheism usually postulate some sort of Divine Puppetmaster in charge of ALL events in the universe; it merely states that the Universe is in some way a Unity. A Unity can't be "good" or "evil"; this is a nonsensical proposition.