Kevin's Watch

rusmeister wrote:(I guess I can't say "two-parent family" anymore, because you may now imagine something different from what I mean, from what everyone always understood until now.)

I think you've seen right through me there, and my deliberate avoidance of discussing the gender of the parents in question.

I think it's worth considering that a rejection of traditional gender roles also calls into question the supposition that exposure to a role model of both genders is necessary (or simply desirable) for the fullness of a child's development (for lack of a better way to phrase it).


Regarding the consideration of Orthodoxy, I think what you regularly fail to account for is that I and many others do not come to atheism from a position of rejecting certain western forms of christianity - in my own case I have never belonged to any such faith and, though the schools I attended were arguably of an Anglican bent (typical in England), was raised in a religion-free environment - but from having rejected the fundamental basis of all religions: the potential existance of a higher being with authority over our ultimate fates.

When the conclusion we have reached in our appraisal of faith is that God is a highly unlikely prospect, no form of Christianity is going to look any more correct simply through a different interpretation and expression of that belief in God.

Murrin wrote:

rusmeister wrote:(I guess I can't say "two-parent family" anymore, because you may now imagine something different from what I mean, from what everyone always understood until now.)

I think you've seen right through me there, and my deliberate avoidance of discussing the gender of the parents in question.

I think it's worth considering that a rejection of traditional gender roles also calls into question the supposition that exposure to a role model of both genders is necessary (or simply desirable) for the fullness of a child's development (for lack of a better way to phrase it).


Regarding the consideration of Orthodoxy, I think what you regularly fail to account for is that I and many others do not come to atheism from a position of rejecting certain western forms of christianity - in my own case I have never belonged to any such faith and, though the schools I attended were arguably of an Anglican bent (typical in England), was raised in a religion-free environment - but from having rejected the fundamental basis of all religions: the potential existance of a higher being with authority over our ultimate fates.

When the conclusion we have reached in our appraisal of faith is that God is a highly unlikely prospect, no form of Christianity is going to look any more correct simply through a different interpretation and expression of that belief in God.

This is something I completely respect. With such unbelievers, I'd just take the debate to a different level. I wouldn't approach it from a context of having experienced a religion. It'd cut back closer to "What is truth?" and "Is reason valid?" "Can we know anything at all?" and so on. Depends on whether the person is materialist, relativist/subjectivist, or both.

To be honest, those arguments invalidate not just my philosophy but every philosophy, to the point where the only conclusion is to just not bother trying to philosophise at all and just live out your probably meaningless, potentially false existence in the way you prefer and not worry about things you can't know.

(The other potential outcome is for a solipsistic and ultimately sociopathic outlook to form based on the absolute certainty of the uncertainty of all experience.)

Murrin wrote:To be honest, those arguments invalidate not just my philosophy but every philosophy, to the point where the only conclusion is to just not bother trying to philosophise at all and just live out your probably meaningless, potentially false existence in the way you prefer and not worry about things you can't know.

(The other potential outcome is for a solipsistic and ultimately sociopathic outlook to form based on the absolute certainty of the uncertainty of all experience.)

I know that. But there are people here who actually don't.

Anyway, I must apologise for derailing the thread! This is a worthy subject for discussion and I shouldn't drag it off course and make it all about me, heh.

Considering this thread exists because the topic derailed a different thread, I'd say we're right on course.

Murrin wrote:Regarding the consideration of Orthodoxy, I think what you regularly fail to account for is that I and many others do not come to atheism from a position of rejecting certain western forms of christianity - in my own case I have never belonged to any such faith and, though the schools I attended were arguably of an Anglican bent (typical in England), was raised in a religion-free environment - but from having rejected the fundamental basis of all religions: the potential existance of a higher being with authority over our ultimate fates.

When the conclusion we have reached in our appraisal of faith is that God is a highly unlikely prospect, no form of Christianity is going to look any more correct simply through a different interpretation and expression of that belief in God.

Very much describes my experiences. I was raised Presbyterian. Sunday School and church as a child. I never had a problem with any of it. No bad experiences. No objections to this or that. But, one day, I realized I simply didn't believe any of it. I knew many of the words, but I didn't feel it. And since I gave it up, I haven't heard words about any other version of Christianity, or any other religion entirely, that were any more compelling. I've simply found no reason to believe any of it.

Also since then, I have found reasons to dislike/disapprove of every version of Christianity I've ever heard of. God is an s.o.b.; hypocrisy; internal inconsistencies; whatever. But all of that came long after I realized I didn't believe - it wasn't the cause of my unbelief.

aliantha wrote:Considering this thread exists because the topic derailed a different thread, I'd say we're right on course.

I

Fist and Faith wrote:

Murrin wrote:Regarding the consideration of Orthodoxy, I think what you regularly fail to account for is that I and many others do not come to atheism from a position of rejecting certain western forms of christianity - in my own case I have never belonged to any such faith and, though the schools I attended were arguably of an Anglican bent (typical in England), was raised in a religion-free environment - but from having rejected the fundamental basis of all religions: the potential existance of a higher being with authority over our ultimate fates.

When the conclusion we have reached in our appraisal of faith is that God is a highly unlikely prospect, no form of Christianity is going to look any more correct simply through a different interpretation and expression of that belief in God.

Very much describes my experiences. I was raised Presbyterian. Sunday School and church as a child. I never had a problem with any of it. No bad experiences. No objections to this or that. But, one day, I realized I simply didn't believe any of it. I knew many of the words, but I didn't feel it. And since I gave it up, I haven't heard words about any other version of Christianity, or any other religion entirely, that were any more compelling. I've simply found no reason to believe any of it.

Also since then, I have found reasons to dislike/disapprove of every version of Christianity I've ever heard of. God is an s.o.b.; hypocrisy; internal inconsistencies; whatever. But all of that came long after I realized I didn't believe - it wasn't the cause of my unbelief.

aliantha wrote:Considering this thread exists because the topic derailed a different thread, I'd say we're right on course.

Doing this from an iPad - I apologize for any typing problems - the keyboard doesn' t have up/down arrows, for example.

I think the peculiar thing that draws me to my arch-nemesis, Fist , is the high level of experience that began in a parallel fashion and became mirror reflections.
I too was raised in faith. I think there's a difference in that I consciously accepted it when I was 15, but like Fist, I came to a realization at I didn't believe it. For the next twenty years, again, our stories parallel. I also did not find faith compelling, and found reasons to dislike/disapprove of it, and the rest as you describe it, Fist. The break-off was when I was nearly 40. Both reason and experience - some fairly bad experiences, too - began to lead me back. My objections were still valid - for the faith I had held and most others that I saw, but they were not valid for all, as Lewis proved to me. (I still had not heard of GKC)

I guess that if nothing pushes you off the path I was on, then there would be no reason to leave it. If life is going satisfactorily, then we don't need God, we want to be our own god. It is only when one realizes his own self-insufficiency that he will be willing to turn elsewhere, and, like the Valar, lay aside their own authority and call on Iluvatar.

I agree, rus. My step toward Christianity was about becoming part of something bigger and meeting new people, rather than the vacuum of work, working out or enjoying myself at home. Those things are great, but I felt mostly in a flat and old routine that excluded the rest of the world. I was poking and picking over a tiny world in my head that not a soul knew about.

Plus just pure objectivity and no divining hand got tiring after awhile. I love science (when it's clear) but what good did it do me to think of the universe as nothing but a slow burn to heat death?

And now...we must merge this thread back to mine.

Lord Foul wrote:...but what good did it do me to think of the universe as nothing but a slow burn to heat death?

As much good as thinking it's not?

Besides, it is. I find it an exhilarating thought though, not a depressing one. My only regret is that I won't be around to see it.

--A

Again, here's my definition of the universe:

Me, you, the sun, Pluto, Jupiter and its moons, the Milky Way galaxy, the star Rigel, the solar winds, the free hydrogen atoms everywhere between the stars, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.

Notice that you are second on the list. (At least in my ordering. Feel free to put yourself first! ) You are part of the definition of the universe. In other words, if you never existed, the universe would be defined differently! You are just as much a part of this universe as any galaxy is. Sure, it might exist without any of us, or any star or galaxy or black hole. But it would not be the universe that we know. We are all part of the definition. And what's more, in the eyes of the unimaginably gigantic universe, the Andromeda galaxy is not much bigger than you are. Basically, you are equal to a galaxy. Not bad.

Fist and Faith wrote:Basically, you are equal to a galaxy. Not bad.

My ego should probably not hear that.
What I mean to say is, "I am a galaxy! Bwahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahhahahhh..."

You're welcome.

Avatar wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:...but what good did it do me to think of the universe as nothing but a slow burn to heat death?

As much good as thinking it's not?

Besides, it is. I find it an exhilarating thought though, not a depressing one. My only regret is that I won't be around to see it.

--A

Well, Av, I think you will. When we die, it IS the end of the universe (unless there is something else, which you guys tend to vigorously deny).

The moment of your death (like mine) WILL be a slow burn. Oblivion is NOT an experience. It is complete nullification. The end of all meaning. Or rather, the denial that there ever was any meaning. It makes your experiences NOW as nothing - I would say as less than nothing. To me it is painfully obvious that a final end to the story, for both the individual AND the universe, makes complete hash about everything that we strive to do, nullifies all meaning, and I am constantly amazed at other people's inability to see this. When the storybook is finally closed and there IS no more story, it is useless to talk about anything "going on" or anything "having meaning". If the storybook closes and there is no one to even remember the story, then the story is gone. Lost. A non-story.

PS: I apologize for not being able to keep up on the threads. Real life is happening to me, and so some threads are left hanging, and I apologize to those of you who might feel that I've blown you off.

Fist and Faith wrote:Again, here's my definition of the universe:

Me, you, the sun, Pluto, Jupiter and its moons, the Milky Way galaxy, the star Rigel, the solar winds, the free hydrogen atoms everywhere between the stars, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.

Notice that you are second on the list. (At least in my ordering. Feel free to put yourself first! ) You are part of the definition of the universe. In other words, if you never existed, the universe would be defined differently! You are just as much a part of this universe as any galaxy is. Sure, it might exist without any of us, or any star or galaxy or black hole. But it would not be the universe that we know. We are all part of the definition. And what's more, in the eyes of the unimaginably gigantic universe, the Andromeda galaxy is not much bigger than you are. Basically, you are equal to a galaxy. Not bad.

This is a Christian idea as well, Fist. We are to be humble and see ourselves as lowly, AND to grasp that our souls are as valuable as the universe. That Christ would have died if only ONE man needed saving. That we have that value in God's eyes, though while we are Fallen, we are not to have it in our own eyes.

There goes paradox again.

Avatar wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:...but what good did it do me to think of the universe as nothing but a slow burn to heat death?

As much good as thinking it's not?

Besides, it is. I find it an exhilarating thought though, not a depressing one. My only regret is that I won't be around to see it.

--A

I don't know, Av...I'm all for living a very very long time, but the last stage of heat death [if they're right, and there's not enough gravity to collapse things again] is going to be an extremely long period of nothing at all to see...more boring than even the oprah network. You won't even have enough energy to entertain yourself. [or to fight the battle of the sexes].
My view, in a way:
Once, at the edge of a cliff...and I have a bit of a thing about heights...I've heard it said it's because one is afraid of falling, others have said no, it's because one is afraid s/he will jump...but in the larger vision all of us are already falling. On the way down, some revel...YES,,, I'm FLYING...some tremble...just falling...some of both types believe that after the ground is open sky...for the flyers the thought of that sky is a pleasant possibility, for the tremblers, a necessity for sanity.

rusmeister wrote:Well, Av, I think you will. When we die, it IS the end of the universe (unless there is something else, which you guys tend to vigorously deny).

The moment of your death (like mine) WILL be a slow burn. Oblivion is NOT an experience. It is complete nullification. The end of all meaning. Or rather, the denial that there ever was any meaning. It makes your experiences NOW as nothing - I would say as less than nothing. To me it is painfully obvious that a final end to the story, for both the individual AND the universe, makes complete hash about everything that we strive to do, nullifies all meaning, and I am constantly amazed at other people's inability to see this. When the storybook is finally closed and there IS no more story, it is useless to talk about anything "going on" or anything "having meaning". If the storybook closes and there is no one to even remember the story, then the story is gone. Lost. A non-story.

I don't get the insistence upon the meaninglessness of the universe if there is not an OC God. I get that you would now devalue the universe in the absence of an OC god, but I gather there are a large number of people that would not agree with that narrow interpretation.
It stinks of an either/or logic fault, to me.
The universe will go on after my body dies, whether or not my soul remains and communes with a higher power. Any number of things I do while I am alive can and will impact the universe (well, this corner of it) long after I am gone, if only I exert my will to do so. [And there are also thousands of actions I can take that have absolutely no moral valence, though I would not expect a deeply religious person such as yourself to agree with that statement]
Hopefully I am spending my life exerting my will in in ways that will add to the overall value of the universe (my values, not yours -- though I am certain we share many in common) rather than subtract from it. This is apart from god's will, or whether or not god exists at all. It is true whether my soul goes to heaven, hell, or never existed to begin with.
[Darn it - I keep saying I'm done with the Close, then I keep posting in here. It's a bad habit, like chewing my spiritual fingernails...]
dw

DukkhaWaynhim wrote:

rusmeister wrote:Well, Av, I think you will. When we die, it IS the end of the universe (unless there is something else, which you guys tend to vigorously deny).

The moment of your death (like mine) WILL be a slow burn. Oblivion is NOT an experience. It is complete nullification. The end of all meaning. Or rather, the denial that there ever was any meaning. It makes your experiences NOW as nothing - I would say as less than nothing. To me it is painfully obvious that a final end to the story, for both the individual AND the universe, makes complete hash about everything that we strive to do, nullifies all meaning, and I am constantly amazed at other people's inability to see this. When the storybook is finally closed and there IS no more story, it is useless to talk about anything "going on" or anything "having meaning". If the storybook closes and there is no one to even remember the story, then the story is gone. Lost. A non-story.

I don't get the insistence upon the meaninglessness of the universe if there is not an OC God. I get that you would now devalue the universe in the absence of an OC god, but I gather there are a large number of people that would not agree with that narrow interpretation.
It stinks of an either/or logic fault, to me.
The universe will go on after my body dies, whether or not my soul remains and communes with a higher power. Any number of things I do while I am alive can and will impact the universe (well, this corner of it) long after I am gone, if only I exert my will to do so. [And there are also thousands of actions I can take that have absolutely no moral valence, though I would not expect a deeply religious person such as yourself to agree with that statement]
Hopefully I am spending my life exerting my will in in ways that will add to the overall value of the universe (my values, not yours -- though I am certain we share many in common) rather than subtract from it. This is apart from god's will, or whether or not god exists at all. It is true whether my soul goes to heaven, hell, or never existed to begin with.
[Darn it - I keep saying I'm done with the Close, then I keep posting in here. It's a bad habit, like chewing my spiritual fingernails...]
dw

Here we are with that pesky word "narrow" again. A logical conclusion, by definition, is narrow, for it must exclude that which is impossible in its logic. A mathematician is narrow, for excluding the possibility that 2+2=3 or 5, for they operate on principles of truth. If something is logical, then its "narrowness" is a necessary corollary, not a blind prejudice, as your words would imply.

I tried to speak so that I was clear that the principle applies whether one is speaking of oneself or the universe. So I was not trying to say that 'the universe will not go on when a person dies', but I did say that FOR THAT PERSON it will not go on. And if the universe must come to a complete end, then the principle applies for everyone, including our distant great-to-the-10th-power grandchildren, for we are all contained within the universe. So a final end must come in any event, and speaking about it "going on" after that point is inane, either on the personal level or the universal level. This is the strange blindness of which I speak, this effort to imagine, at all costs, that 'life will go on'. For it will not. So in materialism there is only despair in the end, literally. That a person can refuse or be unable to see it I do not doubt. But that IS a logical conclusion, indeed, the most logical conclusion.

No, it is not. As always, with this topic, you speak of that which you do not know. That is, you speak from ignorance. Because you are compelled to tell others that they are wrong. You should stick to what you DO know. Like why what is written in the Bible that clearly contradicts your beliefs somehow DOESN'T contradict your beliefs. If only you DID know. But you don't. You are simply told to believe they don't. Then you've got the arrogance to tell me the inevitable conclusion of my beliefs...

rusmeister wrote:Here we are with that pesky word "narrow" again.

So lower your hackles at the use of 'narrow', and remove that one word from my post, then address the post itself instead of picking me apart based on the one word whose connotation offends you.

rusmeister wrote:I tried to speak so that I was clear that the principle applies whether one is speaking of oneself or the universe. So I was not trying to say that 'the universe will not go on when a person dies', but I did say that FOR THAT PERSON it will not go on. And if the universe must come to a complete end, then the principle applies for everyone, including our distant great-to-the-10th-power grandchildren, for we are all contained within the universe. So a final end must come in any event, and speaking about it "going on" after that point is inane, either on the personal level or the universal level. This is the strange blindness of which I speak, this effort to imagine, at all costs, that 'life will go on'. For it will not. So in materialism there is only despair in the end, literally. That a person can refuse or be unable to see it I do not doubt. But that IS a logical conclusion, indeed, the most logical conclusion.

It is a very logical conclusion, sort of like the conclusion that fish don't need bicycles, in that it is eminently logical, but totally useless and irrelevant.
Because I believe that hope -- the buoyant, effervescent, healing kind -- can spring from all corners of the heart, mind, body, soul, and the human condition in general -- not just the Christian/OC/RCC vault. Trying to state or imply that hope is a brand exclusively owned by one religion is a selfish and misguided course. For one who frequently mentions agape, and is beside himself with dismay that the Wrong People might have eros, your actions paint you as one convinced that the universe truly operates only on tightly regimented storge, because anything else would be unseemly in the eyes of God.
These are of course types of love -- and what is hope but the anticipation of love?

dw