Isn't time that Humanity was more important than any religion

even outside of issues of religion, faith in a result renders 90% of everyday life doable

It begins with simple acts of charity, since even a commitment to sacrifice runs against the grain of entrenched egotism afforded by a materialistic view (of course there are various ways egotism can hijack the act of charity, which explains why humanitarianism etc is hardly perfectional)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

hence .... they are instead sold the notion of "ok you are not happy now, but you will

be in the future"

A mere opinion about having a transcendental existence is as futile as an opinion that we

can hopefully attain such a state via technology in 300 or so years ....

On the contrary, that's the exclusive deal of atheism and their willingness to accept is

simply a consequence of having no other option . Kind of like saying the deal is that

everyone only gets to eat cactus and camels are simply more willing to accept it. I guess

the difference is that even atheists are mostly trying to avoid it as opposed to the camel

relishing the taste of its own blood.

Been dealt with numerous times but in short

how the transcendental view explains:

A Defense of Theodicy
The Purpose of Creation



and how the atheistic world view doesn't (or is relegated to the same bevy of

insurmountable obstacles that cannot be over come no matter how many resources are pumped

into the endeavour):

Envy - the final frontier
Atheist Fundamentalism and the Limits of

Science
The Inadequacy of Atheism
Foundation of scientific and technical thought

granted that at the lower threshold of religious practice it can function like that ....

but the irony is that you have painted the upper threshold of atheists/gross materialists

in the same manner ("perhaps we can solve this problem in 300 years with technology" etc

etc)

as I said there are two categories - seems like you are only familiar with the first

variety. Persons of the second type tend to be a bit more intellectual or knowledgeable of

the nature of conditioned existence to. I've met a few but they are certainly a lot more

rarer breed than your standard "I'm gonna go out there and acquire what I need to be happy"

sort of atheist. Posters like Crunchycat come to mind

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

hence .... they are instead sold the notion of "ok you are not happy now, but you will

be in the future"

A mere opinion about having a transcendental existence is as futile as an opinion that we

can hopefully attain such a state via technology in 300 or so years ....

On the contrary, that's the exclusive deal of atheism and their willingness to accept is

simply a consequence of having no other option . Kind of like saying the deal is that

everyone only gets to eat cactus and camels are simply more willing to accept it. I guess

the difference is that even atheists are mostly trying to avoid it as opposed to the camel

relishing the taste of its own blood.

Been dealt with numerous times but in short

how the transcendental view explains:

A Defense of Theodicy
The Purpose of Creation



and how the atheistic world view doesn't (or is relegated to the same bevy of

insurmountable obstacles that cannot be over come no matter how many resources are pumped

into the endeavour):

Envy - the final frontier
Atheist Fundamentalism and the Limits of

Science
The Inadequacy of Atheism
Foundation of scientific and technical thought

granted that at the lower threshold of religious practice it can function like that ....

but the irony is that you have painted the upper threshold of atheists/gross materialists

in the same manner ("perhaps we can solve this problem in 300 years with technology" etc

etc)

as I said there are two categories - seems like you are only familiar with the first

variety. Persons of the second type tend to be a bit more intellectual or knowledgeable of

the nature of conditioned existence to0. I've met a few but they are certainly a lot more

rarer breed than your standard "I'm gonna go out there and acquire what I need to be happy"

sort of atheist. Posters like Crunchycat come to mind

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

stuff it

as an experiment I'm going to post one paragraph at a time and see if there is some sort of word or something that freaks out the "auto mod queue" thing

hence .... they are instead sold the notion of "ok you are not happy now, but you will be in the future"

 

A mere opinion about having a transcendental existence is as futile as an opinion that we can hopefully attain such a state via technology in 300 or so years ....

 

On the contrary, that's the exclusive deal of atheism and their willingness to accept is simply a consequence of having no other option . Kind of like saying the deal is that everyone only gets to eat cactus and camels are simply more willing to accept it. I guess the difference is that even atheists are mostly trying to avoid it as opposed to the camel relishing the taste of its own blood.

 

Been dealt with numerous times but in short

how the transcendental view explains:

A Defense of Theodicy
The Purpose of Creation



and how the atheistic world view doesn't (or is relegated to the same bevy of insurmountable obstacles that cannot be over come no matter how many resources are pumped into the endeavour):

Envy - the final frontier
Atheist Fundamentalism and the Limits of Science
The Inadequacy of Atheism
Foundation of scientific and technical thought

 

(YUP its the links to other threads that freaks out the "auto mod queue - its the only part I can't post)

granted that at the lower threshold of religious practice it can function like that .... but the irony is that you have painted the upper threshold of atheists/gross materialists in the same manner ("perhaps we can solve this problem in 300 years with technology" etc etc)

as I said there are two categories - seems like you are only familiar with the first variety. Persons of the second type tend to be a bit more intellectual or knowledgeable of the nature of conditioned existence to. I've met a few but they are certainly a lot more rarer breed than your standard "I'm gonna go out there and acquire what I need to be happy" sort of atheist. Posters like Crunchycat come to mind

 

But how is that failure? You define success by unattainable criteria. As far as we can tell, the very condition you call failure is the only condition which exists.

It's a big pain in the backside, man. Thanks for sticking with it.

This assumes that happiness is defined only by eternal life, and no other kind of happiness is attainable. I would disagree vehemently with that definition. It may in fact be valid to you, but to say that atheism--which does not posit some eternal existence--is therefore a failure is incorrect.

I disagree. You can't have a transcendental existence, you can only believe that you one day will. If that soothes you, then mission accomplished irrespective of the validity of the belief.

No, it's the deal for everyone. Whether you want to admit it or not, your god is a myth and your existence is temporary. No amount of faith can save you from reality. Of course, you can delude yourself, but your consciousness will blink out of existence just like everyone else's.

As for there being no other choice, there are plenty of people who don't accept it and lie to themselves out of fear. Mother Theresa is a rather famous example of someone who spent their entire lives trying to silence their own doubt through works. But in the end, she had to admit that she just didn't feel it.

You know, I get the distinct impression that your biggest contention with atheism is that it's unpleasant. It's as if you find it inferior because it doesn't promise you eternal happiness. I'm sorry you feel that way, but its unpleasantness doesn't have any bearing on its validity.

It functions like that at all thresholds of religious practice. At least in terms of monotheism. Perhaps it's different in faiths that don't require submission and prostration by its followers.

I did no such thing. I simply pointed out the error in you making absolute assumptions about the limits of medicine and technology. I never said those hypothetical advancements were required to have a good life and be happy.

And as I said, you don't seem to know anything about atheism, or atheists, save for what you've read on theist apologist websites. The fact that you don't seem to process anything said by actual atheists here at Sci speaks to this point. But then, I suppose ignoring reality in favor of ideas that are comfortable to you (atheists are mostly stupid, save for this mysterious second type which pretty much agrees with everything I say, and even then they're only "a bit more intellectual," etc.) is the very thing that brings you to your god, so I shouldn't be surprised.

:shrug:

 

What about teaching various forms of intoxication?
Involving intoxicating substances of various kinds (from heroin to chocolate) as well as intoxicating activities (for example, cultivating sports fan culture)?

Intoxication is intended to "nullify these five different statuses of life—pa, pha, ba, bha and ma—one achieves apavarga, /to bring/ liberation from the punishment of material existence",
so those who teach intoxication actually fall into the category of "When one attempts to nullify these five different statuses of life—pa, pha, ba, bha and ma—one achieves apavarga, or liberation from the punishment of material existence"!!

You find CrunchyCat to be an example of "the second type /who/ tend to be a bit more intellectual or knowledgeable of the nature of conditioned existence"?

 

That is for people like you to answer, who believe that everyone who doesn't think, feel, speak and act the way you do, deserve to burn in hell for all eternity.

 

Believing that one has food to eat is not even remotely the same as actually having food to eat.
Just believing something is not enough.

From some theistic perspectives*, all materialism is nihilism, since all matter "goes to dust" and is not worth being attached to.

(*Christians and Hindus probably disagree on this.)

 

True...if you're talking about food. But we're talking about faith in some kind of divine plan, that there is more to consciousness and existence than this brief time spent on Earth. The driving force behind such a desire is the discomfort or fear or depression caused by the belief that this is, in fact, all there is to it. So all that is needed to assuage those fears and concerns is belief.

Well, in that case, atheists don't necessarily see anything wrong with it. It's just a fact of life.

 

Which is exactly why it's a complete and utter waste of time arguing with religious nut jobs.
Faith is exactly that.

One could make quite an argument that in 300 years or so we will indeed have the technology to be able to do more or less precisely that, but that doesn't represent much in the way of eternal hope for those living here and now. Odd, though, that the religious types often have as little faith in man with regard to his potential than the atheists can sometimes appear to do. That could be construed as being rather disrespectful to god himself, should he be paying attention to the finer details. I suppose that might put some of them into a state of confusion, really... what if we do? I only wish I could be around long enough for the various churches to begin the debate on immortality, should it ever become possible. I would imagine, though, that religion would suddenly become a rather less attractive proposition should the churches decide that immortality is a sin.

The various religions and beliefs allow a more immediate gratification, which is obviously far superior a technique in keeping people on their feet, and therefore is far more attractive to those who might be looking, subconsciously or otherwise, for an easy way out rather than having to contemplate things too deeply.
If a man's beliefs are the only thing preventing him from opting out, he isn't going to let go of them very easily. A man being logically argued out of his faith is usually going to convince himself he doesn't have enough of it, or that he does. It's the same mental safety net an atheist uses when considering what it actually means for him not to believe in god.
A little like a 20 year old blonde marrying a 60 year old billionaire for the security, and then convincing herself that she did it because she was in love with him. Man will do all sorts of things to make himself comfortable.

This LightGigantic fellow appears to have convinced himself that any atheist who fully understands mortality is simply going to roll over and die. It doesn't appear to have occurred to him that a total faith in god should theoretically have the religious types doing more or less the same thing. After all, there is no point to any progress if we're all going to end up in some kind of after life anyway.

There are, however, several other checks and balances nature has put in place to ensure we don't usually do off ourselves. Certainly not much more often than the religious types, and in either case it's not likely to be for religious or non-religious reasons. Point is, that man will find any reason not to die... and every last one of them has very little to do with logic or reality.
Including religion.

Few arguments regarding whether or not god exists rarely get as far as discussing the ramifications of him not doing so. That particular tangent forces believer and non-believer alike to think about consequences.
Neither of them particularly want to. Checks and balances.

 

But in my experience, theism is like that too - "ok you are not happy now, but you will be in the future". There is this constant putting off of any shred of happiness, meaningfulness or satisfaction.

How do you know what camels relish?
It seems like you are heavily projecting your own ideas about what things are like, into/onto animals.
It's not like you have spent a lot of time with camels, studying them. Or have you?


It's like some other ideas I have heard from devotees - that dogs eat stool because they have such intense hunger and no discrimination; or that pigs refuse to eat sweets because their sense of taste is so off.

A flea larva eating stool and an animal like a dog or cat eating stool, is not the same.
Dogs, and a number of other mammals, eat stool in order to replenish their intestinal flora, which had been compromised by insufficient or poor nutrition, intestinal parasites, or, as is typical for domestic dogs that are fed canned food, by preservatives in the food that kill intestinal flora. Without proper intestinal flora, an animal cannot digest food.
The same principle is used for humans whose intestinal flora had been compromised by use of antibiotics: they take the stool of a healthy person, distill it, and introduce it to the patient's stomach via a tube through the mouth and stomach (to avoid the acidic environment of the stomach that would otherwise kill much of the intestinal flora).
Not all animals have the same kind of digestion enzymes as we do. And some animals actually have a sense of what kind of food they can digest, and what food would just make them sick. Pigs, for example, seem quite smart in this regard (unlike cows, cats and dogs).
If one has lived with animals for some time and has studied them, along with comparing insights from other people who have lived with animals, one can notice that they aren't simply stupid or greedy or generally lack discernment.

Since the thorny plants that camels eat do not kill them, I imagine there is a good reason why camels eat them. Such as that there is no better food around, or that those plants contain nutrients that camels cannot easily obtain otherwise, given their habitat.

Sure.
But simply having faith is no guarantee that the invested effort will lead to the desired result.

While an atheist can certainly perform acts of charity, that won't likely give them any sense that they are doing something specifically theistic; so from the atheist's perspective, charity isn't a gate to theism.

 

What else can we have but a mere opinion on these matters?

Like I replied to a poster in another thread:

Wow.
Just wow.


Yeah, just think "God loves you. You are a wonderful person. Everything will be fine."

No, it's not ok.

 

Arguably (!), arguing is always a waste of time anyway.

and

Not everyone's psychological defence mechanisms are on the same level.
Denial is generally considered a primitive defense.

Even if we conceptualize religiousness as one big defence mechanism, then, given the complexity of defence mechanisms, the issue isn't simple at all.

I think this is simplistic, and refuses to look into the complex nature of what we consider to be our "selves" and "reality."
When people say "We will all die", they usually mean "Our bodies will die."

But even for everyday practical intents and purposes, we don't actually think we are merely our bodies. We have needs, interests, concerns, desires, intentions for which the body is seen as merely a tool, not the end or recipient. For example, one brushes one's teeth out of concerns that are aesthetical or moral, and not because they happen to be there in one's mouth.

The fact that we say "my body" and believe this phrase makes perfect sense, suggests that we at least implicitly believe we are more than just our bodies.


In short, throughout history of philosophy and religion, the notion of selfhood has been one of the most addressed topics, it's complexity acknowledged.
So we can't just gloss over it.

 

realization born of application

 

To be sure, there is a measure of happiness to be found even in things that are impermanent; there is no doubt that there is a measure of happiness to be found in food, drink, sleep, sex, work, art, sports, hobbies.

But we also have less or more awareness of how fleeting this happiness is, and how the effort required to obtain it can be far more than the resulting happiness.
This awareness tends to be painful, so we try to shut it out with various distractions (such as alcohol, or shopping sprees, etc.).
And as long as health and wealth last, we can afford these distractions, or at least cynicism. But once our health and wealth are compromised, we can't afford those distractions anymore, we are left with cynicism, which become more and more difficult to maintain the more we have to work hard to ensure some measure of health and wealth.

Here, you are using the exact same tone of superiority as religious fundies tend to. That really doesn't move the discussion ahead.

 

Then the endeavour doesn't persist

enough to be spat upon by one.
Plenty of camels in rajastan ... and thorn bushes too for that matter (granted that they don't hurt their mouths .... although the same could not be said for any human whop succumbs to camel-like behavior)

its all about the modes of nature one cultivates - which in turn dictate things such as happiness and distress. The point of the descriptions is to isolate which happiness's are superior to others or how they might compare. Generally they aim at pointing out how happiness born of the pursuit of animal propensities (eating, sleeping, mating and defending - or the entire scope for materialistic pursuit) are uniform throughout all species so it doesn't really pay to make them the be all and end all in the human form of life (since the human form of life offers something unique and practically unavailable in any of the other millions of species)

without it there is the guarantee that there will be no result

You miss the point.

Its the gate to downplaying material desire to a less fevered state (which in turn makes transcendental pursuit a possibility somewhere down the track).

For instance I just watched a documentary about a young somali born super model (who was brought up in britain) returning to her homeland. One can note how the experience broadened her comprehension of priority and value (and even ends with the note that she lessened her modelling workload so she could work on advocacy issues for the somalis) - IOW you could say that the act of charity gave her a taste for higher values that she was otherwise outside of experiencing in the modeling world.