P
PRmerger
Guest
What Catholic teaching would that be that you know to be false? And how do you know? :coffeeread:
- Status
T
Touchstone
Guest
None. They could be true, but we don’t have any way to know. That’s beside the point, though. For Mystic Banana, and many others, whether it’s true or false doesn’t matter. That just gets in the way, that question. For in that view, if there is no God, then the consquences are just too awful. As Mystic Banana said, no meaningful purposes, that case.
So Catholicism’s teachings present a useful veneer of meaning. Now there’s some cosmic narrative with which to soothe one’s conceits, a story for the ego that gives each believer…
COSMIC MEANING!!!
The teachings don’t have to be true, and they can’t be shown to be false, even if they are false. So it all works out, and we have available a narrative that affords what many want, and avoids what many so want to avoid.
-TS
M
Mystic_Banana
Guest
Woo! Now that’s an aggressive bit of slagging off!
If you think this means I just believe without question, then you are only fooling yourself
Atheists laugh, but they consistently fail to justify their own irrational approach to life - so I shake my head sadly
Assume falsity all you like, you are NEVER ABLE TO JUSTIFY IT!
As for what I’m signalling, I think maybe you should check your antenna. Maybe get out of that tunnel you keep staring down?
I’ll file this under “another atheist ranting in the face of another failure to justify their own beliefs”
M
Mystic_Banana
Guest
Reworking what I say so that it is no longer an honest reflection of my words but instead fits the stereotype in your predictably closed mind helps your argument naught - try again!
P
PRmerger
Guest
Ah. I see.
Interesting.
What gives you that impression that truth doesn’t matter to some Catholics?
This seems to be a logical conclusion, yes?
And, yet, you’re proposing that atheism is the only theory that provides…
COSMIC MEANING.
Yes?
T
Touchstone
Guest
Well, is a “shallow might as well” the “best possible” circumstance for one who knows of no god? I put those quotes in there because those are your words verbatim – you chose 'em not me. If you want to rethink the implications of your hyperbole (if it is hyperbole), be my guest, but as it stands, if you think that’s the “best possible” outcome, well, it doesn’t matter if your belief in God is grounded in reality or not. It simply must be embraced for anyone who supposes life should have more meaning and import than a “shallow might as well”.Reworking what I say so that it is no longer an honest reflection of my words but instead fits the stereotype in your predictably closed mind helps your argument naught - try again!
I’m happy to have you clarify what the best case is on that measure for unbelievers. As it is, the conceit so so pure, you don’t have any options but to embrace some Godful message that affords at least the illusion of supernatural personalities and deities introduced in you in some cosmic, eternal way.
-TS
T
Touchstone
Guest
The idea that an opposing view entails solipsism, nihilism or some other necessary view that disables one from finding, developing and realizing value in meaning in their lives, goals, opportunities and challenges.
For some – not all – but many here, for example, the apologetic tells us much more about the apologist than it says anything about God, reality or the listener. It just signals a kind of fundamentalist mindset where the complexities and nuances of an alternative are too terrifying or nauseating to bear. If it’s true, and it’s hard, there’s an interest in avoiding the truth, for anyone. Fideistic religion caters to that interest, and nurtures it, apologetically in just the same way as we see from Mystic Banana, the conceit that says: *life without God is meaningless, futile, defeated.
*Give a choice between “true” and “my life has meaning”, many identify the latter as by far the more important. And it shows in their apologetic, a basic argument error – the “appeal to consequences”, That which I resist must be false, because, well, think of how awful it would be if it’s true!!!
Yes, valid syllogism, unsound argument due to the bogus premise (“a shallow might as well” is the best case scenario, in the alternative). It again, just signals conceit and ignorance of how humans can and do establish meaning – real, tangible meaning grounded in what actually happens, or doesn’t happen, in the real world. Catholics like that are welcome to their conceits, but it just shows how unable they are to think in terms of truth, how that gets trumped by emotional trauma and terror over cosmic meaning.
So, if you’re goal is “find the narrative with the most fabulous and ego-centric scope of meaning… the ‘tallest tale’ out there in terms of catering to my conceits regarding cosmic meaning for ME, ME, ME”, than yes, a logical, and I think inevitable way to proceed. If one is just trying to figure out what’s what, what is real and what is not FIRST, and then deal with the consequences of that as followup, it’s the wrong way to go.
No. Atheism provides no “cosmic meaning”. There is no god in that view to cater to our conceits, to our desire to be “cosmically valued”, or anything like that at all. So far as can be reasoned out, when you die, that’s it, and there’s not god, no afterlife, no angels, no streets of gold, no final fixing up of every wrong that happened in the real world, etc. But that very denial of the theist delusion is a real-world basis for finding meaning and value and goals in the real world, to hold our life time and our relationships and the future we might bequeath to those who come after us precious.
So the meaning is local, mortal, humble, finite, but real and visceral as compensation for the grand illusions that theism proclaims. Like the gaggle of hot models the big talker in 9th grade were his girlfriends, but were always “living in another state” and never available to meet, or even verify their existence, a real world relationship that you can see, watch, engage and verify, even if it’s just the nice girl next door and more of a friendship with aims to be something bigger someday, perhaps, as opposed to the torrid romances with the models-that-never-were, meaning and value in this life can’t compete in terms of hyperbole and flair, but what they lack in that, the meaning makes up for in being real, actual, present.
-TS
B
Betterave
Guest
But are you justified in insisting that *purpose *be meaningful? What if one has become convinced that it is possible to embrace everything, whether it is meaningful or not? That there is no purpose but what is? That it is a great act to ponder an eternal return of the same and to be able to fully embrace it?…none of which comes out as meaningful purpose, but as a shallow might as well. Which, as I argue, is the best that’s possible given your beliefs.
But why embrace only what is reasonable? Why not embrace it all? (And ultimately doesn’t this mean: why not fully embrace yourself, fully accept yourself, take *yourself *to be a kind of God, just as perfect and holy as anything else that is conceivable, once one has stopped clinging to history, to accidental particular purposes?)
B
Betterave
Guest
Too true!Reworking what I say so that it is no longer an honest reflection of my words but instead fits the stereotype in your predictably closed mind helps your argument naught - try again!
B
Betterave
Guest
LOL! Oh the irony!
“There is no god in that view to cater to our conceits, to our desire to be “cosmically valued”, or anything like that at all. So far as can be reasoned out, when you die, that’s it, and there’s not god, no afterlife, no angels, no streets of gold, no final fixing up of every wrong that happened in the real world, etc. But that very denial of the theist delusion is a real-world basis for finding meaning and value and goals in the real world, to hold our life time and our relationships and the future we might bequeath to those who come after us precious. So the meaning is local, mortal, humble, finite, but real and visceral as compensation for the grand illusions that theism proclaims…”
=
"
COSMIC MEANING!!!
"
T
Touchstone
Guest
It has no cosmic scope, whatsoever. It’s not a good or bad meaning, it’s an “not applicable”, which is the major point you seem to have missed in engaging your “I’m-rubber-you-re-glue” reflex, there. There is no outer scope that is concerned with me at all, to give me “good meaning”, “bad meaning”, a “shallow might as well” meaning. There’s no meaning to assess at that scope.
That doesn’t mean we can’t and don’t find humble, LOCAL contexts for meaning, but that neither needs nor can use the kind of cosmic scope Catholicism projects in its teaching.
-TS
B
Betterave
Guest
“There’s no meaning to assess at that scope” - that is an assessment of meaning at that scope. That’s the obvious point - isn’t it? - which you seem to repeatedly miss. I think the greatness of Nietzsche lies in his not missing this point, but in actually reflecting upon it.
(Please note: I certainly have not claimed to be rubber. That doesn’t even make sense for me, since I don’t take myself to be engaged in flinging insults (apparently you do). If anyone, I claim that it is you who are rubber - the meaning of your own words just bounces off of you and you fail to understand their import.)
The embrace of “LOCAL contexts of meaning” coupled with the rejection of these local contexts as belonging to any broader context implies the absolutization of the local, which implies the divinization of the individual/local, the raw irrational assertion that the rights of the ‘local’ are perfectly absolute… apparently just because. If you don’t see that, I can only wonder: why not?
T
Touchstone
Guest
I was not thinking of insults. Rather, just the kind of reflex that assumes symmetry as a polemic device. Being “not-religious” is really just a form of religion, saying there’s “no meaning there” is really a way of putting meaning there, because, well, it seems to have some polemic value. In any case, it’s not a matter of insults, just projection, that your critics are bound to be committed to the same modes you are (hence the rubber-glue symmetry).
No god in the universe removes the cosmic scope for meaning. There is no cosmic designer, no cosmic personality to ground meaning in. I realize that doesn’t play nice with the “oh, the irony” reflex, but you can’t hang a coat on a hook that ain’t there.
I have no idea what you mean by “perfectly absolute”. That term isn’t mine, and is one that signals all sorts of reasoning alarms off. I think you are project your own absolutes where none obtain. In my view, the meanings in life are not perfect, absolute, or perfectly absolute, not hardly. They are personal, social, limited, fleeting, non-absolute, and as fallible and subjective and personal as any person is. There’s no divinization to be had, that’s a bogus concept to begin with, and describes a theistic grounds for cosmic meaning, but doesn’t even come into play in an atheistic model.
Maybe take a look at what a godless universe really looks like, in a serious way, eh? Humans are great in that they don’t have to assent to a belief or adopt to consider it proviisionally, to entertain it hypothetically. Your vision of a godless world reflects your inability to think outside the modes of your credulity.
Just start by asking what person has cosmic or eternal scope to even support the semantics of meaning in a godless world where humans die and that is the final end of them as pesons, as any kind of conscious being. You don’t have to believe that is the case to understand the ramifications of that regarding “cosmic meaning”.
-TS
M
Mystic_Banana
Guest
Hmmm - don’t think I was talking of people who know of no God. Are there any people who know of no God? Maybe in North Korea, or somewhere else where anti-religious censorship is so absolute as to remove all undistorted public reference to the same, but otherwise, the wisest choice would be to check out this thing called God. If you’re in such a horribly oppressive country, I suppose many realise their best bet is to get out anyway!
Vague as the references to Godful messages are, compared to the myriad insanities invented by modern cultures based on atheist philosophies, I’ve certainly found more wisdom in Christian teaching than anything Chomsky, Marx, Nietsche et al. could ever muster.
I’ve probably not read enough of other religions to vouch entirely enough to generalise, but from what I do know, I’d say most are more reasonable pursuits than atheism, except perhaps idealistic pantheism, which most closely resembles the “illusion of supernatural personalities” you refer to - or similarly atheist pseudo-versions of the same depicted by such as Brian Cox, who’s populist TV show has him waxing so beautifully about being a part of the universe it’s almost as if he’s trying to convince everyone that it all means a lot because he understands in such technical detail what those *big *and ** purrty lights in the sky are made of, despite the absence of meaning in his general monologue (which is presumably easily overlooked by the gullible)?
If you mean the latter, then obviously I’d suggest looking elsewhere
M
Mystic_Banana
Guest
With the last sentence, you’re kind of emotively reaching for a God anyway! But it sounds like the idealogical pantheism I’ve just been criticising…
You can embrace a raging fire, but it’ll burn you. If you want to be unreasonable, up to you, but expect weeping and grinding of teeth! You can decide that anything, including yourself, is God, but why would embracing (worshipping?) yourself, or any of these other things make any difference in the long run? Whether you want them to or not?
L
LogisticsBranch
Guest
Hi Touchstone, I know you are an atheist. Western atheists are non-religious, not all non-religious people are atheists according to a Gallop poll. conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_obesity
As far as reglious people:
SAO/NASA ADS
Title: God in the lab
Authors: Toumey, Chris
Affiliation: AA(Chris Toumey is at the University of South Carolina NanoCenter.
Publication: Nature Nanotechnology, Volume 4, Issue 11, pp. 696-697 (2009).
Publication Date: 11/2009
Origin: NATURE
DOI: 10.1038/nnano.2009.321
Abstract
Surveys have found that almost half of all scientists in the US are religious. Chris Toumey explores what this might mean for nanotechnology.
adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009NatNa…4…696T
My personal observation: Even atheism lies within the sphere of a certain reference to the concept of God. If it denies the existence of God, it must also know whose existence it is denying.
Have a nice day. Bye the way, my pup Grace is going to be trained as a search and rescue dog.
I’ll be traveling all around the globe with her. Hope to meet up with those UK kettle boys one day. LOL!Final note, I have many friends that are religous and non-religious on the homefront and in cyberspace. That’s it for me on this topic. I’ve left my markings scattered throughout this topic. Previous one was #213. Peace and joy to everyone.
P
PRmerger
Guest
This is a non-sequitor, Touchstone.
The ideas proposed above are not borne out of a Catholic’s proposal that truth doesn’t matter.
Of course, Catholicism proposes the opposite: truth does matter. It matters so much that Truth became Incarnate, so your argument that Catholics believe truth is irrelevant is quite curious indeed.
Indeed. The same could be said for the atheist, too, no?
P
PRmerger
Guest
You are trying way too hard, TS, here.
T
Touchstone
Guest
Agreed. It’s just that as the investigation, that gets subordinated, or even just thrown under the bus, as “collateral damage” incurred in indulging one’s conceits.
But that’s just going Orwellian on the language, doing violence to the terms until the confess the dogma you wish. My observation was pointed at Mystic Banana’s signalling of the “appeal to consequences” error, but here is a good example of the same kind of disregard for the truth as we understand it in a straightforward, effective way. Now, even that has to be co-opted as part of the overarching apologetics, “truth as a person”. If someone said that about Vishnu or Stalin, it would be immediately apparent what kind of a conceit that is, and a contempt for the language we can agree on for practical understanding.
Yes indeed. Happens all the time, I run into atheists who hate God in such a way they just decide he can’t exist. That’s bird-of-a-feather for Mystic Banana’s position, the same kind of basic reasoning failure. Theists do not have a monopoly on that, by any means, and it’s just as unreasonable coming from an atheist as a theist.
Yes, as above, I run into this type of unbeliever all the time. It’s just as bogus from them, it signals the same kind of head-in-the-sand approach to thinking about Big Questions. If I gave the impression that wasn’t a problem in the atheist camp, too, I hope that’s set straight. It’s bogus wherever it occurs. You either are willing to take a sober, clear-eyed look at the world around you, and deal with the consequences as they proceed from that, or you are not.
And often, it’s quite easy to see when this is what’s happening.
-TS
T
Touchstone
Guest
- Status