Families Are Forever . or Not

[mfbukowski]

53 minutes ago, Islander said:

In an atheistic framework nothing can be right or wrong.

Not so.

Even atheists have a moral compass to guide them, and as far as logic, pragmatism works fine for justifying moral decisions.  "In my heart, I feel it is right" works just fine in a logical system based on Pragmatism to justify morality.

 

[mfbukowski]

Pragmatism and ethics:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatic_ethics

 

Do we not believe that the Light of Christ (conscience) is in every human?

You think that atheists condone killing babies for fun?

Edited May 6, 2020 by mfbukowski

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Islander said:

I said that the Judeo-Christian world view was the bedrock of western civilization. The fact that people continue to fail as Christian has nothing to do with what God has commanded and expects from us.  

In western societies, Christianity framed thought and discourse for nearly 1000 years. It was that education and worldview that shaped the beliefs and understanding of the world that led to the drafting of our Constitution, for example. To deny those facts is to simply play historical revisionism for kicks. 

Friend, Asians tolerate, entertain and even intermarry with white Europeans as a matter of course. But despise and are even openly hostile towards everybody else. I count myself among those that have experienced such treatment while traveling there for business. Do some research. Asians tend to be more xenophobic and ethnocentric than Europeans are, by far. 

Maybe I am not clear on your claims here.  Are you suggesting that the only civilization that is moral is western civilization because it is based on Judeo-Christian beliefs?

If that is not your claim, then what are you claiming about western civilization that is different than other non Christian civilizations?

[Meadowchik]

9 hours ago, Islander said:

In an atheistic framework nothing can be right or wrong. After all, let us remember what R. Dawkins’s position is: that we are the random, unintended products of a universe that just happens to exist. We will live for some decades, if we are lucky, before descending into oblivion. There is no objective purpose in our life, as we are unintended. There is no ultimate consequence to our actions, as we will all be non-existent at some point in the not-too-distant future. There is nothing ‘sacred’ about human life. The idea of anything being intrinsically meaningful is anathema to atheism. Morality, the golden rule therefore, it is a meaningless concept to them for in their worldview it can not be justified.

Sounds like a belief about atheism, but not an accurate generalisation of all atheistic frameworks.

Ask yourself this: is God an atheist?

[alter idem]

14 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Not so.

Even atheists have a moral compass to guide them, and as far as logic, pragmatism works fine for justifying moral decisions.  "In my heart, I feel it is right" works just fine in a logical system based on Pragmatism to justify morality.

 

Don't you think you're over generalizing? Of course there are good, ethical athiests, but if you look at the example of an atheist government,  for instance, China; how would you judge their moral compass? Their pragmatism imo, leads them to act  many times in what we in the west would consider immoral and unethical ways. But, to them, it is morally right because it benefits them; they answer to no God, no higher power. No belief in a God who sets a standard of some moral absolutes leads to destructive.moral relativism., imo.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, alter idem said:

Don't you think you're over generalizing? Of course there are good, ethical athiests, but if you look at the example of an atheist government,  for instance, China; how would you judge their moral compass? Their pragmatism imo, leads them to act  many times in what we in the west would consider immoral and unethical ways. But, to them, it is morally right because it benefits them; they answer to no God, no higher power. No belief in a God who sets a standard of some moral absolutes leads to destructive.moral relativism., imo.

And what does the world think about that? Did the third Reich survive? Do evil governments survive? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outposts_of_tyranny

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_state

Has China, now arguably "capitalist", changed since Chairman Mao?

Did you realize that our very word for God is virtually a synonym for "good"?

How does that happen?  Virtually universally God is defined as the highest good, we define him that way.  

Both concepts are inextricably linked, and atheists are perfectly capable of understanding that idea. So which came first?  Could God sin? Or would he then by definition not be God?

And just to clarify I was speaking of the philosophy of Pragmatism,  capital P.

I'm afraid I did not make that clear.

Edited May 6, 2020 by mfbukowski

[Islander]

18 hours ago, california boy said:

Maybe I am not clear on your claims here.  Are you suggesting that the only civilization that is moral is western civilization because it is based on Judeo-Christian beliefs?

If that is not your claim, then what are you claiming about western civilization that is different than other non Christian civilizations?

What I attempted to explain was that the Judeo-Christian traditions formed the bedrock of Western civilizations from where our concept of morality comes from. It is the only worldview that answers, in a coherent way, fundamental questions such as origin, meaning of life, morality, and destiny. We slid into the issue of morality and I pointed out that for us in the west, we eat, breath and are part of a value system that we can no longer "see" for it is everywhere. We benefit from, adhere to and enjoy it almost in autopilot, thus we no longer question it. But that very system is rooted in thought and tradition that traces itself to the notion of God. I quoted prominent atheists to illustrate that, taken to its logical conclusion, an atheistic world view can not sustain the idea that morality is a rational/logical concept. You can not apply logic, from a philosophical standpoint, to a moral situation

And yes, other civilizations are very different from western civilizations in many ways. The idea that ALL MEN are created equal in not found in Hinduism or Buddhism or even in Islam. The notions that we, as individuals, have unalienable rights is a foreign concept in most cultures, just to cite some examples. Here is an excerpt from an interview that R. Dawkins, world renown atheist, gave. It illustrates that he can not sustain or justify, really, the idea of logic applied to morality.

JB: When you make a value judgement don't you immediately step yourself outside of this evolutionary process and say that the reason this is good is that it's good. And you don't have any way to stand on that statement.
RD: My value judgement itself could come from my evolutionary past.
JB: So therefore it's just as random in a sense as any product of evolution.
RD: You could say that, it doesn't in any case, nothing about it makes it more probable that there is anything supernatural.
JB: Ultimately, your belief that rape is wrong is as arbitrary as the fact that we've evolved five fingers rather than six.
RD: You could say that, yeah.

The article is found here: https://www.bethinking.org/atheism/the-john-lennox-richard-dawkins-debate

 

[Islander]

5 hours ago, alter idem said:

Don't you think you're over generalizing? Of course there are good, ethical athiests, but if you look at the example of an atheist government,  for instance, China; how would you judge their moral compass? Their pragmatism imo, leads them to act  many times in what we in the west would consider immoral and unethical ways. But, to them, it is morally right because it benefits them; they answer to no God, no higher power. No belief in a God who sets a standard of some moral absolutes leads to destructive.moral relativism., imo.

I agree with you and I think it supports the argument I have been trying to make; there is no logical/rational morality. The problem is that "human solidarity" as Hitchens envisions it simply does not exist.  That's why we're fighting a global War on Terror; when untold millions of people around the world believe it is not only acceptable but virtuous to hijack commercial airliners and fly them into buildings killing thousands of innocent people in an unprovoked attack, we know that we cannot rely on any inherently human impulse to tell us how we should live.  There must be an ultimate standard outside ourselves, a higher law. Without an objective standard of right and wrong, of good and evil, of truth and falsehood, then such concepts become utterly meaningless.  They simply cannot exist in a Darwinian, chance-plus-time world where men are no more than animals walking upright.  In that kind of world, every moral choice becomes a matter of individual interpretation and personal preference. Thus, the Chinese can murder millions of their own people and it is perfectly justified to them to do so. Why, because their "morality" is not grounded on anything other than human constructs of ideology. I come from a communist country so I'm thoroughly familiar with their theories and methodologies. Without an absolute, unchangeable standard of right or wrong, higher law, those in power are free to disregard and dehumanize anyone, for any reason and just exterminate them. Without the one true God and law giver we are at the mercy of every human whim and impulse. History is a good example of that. 

[mfbukowski]

It appears to me that I must put on my atheist hat, the way I thought before I had an actual spiritual revelation that gave me certainty that the Church of Jesus Christ is the best source of spiritual truth ever to be revealed to mankind.

That of course is a "testimony" out of a spiritual experience, and is in no way empirical nor objective.  That means that there is no one "recipe" that can experimentally prove that God is "real".  Until you have that personal experience, there is no way to know that.

No one else can show it to you, or give you exact directions to have the same spiritual experience that they had.  Everyone has to discover it for themselves.

5 hours ago, Islander said:

What I attempted to explain was that the Judeo-Christian traditions formed the bedrock of Western civilizations from where our concept of morality comes from. It is the only worldview that answers, in a coherent way, fundamental questions such as origin, meaning of life, morality, and destiny.

That is simply just plain untrue!

Everyone has a "moral compass" unless they are psychologically impaired in some way,  as a sociopath or psychopath is.  Yes I agree that it comes from out Judeo-Christian tradition but is NOT the only "worldview that answers, in a coherent way, fundamental questions such as origin, meaning of life, morality, and destiny."

Do you ever go out and look at the stars at night and feel very small, and full of awe at the beauty of nature?  Guess what- so do atheists!

Such folks can - I know because I felt this myself as an atheist- have a beautiful sense of being one with the universe and a part of it- their bodies made out of "star stuff".  I felt a real sense of purpose in that.  Others find meaning in fighting to save the species- as they see it- by fighting global warming, by curing cancer, by fighting against Covid, by fighting for human rights, and on the list goes.

Do you really think that every single doctor and nurse risking their lives, working on saving people dying of Covid are either Christians or have no sense of "fundamental questions such as origin, meaning of life, morality, and destiny."??

Do you really think those people have no "purpose" or sense of "destiny" in their lives?

 How many of us actually WORK for the church, doing missionary work and family history, inputtng names of folks who need to have their work done etc.?

Who is actually DOING things to promote their purpose in life instead of sitting on the internet all day, claiming they are the only ones with "coherent meaning" in their lives??

5 hours ago, Islander said:

It illustrates that he can not sustain or justify, really, the idea of logic applied to morality.

What does that even mean?  Do you know what "logic" IS?  It is mathematics.  You are asking for a mathematical proof showing that murder/rape and disgusting behavior is "non-mathematical".   I officially give up.

[Islander]

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

It appears to me that I must put on my atheist hat, the way I thought before I had an actual spiritual revelation that gave me certainty that the Church of Jesus Christ is the best source of spiritual truth ever to be revealed to mankind.

That of course is a "testimony" out of a spiritual experience, and is in no way empirical nor objective.  That means that there is no one "recipe" that can experimentally prove that God is "real".  Until you have that personal experience, there is no way to know that.

No one else can show it to you, or give you exact directions to have the same spiritual experience that they had.  Everyone has to discover it for themselves.

That is simply just plain untrue!

Everyone has a "moral compass" unless they are psychologically impaired in some way,  as a sociopath or psychopath is.  Yes I agree that it comes from out Judeo-Christian tradition but is NOT the only "worldview that answers, in a coherent way, fundamental questions such as origin, meaning of life, morality, and destiny."

Do you ever go out and look at the stars at night and feel very small, and full of awe at the beauty of nature?  Guess what- so do atheists!

Such folks can - I know because I felt this myself as an atheist- have a beautiful sense of being one with the universe and a part of it- their bodies made out of "star stuff".  I felt a real sense of purpose in that.  Others find meaning in fighting to save the species- as they see it- by fighting global warming, by curing cancer, by fighting against Covid, by fighting for human rights, and on the list goes.

Do you really think that every single doctor and nurse risking their lives, working on saving people dying of Covid are either Christians or have no sense of "fundamental questions such as origin, meaning of life, morality, and destiny."??

Do you really think those people have no "purpose" or sense of "destiny" in their lives?

 How many of us actually WORK for the church, doing missionary work and family history, inputtng names of folks who need to have their work done etc.?

Who is actually DOING things to promote their purpose in life instead of sitting on the internet all day, claiming they are the only ones with "coherent meaning" in their lives??

What does that even mean?  Do you know what "logic" IS?  It is mathematics.  You are asking for a mathematical proof showing that murder/rape and disgusting behavior is "non-mathematical".   I officially give up.

I am not sure you understand my argument; either you are not reading my posts carefully or we are talking across. I am a Latterday Saint and have read the same scriptures that you read. I shared in the post the position of the atheist to illustrate that the "leaders" and proponents of  that philosophical worldview reject the idea of God and thus the notion of a moral law. I think I made my argument there. Christianity is the only worldview that addresses the most critical existential questions: origin, morality, the meaning of life and eternal destiny; all in a coherent way. I argued that one can not get to morality (which was the main thrust of the discussion) from an abstraction/logical or evolutionary worldview. I think I also proved that. I quoted Dawkins, who is a leading atheist, actually acknowledging that much.

The fact that there is a billion people that are willing to die to kill you in the process evidences that they have a value system diametrically opposed to yours. Peoples and societies where women are property to be traded, bought and sold or hunger and poverty that should not be alleviated because it is their "karma" and they have to atone in this life for evils done in past lives. All that is the byproduct of non-Judeo-Christian wordviews

That there are atheist people that are moral people and find joy and meaning in their lives and profession? I do not question. What I pointed out is that just like anything else we absorb from the environment, we never question why. Leading atheists that have thought about this issues have to admit and do publicly, from a philosophical standpoint, they can't explain why they feel the way they do. If in fact, as they posit, we are random carbon based organisms and there is really no purpose to our existence other than randomness, 

The way YOU see the world has been shaped by the history, education, thought and traditions of an environment that has a clear Judeo-Christian foundation. Indeed we ALL have the light of Christ. But, as Paul said it: "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness," So, there are people that rob, rape, kill and do evil in violation of the moral law of God. 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Islander said:

 Christianity is the only worldview that addresses the most critical existential questions: origin, morality, the meaning of life and eternal destiny; all in a coherent way.

Uh huh.

The world was created by an invisible being, for whom there is no evidence, who gave us commandments on stone tablets which have somehow disappeared.  The men who wrote these stories lived thousands of years ago, had no understanding of science or anything we find important today, but supposedly they could hear the invisible spirit talking to them, and they wrote down what he said.  According to the stories, the invisible being created the earth out of nothing, virtually by snapping his fingers.  And with him 

And supposedly this invisible spirit had a son who had to be sent to earth to be a human sacrifice for those who did not do what the missing stone tablets dictated.   Human sacrifice.  You kill one person and torture them first and magically everyone who did something wrong suddenly has it made right, just by believing this human sacrifice is valid. 

Oh yeah.  That is totally coherent.

Then we have this individual who supposedly tried to "restore" and re-create the invisible spirit myth and in so doing was able to become the leader of a sizable movement.  Part of what he did included describing an ancient culture for which there is no tangible evidence.  All this information was revealed to him by another invisible being that only he could see, and then the being gave him golden plates which he translated by putting a stone into a hat and by covering his face with the hat, could read words that were on the plates even if the plates were not in the room with him.

And then this individual decided he could have multiple wives including women already married to others, because the invisible being told him he must.   So difficult as it was, he somehow managed to have as many wives as he wanted, all within the confines of morality.

And these stories give many comfort and a sense of purpose in their lives because  if they believe them they can go to heaven and become invisible beings and create their own universes. 

AND THAT is "the ONLY worldview that addresses the most critical existential questions: origin, morality, the meaning of life and eternal destiny; all in a coherent way."

Can't you see how ridiculously incoherent an assertion that is, even for a minute?  Can't you see it for a second as others see it??

Of course the truth is, once you have spoken to God yourself, everything changes!!

But logical and coherent?  Uh , no, not in the way you describe it. 

They have a word for it:  FAITH- the hope for things UNSEEN.

What do atheists have ?  Far more "coherent" than crazy stories and human sacrifice.

Origin:- Evolution - we are "starstuff".

Morality: Treat everyone as they would like to be treated; human rights and equality. We all know this deep inside. Beatles song "Imagine".

Meaning of Life:  You get to create your own by dedicating your life to a purpose coherent with morality, see above.

Eternal destiny:  Our contribution to mankind; oneness of our matter with all the universe.  We came from stardust, and so will return.

Yet as I said earlier, it all changes once you have spoken to God yourself and know that HE IS.

Edited May 7, 2020 by mfbukowski

[Islander]

21 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Uh huh.

The world was created by an invisible being, for whom there is no evidence, who gave us commandments on stone tablets which have somehow disappeared.  The men who wrote these stories lived thousands of years ago, had no understanding of science or anything we find important today, but supposedly they could hear the invisible spirit talking to them, and they wrote down what he said.  According to the stories, the invisible being created the earth out of nothing, virtually by snapping his fingers.  And with him 

And supposedly this invisible spirit had a son who had to be sent to earth to be a human sacrifice for those who did not do what the missing stone tablets dictated.   Human sacrifice.  You kill one person and torture them first and magically everyone who did something wrong suddenly has it made right, just by believing this human sacrifice is valid. 

Oh yeah.  That is totally coherent.

Then we have this individual who supposedly tried to "restore" and re-create the invisible spirit myth and in so doing was able to become the leader of a sizable movement.  Part of what he did included describing an ancient culture for which there is no tangible evidence.  All this information was revealed to him by another invisible being that only he could see, and then the being gave him golden plates which he translated by putting a stone into a hat and by covering his face with the hat, could read words that were on the plates even if the plates were not in the room with him.

And then this individual decided he could have multiple wives including women already married to others, because the invisible being told him he must.   So difficult as it was, he somehow managed to have as many wives as he wanted, all within the confines of morality.

And these stories give many comfort and a sense of purpose in their lives because  if they believe them they can go to heaven and become invisible beings and create their own universes. 

AND THAT is "the ONLY worldview that addresses the most critical existential questions: origin, morality, the meaning of life and eternal destiny; all in a coherent way."

Can't you see how ridiculously incoherent an assertion that is, even for a minute?  Can't you see it for a second as others see it??

Of course the truth is, once you have spoken to God yourself, everything changes!!

But logical and coherent?  Uh , no, not in the way you describe it. 

They have a word for it:  FAITH- the hope for things UNSEEN.

What do atheists have ?  Far more "coherent" than crazy stories and human sacrifice.

Origin:- Evolution - we are "starstuff".

Morality: Treat everyone as they would like to be treated; human rights and equality. We all know this deep inside. Beatles song "Imagine".

Meaning of Life:  You get to create your own by dedicating your life to a purpose coherent with morality, see above.

Eternal destiny:  Our contribution to mankind; oneness of our matter with all the universe.  We came from stardust, and so will return.

Yet as I said earlier, it all changes once you have spoken to God yourself and know that HE IS.

Here is the cosmological view and thesis for the existence of God. I favor this thesis because it offers a "closer to the ground" view of the philosophical argument. Friend you keep arguing from a western world standpoint. All the concepts that you articulate find meaning and essential value in western societies, not so in other parts of the world. You have to HAVE a solidly established, objective way to measure everything, otherwise your explanation is NOT more valid than the next. The ONLY standard of truth and morality that does not move is God's. Away from God ALL moves onto the realm of relativism and situational ethics. God says that life is precious and created by Him and thus infused with intrinsic value. Other cultures do not agree with that simple statement. Since they do not believe in the God that we worship, our value statement and position does not holds weight in those cultures.

1. The existence of something is intelligible only if it has an explanation.
2. The existence of the universe is thus either:
a. unintelligible or
b. has an explanation
3. No rational person should accept premise (2a) by definition of rationality
4. A rational person should accept (2b), that the universe has some explanation for its being.
5. There are only three kinds of explanations:
a. Scientific: physical conditions plus relevant laws yield the Event explained.
b. Personal: Explanations that cite desires, beliefs, powers and intentions of some personal agent.
c. Essential: The essence of the thing to be explained necessitates its existence or qualities (for example, if you ask why a triangle has 3 sides, I would respond that it is the essence and necessity for a triangle to have 3 sides by its definition.
6. The explanation for the existence of the whole universe can’t be scientific because there can be initial physical conditions and laws independent of what is to be explained. Events like the Big Bang theory fails to explain the existence of the universe because modern science cannot explain where the original Big Bang singularity came from. The universe as a sum total of all-natural conditions and laws cannot be explained unless we have an Archimidean reference point outside the system.
7. The explanation for the existence of the universe can’t be essential because the universe cannot exist necessarily. This is because, it could have been possible for the universe not to have existed (if the Big Bang had been slightly different it is possible for large-scale structures to not have existed). Thus the universe is not something the must necessarily or essentially exists.
8. Thus a rational person should believe that the universe has a personal explanation.
9. No personal agent but God, who existed outside of time and space thus the universe itself, could create the entire universe.
10. A rational person should believe that there is a God.

I am not sure you see the argument. But I tried. I shared with you the statement of leading atheists and thinkers to illustrate that they can not justify the position that you ascribe to them! You can attach meaning/value to anything you want; a rock just to make a point, from a personal standpoint. But that does not mean it has really, truly any! First one would question why attach value/meaning to the rock? Once you analyze it, study it and scrutinize the rock; the ultimate conclusion is that it is just a rock. Is that analysis and conclusion that leading atheists reach at the end of the day. 

Here is philosopher and self-described atheist, Thomas Nagel, who teaches and writes extensively on atheism’s implication of meaninglessness. In his short book "What Does it All Mean? A Very Short Introduction to Philosophy," he stated:  “If you think about the whole thing, there seems to be no point to it at all. Looking at it from the outside, it wouldn’t matter if you had never existed. And after you have gone out of existence, it won’t matter that you did exist.” Well-known atheist Richard Dawkins said: “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

So, yeah, "new age" atheists can try and contrive meaning out of thin air and try to be happy by ignoring the reality and implications of their belief system. But the logical byproduct of such a worldview is that of a meaningless existence. 

But I fear that you will continue to argue otherwise

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Islander said:

Here is the cosmological view and thesis for the existence of God. I favor this thesis because it offers a "closer to the ground" view of the philosophical argument. Friend you keep arguing from a western world standpoint. All the concepts that you articulate find meaning and essential value in western societies, not so in other parts of the world. You have to HAVE a solidly established, objective way to measure everything, otherwise your explanation is NOT more valid than the next. The ONLY standard of truth and morality that does not move is God's. Away from God ALL moves onto the realm of relativism and situational ethics. God says that life is precious and created by Him and thus infused with intrinsic value. Other cultures do not agree with that simple statement. Since they do not believe in the God that we worship, our value statement and position does not holds weight in those cultures.

1. The existence of something is intelligible only if it has an explanation.
2. The existence of the universe is thus either:
a. unintelligible or
b. has an explanation
3. No rational person should accept premise (2a) by definition of rationality
4. A rational person should accept (2b), that the universe has some explanation for its being.
5. There are only three kinds of explanations:
a. Scientific: physical conditions plus relevant laws yield the Event explained.
b. Personal: Explanations that cite desires, beliefs, powers and intentions of some personal agent.
c. Essential: The essence of the thing to be explained necessitates its existence or qualities (for example, if you ask why a triangle has 3 sides, I would respond that it is the essence and necessity for a triangle to have 3 sides by its definition.
6. The explanation for the existence of the whole universe can’t be scientific because there can be initial physical conditions and laws independent of what is to be explained. Events like the Big Bang theory fails to explain the existence of the universe because modern science cannot explain where the original Big Bang singularity came from. The universe as a sum total of all-natural conditions and laws cannot be explained unless we have an Archimidean reference point outside the system.
7. The explanation for the existence of the universe can’t be essential because the universe cannot exist necessarily. This is because, it could have been possible for the universe not to have existed (if the Big Bang had been slightly different it is possible for large-scale structures to not have existed). Thus the universe is not something the must necessarily or essentially exists.
8. Thus a rational person should believe that the universe has a personal explanation.
9. No personal agent but God, who existed outside of time and space thus the universe itself, could create the entire universe.
10. A rational person should believe that there is a God.

I am not sure you see the argument. But I tried. I shared with you the statement of leading atheists and thinkers to illustrate that they can not justify the position that you ascribe to them! You can attach meaning/value to anything you want; a rock just to make a point, from a personal standpoint. But that does not mean it has really, truly any! First one would question why attach value/meaning to the rock? Once you analyze it, study it and scrutinize the rock; the ultimate conclusion is that it is just a rock. Is that analysis and conclusion that leading atheists reach at the end of the day. 

Here is philosopher and self-described atheist, Thomas Nagel, who teaches and writes extensively on atheism’s implication of meaninglessness. In his short book "What Does it All Mean? A Very Short Introduction to Philosophy," he stated:  “If you think about the whole thing, there seems to be no point to it at all. Looking at it from the outside, it wouldn’t matter if you had never existed. And after you have gone out of existence, it won’t matter that you did exist.” Well-known atheist Richard Dawkins said: “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

So, yeah, "new age" atheists can try and contrive meaning out of thin air and try to be happy by ignoring the reality and implications of their belief system. But the logical byproduct of such a worldview is that of a meaningless existence. 

But I fear that you will continue to argue otherwise

 

Yep. Thanks for your extensive post.

What you don't understand is that I am trying to derive a theory of God that even atheists can accept, which ultimately must be relativistic, because that's the only Paradigm they understand.

It appears to me that your use of classic Western arguments obviously put you in an older, more absolute paradigm.

But philosophy has moved beyond your perspective and those old arguments don't work anymore.

Incidentally Nagel, whom I love and quote often, and once had the privilege of meeting when I lived in New York, was actually an agnostic and an atheist. He saw his position as one of faith, not unlike those of believers, only his faith was that there was no God.

My goal is to use current philosophical Concepts to help along those in the same condition as was Nagel, to accept the relativistic arguments that there is a God who can be directly experienced subjectively,  still making that a valid and rational philosophical position.

I know all those arguments and have been studying them for fifty years.

I don't have time now but I would like to sit down and give you a full response to every argument. I will try to do so soon

I'm a Believer just like you but I am following a different philosophical paradigm to get to the same answers.

[mfbukowski]

4 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I am not sure you see the argument. But I tried. I shared with you the statement of leading atheists and thinkers to illustrate that they can not justify the position that you ascribe to them!

Unfortunately the atheists you quote are philosophically uninformed, and more showmen than philosophers. Dawkins is a fool. 

Guys like Nagel are far above their level of understanding, and understand that our position can be just as true as his. I will get back to you.

Edited May 8, 2020 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Islander said:

All the concepts that you articulate find meaning and essential value in western societies, not so in other parts of the world. You have to HAVE a solidly established, objective way to measure everything, otherwise your explanation is NOT more valid than the next

Yes but Western philosophy is what we are discussing.

Here is the point.:

If the head of the philosophy department at New York University, and a very prodigious figure in the area of philosophy of mind, understands that even his position about God is one of faith, then that approach validates all statements of faith.  

It gives Western philosophy the Imprimatur of Truth for Western philosophers.

Therefore his Nagel's logic would be useful in talking to atheists about justifying religious belief, using their own logic.

I'm not trying to convert Buddhists here , I'm trying to educate those who were educated as I was, in Western philosophy, at UCLA and the City University of New York, that there is another way of seeing the God mystery.

I am writing to communicate with people exactly like myself before I found the church to show them the way that that's possible.

Your way cannot do that.

It dates to Thomas Aquinas, and therefore Aristotle.

They won't even look at it. They have seen it a hundred times.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

1. The existence of something is intelligible only if it has an explanation.

Let's just take the first assumption.

First of all it is just a statement either true or false, or something else.

"Existence" is a Troublesome word. Do unicorns exist? How do you know what their characteristics are if they don't exist? There must be some way in which unicorns exist for you to be able to describe them. Unproven theories "exist", why not unicorns?

Contemporary philosophers only discuss what can be directly experienced. I have never experienced a unicorn have you? Or does seeing pictures and reading stories about how unicorns act - is that an experience? How does one describe existence itself? Can we even describe non-existence so that we have something to contrast existence with?

And that is just the first word of your first statement and apparently an assumption.

We have not even started on what "intelligible" could mean or "explanation"!

Can unicorns be explained?

Are the stories about them intelligible?

Does that mean they exist?

Contemporary philosophy typically eliminates all of those problems by restricting itself to discussions about language and what it means, how it is to be interpreted Etc. I think you can see why now.

Perhaps that will give you an insight into how a contemporary philosopher would look at your argument.

Philosophy is now a lot different than it was in Aristotle's time.

 

Edited May 8, 2020 by mfbukowski

[Islander]

20 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes but Western philosophy is what we are discussing.

Here is the point.:

If the head of the philosophy department at New York University, and a very prodigious figure in the area of philosophy of mind, understands that even his position about God is one of faith, then that approach validates all statements of faith.  

It gives Western philosophy the Imprimatur of Truth for Western philosophers.

Therefore his Nagel's logic would be useful in talking to atheists about justifying religious belief, using their own logic.

I'm not trying to convert Buddhists here , I'm trying to educate those who were educated as I was, in Western philosophy, at UCLA and the City University of New York, that there is another way of seeing the God mystery.

I am writing to communicate with people exactly like myself before I found the church to show them the way that that's possible.

Your way cannot do that.

It dates to Thomas Aquinas, and therefore Aristotle.

They won't even look at it. They have seen it a hundred times.

I see. Well, brother, I can only imagine what it would take to argue with people for whom no amount of evidence is enough. Be it a teleological, cosmological, probabilistic or fine tuned theory of the universe, one can always find a point to argue. For even when they themselves agree that there is significantly more evidence for creation and argue for the existence of God, they just can not bring themselves to accept it or believe it. I will leave you with a quote by D. Berlinski, who is an "agnostic" budding atheist. He acknowledges that most of the arguments of the atheists, non-theists and agnostics against the existence of God are just arrogant rhetoric.

"Has anyone provided proof of God’s nonexistence? Not even close. Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close. Have our sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not even close. Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough. Has rationalism and moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough. Has secularism in the terrible 20th century been a force for good? Not even close, to being close. Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy in the sciences? Close enough. Does anything in the sciences or their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even in the ball park. Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on.” ― David Berlinski,  The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions  

It has been fun, brother, but I think I'll move on to another thread. Always a pleasure, though.

 

[Teancum]

On 5/1/2020 at 3:58 PM, theplains said:

I would say the real concern should be if you are forever separated from Jesus or not.  

But regarding LDS theology, a forever family is dependent on whether all family members are exalted
to Godhood.  If not, I suppose this could then be termed a 'not-forever-family'.  Assuming Heavenly
Father was once a man who became a God (as Joseph Smith taught) and He had brothers, He too
might currently be living in such a disconnected forever-partial-family.

Everyone is likely separated for Jesus forever.  

[Teancum]

On 5/1/2020 at 3:09 PM, alter idem said:

It's especially sad that she went from believing for almost 50 years to not even believing God exists, as she said she now believes that her dad is just gone, as she emphasized, 'irrevocably gone'.    Many people who don't share our faith, or any faith, still believe there is an afterlife, I think that was one of the hopeful benefits for people who had no religious beliefs, in the reporting on Near death experiences beginning back in the 70s.  I also don't understand why it should matter to her, as to whether or not it was okay to bury them near her daughter's plot, since her own child would also be 'irrevocably gone' now too, I guess.  What would it matter, if everyone ceases to exist when they die?

I think she wanted to end on a more upbeat note, since the article was, IMO, one of sadness and despair, so rather than end on the desolate message of her article, she ended by saying 'family will be forever' because they are buried together?  But to me it was hollow, since she said she believes they no longer exist so that would mean there's no forever at all.

I understand why you think it is sad but those who have transitioned beyond faith may think where you are at with faith is sad as well.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Islander said:

I see. Well, brother, I can only imagine what it would take to argue with people for whom no amount of evidence is enough. Be it a teleological, cosmological, probabilistic or fine tuned theory of the universe, one can always find a point to argue. For even when they themselves agree that there is significantly more evidence for creation and argue for the existence of God, they just can not bring themselves to accept it or believe it. I will leave you with a quote by D. Berlinski, who is an "agnostic" budding atheist. He acknowledges that most of the arguments of the atheists, non-theists and agnostics against the existence of God are just arrogant rhetoric.

"Has anyone provided proof of God’s nonexistence? Not even close. Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close. Have our sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not even close. Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough. Has rationalism and moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough. Has secularism in the terrible 20th century been a force for good? Not even close, to being close. Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy in the sciences? Close enough. Does anything in the sciences or their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even in the ball park. Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on.” ― David Berlinski,  The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions  

It has been fun, brother, but I think I'll move on to another thread. Always a pleasure, though.

 

Yes, I like Berlinski's work  lot. He takes a lot from Nagel, Rorty, Wittgenstein et al.

If we could just get more people studying real philosophy instead of watching videos from idiots like Dawkins, there would no longer be a need for apologetics.

It's such a shame. 

[alter idem]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

I understand why you think it is sad but those who have transitioned beyond faith may think where you are at with faith is sad as well.

People who have 'Transitioned beyond faith' don't need to feel sad for me, as I haven't felt the need to write an essay about how I'm coping with the deaths of my loved ones. Maybe my faith makes me a simpleton, but I'm a happy simpleton.☺️

[Meadowchik]

On 5/1/2020 at 8:09 PM, alter idem said:

Many people who don't share our faith, or any faith, still believe there is an afterlife, I think that was one of the hopeful benefits for people who had no religious beliefs, in the reporting on Near death experiences beginning back in the 70s. 

Not just from NDAs, but many people who believe in an afterlife have a hope that their loved ones will be there too. It's sad and ironic that the LDS beliefs sometimes have people exchange that simple hope for more complicated beliefs contingent on their loved ones believing a certain way. In some ways the latter enhances the sense of separation for people and creates division in families that would have in present time been united around simpler principles.

On 5/1/2020 at 8:09 PM, alter idem said:

I also don't understand why it should matter to her, as to whether or not it was okay to bury them near her daughter's plot, since her own child would also be 'irrevocably gone' now too, I guess.  What would it matter, if everyone ceases to exist when they die?

There can be several reasons why it matters to her. She is seeing the experience from a different point of view from you. 

This is a fairly common refrain of theists, that atheism implies meaninglessness, but that is your belief. You've quoted a person who is still able to find meaning of family despite the finality of death. Maybe that could tell you that your beliefs about atheism are off.

[alter idem]

6 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Not just from NDAs, but many people who believe in an afterlife have a hope that their loved ones will be there too. It's sad and ironic that the LDS beliefs sometimes have people exchange that simple hope for more complicated beliefs contingent on their loved ones believing a certain way. In some ways the latter enhances the sense of separation for people and creates division in families that would have in present time been united around simpler principles.

There can be several reasons why it matters to her. She is seeing the experience from a different point of view from you. 

This is a fairly common refrain of theists, that atheism implies meaninglessness, but that is your belief. You've quoted a person who is still able to find meaning of family despite the finality of death. Maybe that could tell you that your beliefs about atheism are off.

I believe most religions teach of an afterlife so naturally people have hope to see their loved ones. I wasn't making assumptions about other religions not offering hope, my comment was about the books on near death experiences which helped give hope to some who had no religious beliefs and possibly worried that with death, we cease to exist, as the writer implies. It was an aside. 

I'm sorry you see the church’s teachings on the afterlife to be sad, I  personally don't believe God wants to separate loved ones, I believe he will offer us every opportunity to avoid that, but we ultimately will make that individual choice. So to me the gospel is still one of 'good news', but I realize others perceive God as more punitive and assume we have no agency or control in the outcome of our final judgment. 

You're right, I have a different point of view than her. I don't think she should be dictating whether or not her father can be buried in the cemetery her daughter is buried in, and the fact her brother had to ask her permission  tells me he thought she might object. It's my opinion,  if they cease to exist, one shouldn't care where the remains of the no longer existing, which just decay away, will be buried.

Imho, so I sense she’s not consistent in her claims, from my own personal experiences with athiests. That's all I can offer, as we all look at things through the lens of our own worldview. That's just my opinion,  based on my own experience and point of view and I do realize my opinion could be wrong and others have opinions which will differ from mine. 

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

This is a fairly common refrain of theists, that atheism implies meaninglessness, but that is your belief. You've quoted a person who is still able to find meaning of family despite the finality of death. Maybe that could tell you that your beliefs about atheism are off.

Exactly. If you live without God, one can easily imagine that life goes on, just like here, after death. Buddhism is based on a similar approach, no God, but an afterlife.

And even then there are "doctrinal" differences.

https://www.scribd.com/article/430267693/Dying-Every-Day-Exploring-Life-And-The-Near-Death-Experience-With-Reincarnate-Buddhist-Lama-Mingyur-Rinpoche

"The Buddha did accept the gods and demigods of the Indic culture of his day, but believed them to be inferior to the human realm because only humans can become enlightened. Most Western followers now view Tibetan deities like Chenrezig, the bodhisattva of compassion, as metaphors for states of consciousness rather than actual beings, but the line can get blurry at times."

Edited May 10, 2020 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

6 hours ago, alter idem said:

I don't think she should be dictating whether or not her father can be buried in the cemetery her daughter is buried in, and the fact her brother had to ask her permission  tells me he thought she might object

It was being next to her family, not which cemetery he asked her about. That could be for two reasons...one was whether or not she had feelings about him being emotionally included in her immediate family because of location, another which my mother had to consider was limited spots left and if one person in the family is buried there later on another may not be.
 

We don’t know what the past relationship had been like between the two. Maybe the brother was aware of past conflicts that he didn’t want to awake when they were visiting their daughter’s grave.
 

My dad and therefore mom are buried in my dad’s parents’ plots, as they had purchased enough from other family members so they could be buried with their kids...but that means my parents will not be. Which I don’t think bugs any of us thankfully. Family plots seem more of a time when families lived in the same town and place most of their lives.   I admit when I was a teen and heard my grandparents planning this, it hurt a bit they didn’t seem to care about their grandkids being with them as if they didn’t see us as really belonging to them. 

Edited May 10, 2020 by Calm