Babies are born athiests or theists

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by S.A.M., Mar 18, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    meh

    there may be a variety of ideas on what constitutes beauty, wealth, power, etc, but the values remain a constant

    (and now you are probably going to try and tell me that if an incredibly beautiful, strong, intelligent, famous, wealthy, etc person came through your front door you would just nod nonchalantly)
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    depends on what you think the practice of religion culminates in.

    By culmination I don't mean something like "going to heaven". I mean what is the scope of activity that religion determines to be perfectional.

    There is a common idea that it is "being moral", but such language only carries weight amongst the criminally inclined (for instance you wouldn't describe regular daily life as "not breaking the law", unless you were in a scenario where you wanted to avoid going to jail).

    There is the suggestion that constitutionally we are all servants of god. We come to the medium of temporary existence to display a different object of service (nation, race, community, family, dog, whatever) but the service attitude remains identical.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    yes..yes...yes, we are born as open books with nothing but our imaginations.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. PsychoticEpisode It is very dry in here today Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,452
    I think I understand the relationship between God and celebrity status now.

    Should I genuflect, just in case it's God coming through the door?

    If God has all those endearing qualities then there is no way I can ever truly know what the ultimate can be for each, since He never shows Himself. A person might be close but no attribute of God can be the penultimate, can it?
     
  8. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    If you understood the relationship, you wouldn't use the word "should".
    Another wonderful knowledge based claim of atheism, eh?

    I'm not sure why you suggest attributes of god be relegated to the penultimate.
     
  9. PsychoticEpisode It is very dry in here today Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,452
    I'm not. God is the ultimate I assume, therefore He would be #1 in the beauty et al rankings. I need God to make the comparison for everything else. So I just want a little peek, a few minutes of His time, a chance to examine the ultimate of everything qualitative. I could wait for an eternity and nothing of that sort would ever happen. I don't have that kind of time but it doesn't matter anyways.
     
  10. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Hello glaucon??? Time to put this thread out of its misery. I'll address the point more philosophically the next time. I'm still interested in the need for abstract thinking to develop concepts.
     
  11. PsychoticEpisode It is very dry in here today Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,452
    Atheists not athiests, come on SAM.

    Yes, the thread title leaves little room for abstract thoughts. Let's ask a baby.
     
  12. glaucon tending tangentially Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    That notion itself would warrant a thread of its own. Free of any deific influence would be best methinks...

    Perhaps.
     
  13. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,396

    :roflmao:
    Post #2 answered the question fully & clearly.
     
  14. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    sure
    That's the point

    Constitutionally we are always in a position of comparing things to god - its not like you decided at some point to gravitate towards beauty, strength, etc, is it?

    On the contrary, you don't seem to be prepared to sacrifice any quality time to the endeavour (although I guess your contributions at sci could be garnered as some sort of beginning, in the sense that you at least rise to the challenge of the dialogue) so you remain at the default position granted by atheism : a probabilistic zero.
     
  15. PsychoticEpisode It is very dry in here today Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,452
    God could be a polka-dot multi-tentacled amoeba-like blob of slime mold. Pure beauty I suppose. I'm not a believer but if I was I wouldn't be attaching human qualities to Him/Her/It. I thought God was above all that nonsense, not vain at all.

    What did you think of that little kid from the Austrian house of horrors who upon seeing the moon for the first time asked if it was God? He found God during his first nite of stargazing. The appearance of the moon satisfied an innate understanding of the criteria for beauty and other divine qualities for him, is that the point you're making? Sort of like having an inherent idea of God and knowing it when you see it.:shrug:
     
  16. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    If you don't have a personal concept of god, the whole issue becomes a bit problematic ...... and in that regards, its not clear how your amoeba cuts the mustard.

    beauty runs the risk of becoming nonsense when it isn't also accommodated by an element of renunciation (or the ability to be detached from one's ego) - god also has equal reserves of that as well (along with fame, strength, intelligence and power)

    The moon is a favorite treat of poets -but only as a metaphor - IOW the beauty that really moves us is not impersonal ..... I mean what is the general consensus on persons who marry their motorbike? .. at I guess there were probably other opulences (like power, or being greater than us) of god at work in the austrian kid's moon gazing.
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2009
  17. swarm Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,207
    Seems like if we are the best god could do, he's not really that perfect and definately has some issues.
     
  18. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    what improvements are you looking for?
     
  19. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    This made me think: Would the same that you say above about beauty also apply to intelligence? Namely, that intelligence runs the risk of becoming nonsense when it isn't also accommodated by an element of renunciation?

    Heaven knows my intelligence isn't much - yet still when I do or think something that I find 'intelligent', a feeling of haughtiness comes up, and a strong one at that. But then when I look at myself, how I am subject to aging, illness and death (in all their forms), that haughtiness of course seems utterly inappropriate. Then, to rid myself of the haughtiness, I tend to think I should get rid of the intelligence, as it seems that it was the intelligence that caused the haughtiness. IOW, the solution to haughtiness seems to be to become dumb - to live plainly and to think plainly.

    But per your suggestion, the solution doesn't seem to be that. Although I don't understand how I should go about becoming renounced - so that I could still think intelligent thoughts (as this seems crucial for survival - yet not be haughty.
     
  20. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    actually you made me think

    now that you mention it, you can say the same thing about renunciation

    The point is that all opulence and potency belong to god and the living entity is minuscule, being possessed of only minute independence .

    In a state of illusion we forget this (and that gives rise to ahankara).

    The way out is to properly use one's independence (aka dovetail propensities)

    I am sure you can think of narratives of great personalities who were convinced they were quite renounced only to be abruptly surprised ..... and also narratives of great personalities who were completely dovetailed.

    IOW if we think spiritual advancement = acquisition of opulence (either or all of the six) we will have problems.
     
  21. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    I'm not sure what you mean by 'properly use one's independence (aka dovetail propensities)'?


    Now you've got me!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    I actually thought that spiritual advancement means acquisition of opulences - and that it is key to make a balanced effort toward all six (and that trouble ensues when our efforts are out of balance - when we focus only toward one or two opulences, but neglect the others).
    Although this is probably akin to what karma-kandi mentality is, no?
     
  22. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330

    ok so given this situation the idea is that we come to this world with a "service attitude" but it simply doesn't involve god. If we "dovetail" whatever we think we are in the world with the service of god, we effectively solve the problem.
    IOW the need of spiritual perfection lies not in becoming "more" of anything, but rather in becoming capable of (re)introducing god in our service attitude.

    Of course if we are grossly out to lunch, like say being a mass murderer, part of that dovetailing involves giving up the nonsense .... so in that sense renunciation does have its place to play (and is probably a good quality to cultivate if one has a lot of problems), but ultimately renunciation is not an eternal quality of the soul, just like being the "owner of possessions" is not an eternal quality of the soul ..... so playing around with the six opulences is not ultimately where it is at.
     
  23. swarm Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,207
    Actual existence would be a start.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page