"If I am right, I go to heaven, if you are right, you die anyway."

When a person's false ego, capacity for wrong actions and delusion diminish, they start to take an interest in God, yes.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I wound counter that it is delusional to believe that the sense of ego is in any way "false," and that the belief that one can eliminate their capacity for making mistakes takes quite a bit of arrogance. I would also say that one only comes to these idiotic beliefs when presented with a very specific version of God, so it would seem you have the chronology backwards.

More to the original point, one does not require a god or creator to find meaning in their lives, and if you do then you are a very sad and troubled person. Human creativity is not delusion, and the fact that you would equate it to such only speaks to how much of a foreigner you are to its landscape.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Note that I said "a person's false ego." A person has a true ego, and a false one.

Nevertheless, given your porpensity for making final judgments, you sure seem to believe yourself not only to have that capacity, but to also have developed it fully.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Indeed, it' snot likely that a person would dislike an inferior version until they become familiar with the superior one.

Why?
Can you elaborate on the ethical principles and beliefs that a person holds who makes the claim -
One does not require a god or creator to find meaning in their lives, and if you do then you are a very sad and troubled person
-?

Sometimes, it is.

You equated it.

So what does the fact that I exist and that you see me the way you do, tell you about the Universe and existence as such?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

They don't, but I did forget that you follow some vague approximation of Buddhism. Anyway, it makes no difference, because the concept of "I"--what your people call the "false ego"--is real and cannot be eschewed for another kind of ego.

Hmm. Rather than a thoughtful response, ad hominem. Typical Wynn.

I don't know how that relates in any way to what either of us said.

It's odd that you'd ask me to describe the ethical principals of a person who thinks they can have meaning in their lives without god. It's as if you think that only one very specific kind of person can hold this belief. Indeed, I'm sure the kind of person who shares this belief runs the gamut from anti-theist to New Age spiritualist hippie.

I'm so intrigued, I'm going to have to turn the question around and ask what kind of person thinks that life without god is meaningless. I feel that the range of viewpoints anchored to that particular premise are far more narrow.

No, it's quite the opposite, actually. Delusion is the absence of creativity. It's a slavish rigor to rote, dogma, and preconception, with no capacity for introspection or self-correction. Creativity is openness, the ability to find beauty and joy in the mundane, and wonder in the majestic.

Erm, no. Do you not know "equate" means?

An absurd question, to which there is no correct answer.

 

I was asking you. For your answer.

 

That was my answer. The question is absurd. My opinion of you as a dull, colorless person devoid of creativity does not tell me anything about "the universe and existence as such."

 

Where do you think I came from?
What do you think how come I am the way I am ("a dull, colorless person devoid of creativity ")?

 

Vague question. If you mean where were you born, I can't answer that with any certainty. If you mean it in a grander sense, then the grandest answer I can give is that you came from the stuff of exploded stars.

Why do you think that isn't good enough?

I know I've said the previous question was absurd, but this one is utterly nonsensical. Are you trying to ask me "How do you think I came be the way I am?" If so, I am again left in a position from which I cannot answer confidently. Perhaps your adherence to such silly notions as true and false egos is a desire to cling to your childhood, or a reaction to your fear of the unknown. Perhaps you were born that way. I don't know your situation. I don't know who wins in the battle between nature and nurture.

No matter, I can't see how the question is relevant. Will you be arriving at your point in the near future?

 

I am trying to get you to tell me a bit more about your ethical principles and beliefs.

 

To what end? We're having a discussion about whether or not life can have meaning to a non-believer. What do my ethics have to do with it? You already know all the information about me that is relevant to this discussion.

And at any rate, what makes you think I owe you an answer when you ignore my queries? I asked, for example, why being the stuff of exploded stars was not enough of an answer for you--in other words, why is a god necessary for you to feel that your life has a purpose (and, by extension, just what the hell about a creator lends purpose to your life)--and you simply ignored me. I do not believe your question is relevant, but I'd be hesitant to reply in any caes simply based on your history of evading questions posed to you. I think you'd find people a lot more agreeable if you'd stop doing that.

 

Because you started out with claims like

You made the claims.

I only inquired afterwards for you to say a bit more.

We're having a discussion about whether or not life can have meaning to a non-believer.
You are one such non-believer.
So I am asking you for examples, given that you are a representative of the kind of people we're discussing.

No.

I am trying to be as concise as possible, so I omit things sometimes.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You mean that a lot more people would find me agreeable if I would agree with them?

 

Phew, you skipped a lot there!

Right. Because the way to reply to an ad hom is to be all sweet and nice, right.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

To go with an old analogy: If your whole life you have only eaten cold pizza, you believe that this is as good as pizza gets. But if at one point you taste fresh, hot pizza, you won't want to go back to the cold one anymore.

IOW, a person will not question or be seriously disamyed by life as it is usually lived, until they get a taste of a different life.

I asked you. Since you have made those claims, and it is you who is talking here.

Those who have experienced a life that is better than life as it is usually lived.

Is that merely straight from JDawg's dictionary, or can it be found anywhere else too?

Yes.
And I am not responsible for your projections.

I asked you for your reply

 

No no. It was you who made the claims. You first said that life has no meaning without god, then you said that creativity, self-esteem, and imagination are hindrances to finding god. These are major claims, and you haven't offered any sort of qualification for them.

But my ethics are not representative of everyone who believes what I believe. One who does not believe a god is necessary for meaning to be found in one's own life could be a secular Humanist, a Deist, a Communist, a Liberal, a Conservative, a mass-murderer, an Anarchist, etc., or any combination of the above. The reason for this is that non-belief (as it relates to the idea of god being necessary for life to have meaning) is not itself a doctrine or an all-encompassing worldview. It's simply a lack of belief in a certain standard.

Nonsense. There have been dozens of pages in any given thread dedicated to numerous people attempting to get a straight answer out of you on any number of items, and most of them end with your posts devolving into snarky non-sequiturs.

And given your post count and time spent on the site, your claim to concision seems spurious. Sometimes you'll even post three, four, or even five posts in a row. You are intentionally elusive, and I believe it's because it prevents anyone from falsifying your position. Take this very conversation we're having now as an example. You made the mistake of taking a strong position on something, and were called out on it. Your response was to throw inane questions at me while refusing to answer any posed to you, or address any of the points I made in previous posts. This is the internet forum equivalent of a smoke bomb.

That's not what I said, was it? I said you'd find people more agreeable if you'd stop ducking questions. I know I'd have a higher opinion of you if you'd stop acting like a troll. The choice is ultimately yours, however. All I can do is offer some advice.

 

That you believe in the concept of false and true egos is essentially the sum total of my knowledge of your faith, since you haven't defined it in anything but vague terms. Feel free to clarify.

Nonsense. There was no ad hominem. All I said was that the idea of one being able to eliminate their capacity for making mistakes was an arrogant one.

You've managed to be overly simplistic and misunderstand the point of your own analogy, all in the same post. Incredible. If there were an Olympiad for debate failing...

Anyway, it does not follow that just because one does not know what a better life might entail that he or she does not have full awareness of just how bad their own life sucks. I would point you to the third world, where, as the commercials show, little children with distended bellies slosh around in filthy water and do not even react when flies land on their noses. If there ever was a more perfect picture of destitution, of misery and sorrow than that, I would not know where to find it. And you mean to tell me that those folks have no idea how bad they have it? No, worse than that--you mean to tell me that they don't even think they have it bad?

I hate to say this to you, Wynn, but I must: Grow up. Seriously, grow up.

Check with my above post for why that's a ludicrous statement.

So, the wealthy?

If we were talking dictionary definitions, your assertion that creativity was delusion would not fit, either, so I wouldn't appeal to that authority were I you. I was instead presenting a logical definition of the concepts of delusion and creativity.

Nor are you responsible for your own inadequacies, apparently.

And I gave it.

 

Really? Even when the benefit is quantitatively greater, and has more significance, over the course of many generations, as compared to a single lifetime. Did the many only posthumously recognized contributions to human history somehow retroactively add significance to subjective life of the individual? Or was it just a goal, like any other, until recognized after their death?

Do people who work for the "good of mankind" expect to reap the rewards of their efforts, or is it mostly for posterity?

For many individuals, deity is merely an extension of the self or an ideal to aspire to.

 

Are you asking if there’s a practical reason for believing something that isn’t true? Should our belief systems be based on whether or not something is beneficial? Do you think it’s advantageous to believe in something even if it provides a less accurate description of reality. If I were a little more gullible and less of an independent thinker, would I live a happier, fuller, and more productive life? Would it be more useful to go along with the majority in order to fit in?

They do it because they feel it’s the right thing to do, which in itself adds significance to the life of the individual.

So, they do, but guess what, Syne. We are not gods, nor will we ever be. We are humans.

 

I have always thought highly of myself. Growing up I thought that people thought that I was insignificant, but I still looked at myself in good fortune. Im filling a notebook with movie scripts, song lyrics, art work, and letters to my children. Honestly the money motivates me only because its the system we currently live in, so I imagine a new way of life.

 

And are you a believer? Do you think a god is required to make your life meaningful?

 

Perhaps you didn't read the quote you were supposedly replying to there.

You said:

So atheists feel isolated "celebrating life" while the religious are enjoying the company and mutual support of friends and family supposedly "celebrating death". That's preposterous on the face of it, and all you seem to have in support is intellectual justifications that don't seem to alleviate that actual self-reported quality of life.

Hey, if those justification work for you, who am I to say otherwise?

Can you say the motives are any different for the church goer? Nah, they couldn't possibly gain any satisfaction and sense of purpose by doing what they feel is right, could they?

Isn't it disingenuous for an atheist (I'm assuming) to make any claims of knowledge about a god when they don't hold the concept to have any meaning?

 

Yes. If there is no God, no after-life just an ultimate end to life, then yes, life is meaningless.