philosophy study, anyone?

[pandacular]

I’ve also really never understood the reluctance to need a reason outside yourself to treat other people well. It’s abundantly clear that human thriving is not zero sum. For example, if we could eradicate homelessness my life would immediately and immensely improve, despite myself and the people I care about on a personal level not being homeless. I don’t need an outside motiviation for that sort of thing.

To me, these sort of arguments always make me perceive Christians as a group in the camp of “if it weren’t against the (God’s) law, I’d do it”. I know that’s not usually the case, but the idea that the only thing keeping people from being evil is the threat of punishment is terrifying and hopeless.

 

[Peter.Constantine325]

Have you ever read Huxley? My view of divinity is heavily influenced by his, as well as Vaishnavist Hinduism and Gnosticism.

The divine is that which is beyond human comprehension and unitive. This is the Brahman in Hinduism, the Gnostic Monad, or the capital-S Self in neo-platonism. It is not related to a god.

There are plenty of atheist religions with a concept of divinity; most forms of animism has this trait.

Brahman, Monad, Self, these are things which are metaphysical or seem to be at least. Atheism, as it is commonly understood, rejects all of these. So you might be able to get away with saying you’re technically an atheist if you mean you don’t believe in a god or gods, but you would be confusing most people at first until this is explained. Plus, Brahman is God, just understood in a different way than in the Abrahamic faiths. Atheism would seem to entail the rejection of the word divine in general.

You really seem to be claiming to be an atheist in that you reject the God of Abraham. It would be more honest to just say you’re not a Jew, Christian or Muslim. Not that you’re an atheist.

 

[Gabler]

I’ve also really never understood the reluctance to need a reason outside yourself to treat other people well. It’s abundantly clear that human thriving is not zero sum. For example, if we could eradicate homelessness my life would immediately and immensely improve, despite myself and the people I care about on a personal level not being homeless. I don’t need an outside motiviation for that sort of thing.

To me, these sort of arguments always make me perceive Christians as a group in the camp of “if it weren’t against the (God’s) law, I’d do it”. I know that’s not usually the case, but the idea that the only thing keeping people from being evil is the threat of punishment is terrifying and hopeless.

Brahman, Monad, Self, these are things which are metaphysical or seem to be at least. Atheism, as it is commonly understood, rejects all of these. So you might be able to get away with saying you’re technically an atheist if you mean you don’t believe in a god or gods, but you would be confusing most people at first until this is explained. Plus, Brahman is God, just understood in a different way than in the Abrahamic faiths. Atheism would seem to entail the rejection of the word divine in general.

You really seem to be claiming to be an atheist in that you reject the God of Abraham. It would be more honest to just say you’re not a Jew, Christian or Muslim. Not that you’re an atheist.

It's a difference in the way we define the word atheist.

 

[TrevorLarsen]

What makes it true that slavery is absolutely wrong?

You didn’t actually show me how my education was wrong. What about how I described reality is wrong?

I think you proved my point with your slavery opinion. It’s wrong because it damages everyone it touches. Of corse the salve is damaged but even the slave owner is damaged. Why did the north win the American Civil War? Because they grew and advanced while the south was fine relaxing and living a comfortable life from free slave labor.

 

[TrevorLarsen]

You can’t have objective meaning, purpose and morality without a metaphysical mind. And you can’t know what this objective meaning, purpose and morality is, or anything about that metaphysical mind, without scripture. Religion is necessary for this, because it’s religion that provides scripture. I’d say the real reason people are moving away from religion today is because religion says no, and we’re becoming a proud and hedonistic people and don’t like that. Religion has a high moral standard, and we don’t want to live by that.

Religion says no? To what? Treating women like equals, they sure say no to that. What other ideas from thousands of yeas ago do you still think are true?

 

[TrevorLarsen]

Exactly. Atheists don’t believe in the divinity of the human soul. The logical consequence of their atheism is that humans are no more significant than rocks or trees. Whether slavery is a wrong is up to the individual, and nobody really has a true opinion on the matter. Because there is no moral truth.

Look up what a straw man fallacy is that will be some good philosophical learning for you. Your straw man is a joke version of atheism. Do me a favor and steel man atheism.

 

[Peter.Constantine325]

You didn’t actually show me how my education was wrong. What about how I described reality is wrong?

I think you proved my point with your slavery opinion. It’s wrong because it damages everyone it touches. Of corse the salve is damaged but even the slave owner is damaged. Why did the north win the American Civil War? Because they grew and advanced while the south was fine relaxing and living a comfortable life from free slave labor.

But God doesn’t exist. Nothing outside of our minds, such as a metaphysical principle, allows us to say that slavery is absolutely wrong. It’s just your opinion that it is, and there’s nothing to give it the seal of truth if you will, such as that metaphysical principle. And again, God doesn’t exist. Man wasn’t created in his image, so it’s not like we’re special as a species, let alone as individual human beings.

 

[Peter.Constantine325]

Look up what a straw man fallacy is that will be some good philosophical learning for you. Your straw man is a joke version of atheism. Do me a favor and steel man atheism.

I didn’t straw man anything. What did I say about atheism that is wrong?

 

[Peter.Constantine325]

Religion says no? To what? Treating women like equals, they sure say no to that. What other ideas from thousands of yeas ago do you still think are true?

Religion in general teaches us asceticism and an ascetic-like worldview. And these are what make gods of us, saints and sages. Devotion to higher ideals, mindfulness, introspection, meditation, contemplation, and so forth. These are the practices of people who want to go beyond their animal nature. That’s probably a major reason for the aversion towards religion. For example, religion generally restrains us in regard to sex. It’s not just about pleasure, nor should it be so. But people don’t want to be told no, they don’t want to embrace a high moral standard. They’d rather be lazy and not practice anything at all.

 

[TrevorLarsen]

I didn’t straw man anything. What did I say about atheism that is wrong?

I noticed you didn’t steel man atheism, I wonder why? If you think it’s just my opinion slavery is detrimental to humans you’re wrong. Is it just my opinion drinking battery acid is bad? It’s the results for humans that determines whether something is good or bad not feelings or fantasy. I find arguments like yours, desperate to find a god shaped hole that only god can fill, weak. I’m just thankful to live in the Information Age so I don’t have to believe the lies my ancestors fought and died for.

Also if I was created in gods image he is one ugly mother.

 

[Peter.Constantine325]

I noticed you didn’t steel man atheism, I wonder why? If you think it’s just my opinion slavery is detrimental to humans you’re wrong. Is it just my opinion drinking battery acid is bad? It’s the results for humans that determines whether something is good or bad not feelings or fantasy. I find arguments like yours, desperate to find a god shaped hole that only god can fill, weak. I’m just thankful to live in the Information Age so I don’t have to believe the lies my ancestors fought and died for.

Also if I was created in gods image he is one ugly mother.

Drinking battery acid can harm us, sure. But is drinking battery acid immoral? What if I’m trapped in a cycle of suffering and it’s the only way I can end it via suicide? Again, with slavery, some people are forced into servitude and often abused. But is forcing servitude and abusing immoral? What if my worldview happens to say that such and such races are not worthy of equal dignity? And that therefore enslaving such peoples is not immoral, but actually good and for the benefit of my own people. Who or what do you turn to in order to say that my worldview and the resulting actions is immoral?

So yes, we can say that suffering objectively causes harm. But we can’t say that causing that harm in the first place is objectively immoral. That’s just your opinion, equal to any other. You haven’t really shown me how, objectively, independent of your opinion, that slavery is immoral. You can show me the effects of slavery, but outside of your opinion, you cannot show me that slavery is actually immoral.

Atheism relies on consequences, well-being, law, society and such, in order to determine whether or not something is immoral. But all of these are ultimately subjective and unsatisfying, because they’re not objective. I want to be able to say that slavery is actually wrong, objectively, factually, truly, and not just my mere opinion that it is wrong. And it seems this can only be done when meaning, purpose and morality exists in some way, shape or form outside of our minds. But we know by observing reality that only powerful minds like our human minds are capable of considering such things, or producing them in the form of thoughts and such. Non-mind doesn’t produce meaning, purpose and morality, so it isn’t a stretch to say God is necessary in order for these things to exist objectively.

Indeed, I either read or was told that all the early existentialists who were atheists said the same thing. No God equals no objective meaning, purpose and morality. You simply have to face the absurd. But you can only do so by being delusional and giving meaning, purpose and morality to life where there technically isn’t any.

 

[Peter.Constantine325]

I have recently abandoned my Christianity, and am now exploring Hinduism, Taoism, Stoicism, Neoplatonism and more. But most especially Buddhism, because I adore it for its very straightforward, ascetic, psychological and analytical nature. However, as much as I love Buddhism, I’m finding the same problem with it that I find with atheism. Because there’s no divine essence to which I can turn to ground my meaning, purpose and morality. I have to explore this idea more, but I fear I’ll reach a dead end. I’ll just have to take the multitude of wonderful teachings for my own, and abandon the idea of there being no God. But maybe that’s basically Hinduism? I don’t know for sure.

 

[Gabler]

If you think it’s just my opinion slavery is detrimental to humans you’re wrong.

That's the point of contention. Why does it need to be good for humans and not yourself? The best answer I'm aware of comes from the very beginning of the book of Genesis, chapter 1, verse 27:

So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

I'd like to find the best possible secular argument against selfishness. The best secular answer I'm aware of is that kindness to others is an investment in your community, which in turn is an investment in your own future, since you're guaranteed to rely on others for help at some point in your life.

If that argument were a boat, I wouldn't take it to sea. Firstly, it doesn't address the problem of what you should do if no one is looking. It seems to suggest you should invest in your community when everyone is looking and collect your dividends when everyone looks away. Following that logic, it seems to me that the best place in the community would be to sit at the top and tax everyone else' efforts. Create a great community and reap the benefits of everyone else' work. You could call that position "king," "dictator," "master," or whatever flavor of tyranny you prefer. Regardless, the result is slavery.

That's not mere speculation. Until the rise of Christianity in the Roman Empire, slavery was a human universal. Three things were inevitable: death, taxes, and slavery. Arguably, that still true even today, but at least we're actively trying to eradicate it. Regardless, slaves became serfs. It wasn't much of an improvement to be tied to the land instead of directly owned by a master, but at least the law prohibited families from being torn apart as slaves were bought and sold.

Things were moving in approximately the correct direction until the Moors conquered Spain and reintroduced the institution of slavery, which the Spanish adopted and brought to the New World. Nonetheless, abitionist movements developed which were unsurprisingly rooted in Christian theology.

Anyway, I'd like to hear your secular argument for why slavery is wrong, and I'm here to help strengthen that argument as much as possible. I'm just not sure how to formulate one myself.

 

[pandacular]

I’m not really interested in this version of history where abolitionists were Christians and you ignore the fact that slavers were Christian as well. Above that, I’m not interested in an appeal to history as an argument for the morality of a system that quite literally was in control of historiography until very recently.

 

[pandacular]

Switching gears a bit…

Has anyone read any writings of Francis Bacon? I’ve been reading Will Durant’s excellent book The Story of Philosophy and the Bacon section stood out to me. I really enjoyed his witty writing and I think it would be a good stepping stone to help my many friends who are interested in Rationalism to reach…better philosophy, as there’s a great deal in common with a bit less of the surety of our current understanding of the world.

 

[Gabler]

I’m not really interested in this version of history where abolitionists were Christians and you ignore the fact that slavers were Christian as well. Above that, I’m not interested in an appeal to history as an argument for the morality of a system that quite literally was in control of historiography until very recently.

Well, I can't force you to engage in a conversation you don't want to have.

 

[TrevorLarsen]

That's the point of contention. Why does it need to be good for humans and not yourself? The best answer I'm aware of comes from the very beginning of the book of Genesis, chapter 1, verse 27:



I'd like to find the best possible secular argument against selfishness. The best secular answer I'm aware of is that kindness to others is an investment in your community, which in turn is an investment in your own future, since you're guaranteed to rely on others for help at some point in your life.

If that argument were a boat, I wouldn't take it to sea. Firstly, it doesn't address the problem of what you should do if no one is looking. It seems to suggest you should invest in your community when everyone is looking and collect your dividends when everyone looks away. Following that logic, it seems to me that the best place in the community would be to sit at the top and tax everyone else' efforts. Create a great community and reap the benefits of everyone else' work. You could call that position "king," "dictator," "master," or whatever flavor of tyranny you prefer. Regardless, the result is slavery.

That's not mere speculation. Until the rise of Christianity in the Roman Empire, slavery was a human universal. Three things were inevitable: death, taxes, and slavery. Arguably, that still true even today, but at least we're actively trying to eradicate it. Regardless, slaves became serfs. It wasn't much of an improvement to be tied to the land instead of directly owned by a master, but at least the law prohibited families from being torn apart as slaves were bought and sold.

Things were moving in approximately the correct direction until the Moors conquered Spain and reintroduced the institution of slavery, which the Spanish adopted and brought to the New World. Nonetheless, abitionist movements developed which were unsurprisingly rooted in Christian theology.

Anyway, I'd like to hear your secular argument for why slavery is wrong, and I'm here to help strengthen that argument as much as possible. I'm just not sure how to formulate one myself.

I already told you slavery is wrong because it is detrimental to human well being. It is very simple, but people are desperate to leave a gap for their god so they make it more complex.

 

[TrevorLarsen]

Drinking battery acid can harm us, sure. But is drinking battery acid immoral? What if I’m trapped in a cycle of suffering and it’s the only way I can end it via suicide? Again, with slavery, some people are forced into servitude and often abused. But is forcing servitude and abusing immoral? What if my worldview happens to say that such and such races are not worthy of equal dignity? And that therefore enslaving such peoples is not immoral, but actually good and for the benefit of my own people. Who or what do you turn to in order to say that my worldview and the resulting actions is immoral?

So yes, we can say that suffering objectively causes harm. But we can’t say that causing that harm in the first place is objectively immoral. That’s just your opinion, equal to any other. You haven’t really shown me how, objectively, independent of your opinion, that slavery is immoral. You can show me the effects of slavery, but outside of your opinion, you cannot show me that slavery is actually immoral.

Atheism relies on consequences, well-being, law, society and such, in order to determine whether or not something is immoral. But all of these are ultimately subjective and unsatisfying, because they’re not objective. I want to be able to say that slavery is actually wrong, objectively, factually, truly, and not just my mere opinion that it is wrong. And it seems this can only be done when meaning, purpose and morality exists in some way, shape or form outside of our minds. But we know by observing reality that only powerful minds like our human minds are capable of considering such things, or producing them in the form of thoughts and such. Non-mind doesn’t produce meaning, purpose and morality, so it isn’t a stretch to say God is necessary in order for these things to exist objectively.

Indeed, I either read or was told that all the early existentialists who were atheists said the same thing. No God equals no objective meaning, purpose and morality. You simply have to face the absurd. But you can only do so by being delusional and giving meaning, purpose and morality to life where there technically isn’t any.

I think we need to figure out what we mean when we use words since your sounds like gibberish to me. When you was moral what does that mean? When you say objectively true what do you mean?

 

[TrevorLarsen]

Religion in general teaches us asceticism and an ascetic-like worldview. And these are what make gods of us, saints and sages. Devotion to higher ideals, mindfulness, introspection, meditation, contemplation, and so forth. These are the practices of people who want to go beyond their animal nature. That’s probably a major reason for the aversion towards religion. For example, religion generally restrains us in regard to sex. It’s not just about pleasure, nor should it be so. But people don’t want to be told no, they don’t want to embrace a high moral standard. They’d rather be lazy and not practice anything at all.

You realize people (mostly religious conservatives) are complaining about “cancel culture” right? That is literally secular people saying no I won’t support people that don’t live up to my moral standards.

 

[TrevorLarsen]

I have recently abandoned my Christianity, and am now exploring Hinduism, Taoism, Stoicism, Neoplatonism and more. But most especially Buddhism, because I adore it for its very straightforward, ascetic, psychological and analytical nature. However, as much as I love Buddhism, I’m finding the same problem with it that I find with atheism. Because there’s no divine essence to which I can turn to ground my meaning, purpose and morality. I have to explore this idea more, but I fear I’ll reach a dead end. I’ll just have to take the multitude of wonderful teachings for my own, and abandon the idea of there being no God. But maybe that’s basically Hinduism? I don’t know for sure.

Good to hear you dropped Christianity. I thought you were a Christian that thought slavery is wrong which I always find hilarious since the Bible endorses slavery multiple times and never denounced it explicitly, yet they endorse it explicitly.