Topic: Hell,.. the Lake of Fire,... brrrrrr...Your Thoughts

[drogulus]

     The monumentally trivial way that believers treat the question of existence after existence, good and bad neighborhoods and all, is not so secret as to be undetectable to observers. You say you "believe" that belief, the dreadful "faith", establishes entities, belief as reasons, not reasons for beliefs. What the believer does, the eternal Shrug of Bogusity, makes him a Knight who says........what he says. It's the Saying, not the "object" of what's said, that counts. A real object, bad neighborhood, demon landlord, whatever, would just be in the way.

[k a rl h e nn i ng]

Of course, raw scorn is another approach.

[drogulus]

     Nothing isn't something, so it can't come in heaven/hell flavors, and scorn is appropriate. Scorn is the correct approach to ideologies that claim that believing hard enough establishes entities, but doesn't establish the "wrong ones", which must be the case or every Bizarro World kryptonite god is on the same footing! Of course, they are on the same banana peel of un-is-ness. That must be a bummer, all those fake "fake" gods are fake by the same reasoning that the "real" ones are fake. Best then not to put too high a profile on the mechanism if differentiating among them. Hey, I have an idea! Let's go one step beyond and make the difference between real and fake gods, real and fantasy neighborhoods in erewhon, itself a (heh!) Divine Mystery! The problem is solved, and we see no dilemma of this sort is beyond a liberal lathering of Profound Hogwash!

     OK, this is fun and all, but I do have a serious objection to beliefs trading places with reasons to support them. That is, it makes mashed potatoes out of worldly epistemology, and that is important. Carving out exceptions for sheltered beliefs in ones truth procedures has no cutoff point. Some scientists and other intellectuals can keep 2 sets of books, one for beliefs, the other for what doesn't have to be believed to be true, but has to be found true to be believed IOW the constitution of the world as we find it. I accept this arrangement and it appears stable in some people and may offer comfort to them, but it massively enables every pseudo-scientific tendency in our culture.

[k a rl h e nn i ng]

Nice rationalization.  As if the ready expression of contempt were any virtue.  I'm right to be scornful, I tell you!

[drogulus]

      There's is plenty of stupidity in the world to be rightly scornful about. Your blanket condemnation of scorn is more unfocused and unjustified than my scorn.

[drogulus]

     I would say that attacking me may help ones morale, but addressing my argument that a belief can't serve as evidence for its truth would be productive and help anyone who might be reading to learn something.

[kishnevi]

May I point out that your belief that certain entities do not exist is itself merely belief and not evidence for their non existence.  You are merely providing evidence that you do not believe in their existence, a far different thing from proving their existence is an impossibility.

[jochanaan]

Speaking of Adam and Eve...

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/A_a6RjR_AHY" target="_blank" class="new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/A_a6RjR_AHY</a>

If humankind had obeyed God, we wouldn't need those black boxes on our monitors!  Just sayin'.

[jochanaan]

May I point out that your belief that certain entities do not exist is itself merely belief and not evidence for their non existence.  You are merely providing evidence that you do not believe in their existence, a far different thing from proving their existence is an impossibility.

+1

And I say again that most of us who believe have evidence for our beliefs.  It may not be evidence by materialistic standards, but it is evidence still.  The fact that so many humans crave a reality beyond themselves may be considered evidence that we were made by Someone.  (Why do you think so many people are looking for extraterrestrial life?  They too hunger for a reality beyond what we know, for a universe in which we are not alone.)

[Purusha]

     Nothing isn't something, so it can't come in heaven/hell flavors, and scorn is appropriate. Scorn is the correct approach to ideologies that claim that believing hard enough establishes entities, but doesn't establish the "wrong ones", which must be the case or every Bizarro World kryptonite god is on the same footing! Of course, they are on the same banana peel of un-is-ness. That must be a bummer, all those fake "fake" gods are fake by the same reasoning that the "real" ones are fake. Best then not to put too high a profile on the mechanism if differentiating among them. Hey, I have an idea! Let's go one step beyond and make the difference between real and fake gods, real and fantasy neighborhoods in erewhon, itself a (heh!) Divine Mystery! The problem is solved, and we see no dilemma of this sort is beyond a liberal lathering of Profound Hogwash!

     OK, this is fun and all, but I do have a serious objection to beliefs trading places with reasons to support them. That is, it makes mashed potatoes out of worldly epistemology, and that is important. Carving out exceptions for sheltered beliefs in ones truth procedures has no cutoff point. Some scientists and other intellectuals can keep 2 sets of books, one for beliefs, the other for what doesn't have to be believed to be true, but has to be found true to be believed IOW the constitution of the world as we find it. I accept this arrangement and it appears stable in some people and may offer comfort to them, but it massively enables every pseudo-scientific tendency in our culture.

There is only one "God". The various religions are merely different ways to get to him.

And "belief" is not the only alternative to reason. There is direct intellectual intuition:

http://www.sophia-perennis.com/philosophy/raison_intellection.htm
http://www.studiesincomparativereligion.com/public/articles/The_Primacy_of_Intellection-by_Frithjof_Schuon.aspx

Or in the words of Rumi:

Love has rosebowers amid the veil of blood; lovers have affairs
to transact with the beauty of incomparable Love.
Reason says, “The six directions are the boundary, and there
is no way out”; Love says, “There is a way, and I have many
times travelled it.”
Reason beheld a bazaar, and began trading; Love has beheld
many bazaars beyond Reason’s bazaar.
Many a hidden Mansur there is who, confiding in the soul of
Love, abandoned the pulpit and mounted the scaffold.
Dreg-sucking lovers possess ecstatic perceptions inwardly;
men of reason, dark of heart, entertain denials within them.
Reason says, “Set not your foot down, for in the courtyard
there is naught but thorns”; Love says, “These thorns belong to
the reason which is within you.”
Beware, be silent; pluck the thorn of being out of the heart’s
foot, that you may behold the rosebowers within you.
Shams-i Tabrızı, you are the sun within the cloud of words;
when your sun arose, all speech was obliterated.

[drogulus]

May I point out that your belief that certain entities do not exist is itself merely belief and not evidence for their non existence.  You are merely providing evidence that you do not believe in their existence, a far different thing from proving their existence is an impossibility.

    Why would anyone think evidence of nonexistence could be attached to nonexistent "entities"? How at this late date could anyone in ex-Christendom not understand where the burden of proof really falls?

Ed: x exists

Ned: no it don't

Ed: prove it

Ned: no, you have to provide the proof or my motion passes by default

Of course Ned is correct and wins the argument, because nothing exists by virtue of "you can't say it doesn't". No one accepts this about anything important. I conclude that beliefists are not serious, not lying, but engaging in self deceptive bullshitting. If what they say can't be justified they'll confabulate and attack the challengers motives.

[Purusha]

I say Britney Spears is a greater musical genius than Beethoven, and that there is nothing immoral in impaling babies. Can reason prove me wrong? No, therefore, intelligence cannot be reduced to reason alone, if intelligence is supposed to mean anything in the first place. All your sophisticated syllogisms are completely helpless in the end. By reducing everything to reason alone, western so called "thinkers" drove themselves to an intellectual cul-de-sac from which there appears to be no escape.

[drogulus]

     

     "There is only one "God". The various religions are merely different ways to get to him."

     Yeah, I kind of said that, didn't I? All the fake fakes and real fakes are the same, that's why it's so easy for me to (heh!) get to them.

[Purusha]

     

     "There is only one "God". The various religions are merely different ways to get to him."

     Yeah, I kind of said that, didn't I? All the fake fakes and real fakes are the same, that's why it's so easy for me to (heh!) get to them.

Right. Also, there is no truth, and everything is relative. Correct?

[kishnevi]

    Why would anyone think evidence of nonexistence could be attached to nonexistent "entities"? How at this late date could anyone in ex-Christendom not understand where the burden of proof really falls?

Ed: x exists

Ned: no it don't

Ed: prove it

Ned: no, you have to provide the proof or my motion passes by default

Of course Ned is correct and wins the argument, because nothing exists by virtue of "you can't say it doesn't". No one accepts this about anything important. I conclude that beliefists are not serious, not lying, but engaging in self deceptive bullshitting. If what they say can't be justified they'll confabulate and attack the challengers motives.

You believe the entities in question do not exist, and that belief is based, not on evidence of their non existence, but on your belief that such evidence does not exist.  This despite the fact the vast majority of the human race over the centuries was satisfied with the evidence that such entities existed.  Your assertion that such things do not exist is merely a faith based assertion of the very sort you claim to be attacking.

There is a sort of experience which can be called religious or spiritual, and those of us that have had such experiences believe they are ample evidence that the Entity in Question does in fact exist.  You see the heavens, I see the heavens declaring the glory of God.  That is the difference that religious experience makes.  You would be better off grappling with the question of what that sort of experience is and what it means than simply pretending it does not exist.

[drogulus]

I say Britney Spears is a greater musical genius than Beethoven, and that there is nothing immoral in impaling babies. Can reason prove me wrong?

Can your precious unreason do better? I note for the record that unreason has a pretty shitty history. Anyway, I think it's a little bit unreasonable of you to trample the value/fact distinction so heedlessly. Reason itself  is not determinate on ethical or aesthetic values but a great deal of reason operates in our understanding of our responses and the direction we want them to take.

You believe the entities in question do not exist, and that belief is based, not on evidence of their non existence, but on your belief that such evidence does not exist.   

Which entities did you have in mind, the ones you think don't exist, the ones we both think don't exist, or are you only objecting to what I think doesn't exist?

[Purusha]

Can your precious unreason do better? I note for the record that unreason has a pretty shitty history. Anyway, I think it's a little bit unreasonable of you to trample the value/fact distinction so heedlessly. Reason itself  is not determinate on ethical or aesthetic values but a great deal of reason operates in our understanding of our responses and the direction we want them to take.

My intelligence tells me that Beethoven is a greater artist than Britney Spears, and that murdering babies is wrong. Since reason had nothing to do with those realizations, than it means that intelligence cannot be reduced to reason alone, if intelligence is to mean anything.

BTW, intellection is not "unrational", it is suprarational.

Which entities did you have in mind, the ones you think don't exist, the ones we both think don't exist, or are you only objecting to what I think doesn't exist?

Is truth an entity? I'm just wondering how consistent your "atheism" truly is. Dawkins or Nietzsche?

[kishnevi]

Which entities did you have in mind, the ones you think don't exist, the ones we both think don't exist, or are you only objecting to what I think doesn't exist?

The Entity I have directly experienced and which you think does not exist.   More broadly,  your faith based assertion that the divine does not exist, despite the fact that most of humanity believes the evidence shows it does exist.

[drogulus]

The Entity I have directly experienced and which you think does not exist.

     Just think off all the trouble Einstein could have saved himself if his direct experience of the truth of relativity meant he didn't have to make arguments supporting his claim.

More broadly,  your faith based assertion that the divine does not exist, despite the fact that most of humanity believes the evidence shows it does exist.

     My assertion is there's no reason to think it does, and ample reason to think it's as hoaxy as it looks. As for your experience providing proof, you give me ample reason, in part by ignoring my question but mostly by the incoherence of the "true by belief" architecture, to doubt you have any idea what your experience means. You jumped to an implausible conclusion and don't care, as it serves your belief. Neither evidence nor the lack of it shakes you. You are not a reliable witness.

[drogulus]

Right. Also, there is no truth, and everything is relative. Correct?

     I didn't say that, or anything close to it. Our knowledge of what's true comes from what we observe and the application of reason to it. Any approach which says truths are established by the process of believing them means it's impossible to correct errors in beliefs because there could be no errors. If you can't be wrong you can't be right.

     What's accepted without evidence should be dismissed without evidence. Thanks, Hitch.

     The justification of a proposition lies in the evidence that supports it - Some Guy *

     * I think it was A.J. Ayer. Read his book Language, Truth and Logic. It's become something of a piñata in Philosophy 101 but there's still plenty of good stuff in it.