General religious discussion thread

[ParaTulip fae/faer (declines as she/her)]

Oh, if we are doing books, has anyone tried Feuerbach's Essence of Christianity?

I tried picking it up a while ago, and it quickly gets into some interesting points about the conception and perhaps desire for the infinite. Considering the place of infinity in Descarte's philosophy of God and his method of doubting, I was really intrigued.

[Frustration]

So I have a question for any atheists out there:

 

What are your philosophies? I've personally always taken religion as the necessary answer: to why we live, why we want to be good people, for our desire to continue living.

 

I've tried on a number of occasion and I actually cannot find any philosophy I find to be both compatible with atheism and internally consistent other than Nihilism.

Some have tried explaining it with love or other feelings, but without a soul all emotions are is just a concentration of hormones at a particular point in space-time.

It's a thought process that leads me to... dark places I don't like. 

[Kansas Stormcursed he/him]

Just now, Frustration said:

So I have a question for any atheists out there:

 

What are your philosophies? I've personally always taken religion as the necessary answer: to why we live, why we want to be good people, for our desire to continue living.

 

I've tried on a number of occasion and I actually cannot find any philosophy I find to be both compatible with atheism and internally consistent other than Nihilism.

Some have tried explaining it with love or other feelings, but without a soul all emotions are is just a concentration of hormones at a particular point in space-time.

It's a thought process that leads me to... dark places I don't like. 

*randomly glances at this in the unreads stream*

My own philosophy could I suppose be somewhat controversial, but I rely entirely on my own morality. I acknowledge that those opposing me might not necessarily be wrong, but they have ideals opposite mine, so I have no issue interfering with them to further my own goals and those of those around me

[Immortal Platypus]

3 minutes ago, Kansas Stormcursed said:

*randomly glances at this in the unreads stream*

My own philosophy could I suppose be somewhat controversial, but I rely entirely on my own morality. I acknowledge that those opposing me might not necessarily be wrong, but they have ideals opposite mine, so I have no issue interfering with them to further my own goals and those of those around me

so how do you determine what is right and wrong? if it serves you it is morally right?

[Kansas Stormcursed he/him]

Just now, Immortal Platypus said:

so how do you determine what is right and wrong? if it serves you it is morally right?

Generally, what serves me and those around me, within the limitations imposed by society and laws

[Frustration]

9 minutes ago, Kansas Stormcursed said:

*randomly glances at this in the unreads stream*

My own philosophy could I suppose be somewhat controversial, but I rely entirely on my own morality. I acknowledge that those opposing me might not necessarily be wrong, but they have ideals opposite mine, so I have no issue interfering with them to further my own goals and those of those around me

My question then becomes: how do you justify acting against someone else, or saying that your system of morality is superior(or at least of a higher priority) than theirs?

3 minutes ago, Kansas Stormcursed said:

Generally, what serves me and those around me, within the limitations imposed by society and laws

Yeah that's generally the point I get to trying to think through these ideas where I have to say I don't get it.

I couldn't live with myself if my only objective or determiner of morality is just what brings me the most comfort.

 

Not trying to cause offense, just to explain my thoughts

Edited January 22 by Frustration

[Kansas Stormcursed he/him]

Just now, Frustration said:

My question then becomes: how do you justify acting against someone else, or saying that your system of morality is superior(or at least of a higher priority than theirs)?

Yeah that's generally the point I get to trying to think through these ideas where I have to say I don't get it.

I couldn't live with myself if my only objective or determiner of morality is just what brings me the most comfort.

 

Not trying to cause offense, just to explain my thoughts

No offense at all, I've wondered through these things myself.

I don't truly believe my morality to be superior, but I place it higher in my priority by natural law of humans—we are, first and foremost, the ego, the self. (With the exception of some religious beliefs). Thus, I believe it to be natural that the world be made up of competing ideals, because that's what drives the world and keeps it balanced.

And I've had to learn to accept the belief that I am the only one who can choose and assign right or wrong, but I find it rather freeing. It's not truly about comfort, and often the result is the opposite. I work more toward a future goal, for me and mostly for the kids I teach, and most especially for my little brother.

[CoderDrag0n8 He/They]

4 minutes ago, Frustration said:

So I have a question for any atheists out there:

 

What are your philosophies? I've personally always taken religion as the necessary answer: to why we live, why we want to be good people, for our desire to continue living.

 

I've tried on a number of occasion and I actually cannot find any philosophy I find to be both compatible with atheism and internally consistent other than Nihilism.

Some have tried explaining it with love or other feelings, but without a soul all emotions are is just a concentration of hormones at a particular point in space-time.

It's a thought process that leads me to... dark places I don't like. 

Well, I am Agnostic.

So it in general means I am confused.

But I also basically share many atheist beliefs.

I agree with Kansas (a little) and I personally find it offensive to believe one can only have mortality if they are religious.

Without god, why wouldn't you kill people? Empathy.

If every feeling is fake, if everything we percieve is merely a byproduct of meaningless photons entering our eyes, so what?

I still feel those feelings, and nothing can invalidate that.

"I think, therefore I am". I dont neccassarially believe in the traditional concept of a soul, but I do believe all people have something deeper. Something that cannot be explained with words.

Something that makes us human.

Even if even that is just a byproduct of horomones and neurons, it's still there. Even if every animal has it, or they can all think thoughts and feel feelings as deep as us, its still there.

We have Depth, and some people call that a soul, but I call that a wall (little orv reference there).

The meaning to life is too find meaning. When you find your meaning, use that to keep on living. But don't die until you've at least found it.

Just now, Frustration said:

My question then becomes: how do you justify acting against someone else, or saying that your system of morality is superior(or at least of a higher priority than theirs)?

Yeah that's generally the point I get to trying to think through these ideas where I have to say I don't get it.

I couldn't live with myself if my only objective or determiner of morality is just what brings me the most comfort.

 

Not trying to cause offense, just to explain my thoughts

I understand that, and do not take offense. (to that last part)

The problem is, what is a 'good' action? No philosophy is perfect, and each one is loose and will disagree, regardless of religion.

Even religious people dont often use their morality compass imposed upon them by the bible.

The Bible has punishments like 'stone people' or 'make them eat their children' and I understand not believing it, but no matter who you are, you are picking and choosing what is right and wrong based on your own moral compass, religion or not.

The wall between good and evil is very blurry, and even if you believe in god, that line cannot and will not be defined.

Every person has their own moral compass that they stick to, and every person has to justify saying that their system of mortality is superior (or if you want to dig deeper, their belief is superior).

[Kansas Stormcursed he/him]

Just now, CoderDrag0n8 said:

Well, I am Agnostic.

So it in general means I am confused.

But I also basically share many atheist beliefs.

I agree with Kansas (a little) and I personally find it offensive to believe one can only have mortality if they are religious.

Without god, why wouldn't you kill people? Empathy.

If every feeling is fake, if everything we percieve is merely a byproduct of meaningless photons entering our eyes, so what?

I still feel those feelings, and nothing can invalidate that.

"I think, therefore I am". I dont neccassarially believe in the traditional concept of a soul, but I do believe all people have something deeper. Something that cannot be explained with words.

Something that makes us human.

Even if even that is just a byproduct of horomones and neurons, it's still there. Even if every animal has it, or they can all think thoughts and feel feelings as deep as us, its still there.

We have Depth, and some people call that a soul, but I call that a wall (little orv reference there).

The meaning to life is too find meaning. When you find your meaning, use that to keep on living. But don't die until you've at least found it.

I understand that, and do not take offense. (to that last part)

The problem is, what is a 'good' action? No philosophy is perfect, and each one is loose and will disagree, regardless of religion.

Even religious people dont often use their morality compass imposed upon them by the bible.

The Bible has punishments like 'stone people' or 'make them eat their children' and I understand not believing it, but no matter who you are, you are picking and choosing what is right and wrong based on your own moral compass, religion or not.

The wall between good and evil is very blurry, and even if you believe in god, that line cannot and will not be defined.

Every person has their own moral compass that they stick to, and every person has to justify saying that their system of mortality is superior (or if you want to dig deeper, their belief is superior).

To expand on this first point, I believe in the existence of the soul, I just don't believe in a God. I find the two to be separate concepts

Also, I don't believe the intent was to suggest that only religious people are moral

[CoderDrag0n8 He/They]

19 minutes ago, Frustration said:

 

What are your philosophies? I've personally always taken religion as the necessary answer: to why we live, why we want to be good people, for our desire to continue living.

Just now, Kansas Stormcursed said:

To expand on this first point, I believe in the existence of the soul, I just don't believe in a God. I find the two to be separate concepts

Also, I don't believe the intent was to suggest that only religious people are moral

That was not the intent, but that was the question.

I believe in a soul, that isn't neccassarially a spiritual soul.

More of a Depth than a soul.

[NovaRay He/him]

8 minutes ago, CoderDrag0n8 said:

The wall between good and evil

I see what you did there.

[CoderDrag0n8 He/They]

5 minutes ago, NovaRay said:

I see what you did there.

shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

[Kansas Stormcursed he/him]

Just now, CoderDrag0n8 said:

shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Coder

Was that an ORV reference

[CoderDrag0n8 He/They]

2 minutes ago, Kansas Stormcursed said:

Coder

Was that an ORV reference

uh

no?

*runs away*

18 minutes ago, CoderDrag0n8 said:

We have Depth, and some people call that a soul, but I call that a wall (little orv reference there).

this is the orv reference

The Wall of Impossible Communication

and i dont know wat ur talking abt The Wall that Divides Good and Evil does not exist, nope

[NovaRay He/him]

13 minutes ago, CoderDrag0n8 said:

uh

no?

*runs away*

this is the orv reference

The Wall of Impossible Communication

and i dont know wat ur talking abt The Wall that Divides Good and Evil does not exist, nope

Surrrreeeee. 

[Hmmm lies she/her]

7 hours ago, Frustration said:

So I have a question for any atheists out there:

 

What are your philosophies? I've personally always taken religion as the necessary answer: to why we live, why we want to be good people, for our desire to continue living.

 

I've tried on a number of occasion and I actually cannot find any philosophy I find to be both compatible with atheism and internally consistent other than Nihilism.

Some have tried explaining it with love or other feelings, but without a soul all emotions are is just a concentration of hormones at a particular point in space-time.

It's a thought process that leads me to... dark places I don't like. 

Ooh, philosophy, fun.

So, for I while, I considered myself a utilitarian. The idea of maximizing the total amount of happiness/good in the world. And uh, I don't exactly think it's wrong per say anymore, but I realize that it's impossible. One can't know what the consequences of one's actions necessarily are. I like it on small ways, but not in huge ways. (Take Taravangian. (Stormlight spoilers))

Spoiler

Despite wanting to make everything as good as possible for humanity/Kharbranth, he ends up making a lot of things worse through his actions.

But like, I think the morally correct choice in the trolley problem is to pull the lever, for example.

 

Anyway, that's not what my philosophy is anymore. What I have now is anti-nihilism. It's not the inverse of nihilism like the name would suggest. Basically, I think that the world has no inherent purpose or meaning, but that we can make our own purposes.

Just because I don't think there's a reason for anything doesn't mean I can't find the world beautiful. I know it's because of signals in my brain, but why should that be any less real?

Morality? I think it's relative, but real. Humanity, with or without religion, comes up with it. Again, signals in the brain, but they're still real. Maybe there's a lot of difficult edge cases about what's right, but I don't think any philosophy is going to perfectly resolve all of them.

8 hours ago, Frustration said:

I've personally always taken religion as the necessary answer: to why we live, why we want to be good people, for our desire to continue living.

I don't think it's necessary. We live because of natural selection, if we didn't live, we wouldn't exist. We want to be good people because it's more viable for humans to work together rather than to compete with each other. We want to continue living because humans are naturally averse to dying, because if we weren't, we wouldn't exist.

 

I don't have the answer to everything, but I don't think anyone does. One thing that still stumps me is consciousness. In other words, why are we observers of the universe? Many theists have put forth that it necessarily means the existence of a god or soul. I think they might be right, but it has no more credence than any other ideas, and it doesn't necessarily have to be their religion.

And, I put forward a philosophy question. Let's say you had one person who was only a series of chemical reactions and substances, but had no soul/consciousness. They would act completely like a human, except they aren't actually experiencing anything. Would there be any way to tell this 'philosophy-zombie' apart from someone with a consciousness?

[ParaTulip fae/faer (declines as she/her)]

10 hours ago, Frustration said:

to why we live, why we want to be good people, for our desire to continue living.

Okay, so this is three questions. I am going to answer these, and I am going to hope I am not repeating anyone:

1. why we live
   We live because we are born. We die because we are born. All living things are thrust into life unto death. 
2. why we want to be good people
   Because the alternative is being bad people, and badness is related to being unwanted by connotation. Of course, what makes a good as opposed to a bad person is a kind of subjectivity. Heck, the choice of good-bad as opposed to good-evil is something I just threw in here.
3. our desire to continue living
   This one is related to why we live: The processes by which we are born are self-replicating. The nearly machinic animal aspects of a human being often cling to life, but not necessarily. I know there is a long discourse around suicide in philosophy, since Socrates is so famous for having done it. Consider starting there or going with Albert Camus, the prick. 

10 hours ago, Immortal Platypus said:

so how do you determine what is right and wrong? if it serves you it is morally right?

1 hour ago, Hmmm lies said:

So, for I while, I considered myself a utilitarian. The idea of maximizing the total amount of happiness/good in the world.

A quick search suggests that no one has brought up that deontology, or Immanuel Kant's notion of ethics, is the counter to Bentham's calculus of hedonism. I actually think this is the best option for those who value universality. I can't justify why you should value such a concept, but I do.

10 hours ago, Kansas Stormcursed said:

I believe in the existence of the soul,

What is a soul? I have no idea how to understand what one of those does or is outside of the context of being something like this scene but for different assemblies of god/God/gods. But without an afterlife, what does such a thing do?

10 hours ago, CoderDrag0n8 said:

More of a Depth than a soul.

I don't even know what question to ask but I am so curious about what this means.

[Kansas Stormcursed he/him]

Just now, ParaTulip said:

Okay, so this is three questions. I am going to answer these, and I am going to hope I am not repeating anyone:

1. why we live
   We live because we are born. We die because we are born. All living things are thrust into life unto death. 
2. why we want to be good people
   Because the alternative is being bad people, and badness is related to being unwanted by connotation. Of course, what makes a good as opposed to a bad person is a kind of subjectivity. Heck, the choice of good-bad as opposed to good-evil is something I just threw in here.
3. our desire to continue living
   This one is related to why we live: The processes by which we are born are self-replicating. The nearly machinic animal aspects of a human being often cling to life, but not necessarily. I know there is a long discourse around suicide in philosophy, since Socrates is so famous for having done it. Consider starting there or going with Albert Camus, the prick. 

A quick search suggests that no one has brought up that deontology, or Immanuel Kant's notion of ethics, is the counter to Bentham's calculus of hedonism. I actually think this is the best option for those who value universality. I can't justify why you should value such a concept, but I do.

What is a soul? I have no idea how to understand what one of those does or is outside of the context of being something like this scene but for different assemblies of god/God/gods. But without an afterlife, what does such a thing do?

I don't even know what question to ask but I am so curious about what this means.

To me, a soul is kind of an abstract way of viewing the person as a whole—the combination of physical and mental traits, experience, personality. Not necessarily a measurable thing, but a kind of connection of the different parts.

Without an afterlife, the soul just is. It's like body or mind.

[Hmmm lies she/her]

55 minutes ago, ParaTulip said:

What is a soul? I have no idea how to understand what one of those does or is outside of the context of being something like this scene but for different assemblies of god/God/gods. But without an afterlife, what does such a thing do?

I've heard some atheists use 'soul' to mean 'consciousness' or 'sentience'. In other words, the difference between being a bunch of molecules and energy and being a person. I don't use it like that, as I feel that even if there was some sort of explanation for sentience, I wouldn't be calling it a soul.

57 minutes ago, ParaTulip said:

A quick search suggests that no one has brought up that deontology, or Immanuel Kant's notion of ethics, is the counter to Bentham's calculus of hedonism. I actually think this is the best option for those who value universality. I can't justify why you should value such a concept, but I do.

I've heard of that, actually, but I've never liked it. I feel like there's just far far too much nuance for every situation for a set of rules to work. Perhaps it works well for a lack of doubt in one's actions, if one always follows one's rules, then one doesn't have to worry that one made the wrong choice. 

However (I did a bit more research) I do like the idea that intent, not consequences determine the morality of an action. It's like I said, one can never know all the consequences.

 

Often, when I learn about philosophies, even if I disagree, I end up finding that at least part of it has value or seems good.

[Frustration]

10 hours ago, CoderDrag0n8 said:

I agree with Kansas (a little) and I personally find it offensive to believe one can only have mortality if they are religious.

I never meant to imply anything along those lines. I don't think morality is something someone can choose to participate in, we are all bound to it, willingly or not. I just have yet to encounter a non-religious moral framework I can agree with.

10 hours ago, CoderDrag0n8 said:

If every feeling is fake, if everything we percieve is merely a byproduct of meaningless photons entering our eyes, so what?

I still feel those feelings, and nothing can invalidate that.

Even if even that is just a byproduct of horomones and neurons, it's still there. Even if every animal has it, or they can all think thoughts and feel feelings as deep as us, its still there.

I'll kind of put this together with the next thought here because I find them related

2 hours ago, Hmmm lies said:

Ooh, philosophy, fun.

So, for I while, I considered myself a utilitarian. The idea of maximizing the total amount of happiness/good in the world. And uh, I don't exactly think it's wrong per say anymore, but I realize that it's impossible. One can't know what the consequences of one's actions necessarily are. I like it on small ways, but not in huge ways. (Take Taravangian. (Stormlight spoilers))

  Reveal hidden contents

Despite wanting to make everything as good as possible for humanity/Kharbranth, he ends up making a lot of things worse through his actions.

But like, I think the morally correct choice in the trolley problem is to pull the lever, for example.

My question is if emotion is what makes life have meaning why not fake it?

Would it be the morally right thing to put electrodes in people's heads that make them constantly feel happy and satisfied?

If so you're welcome to that opinion, if not I'd like to hear why.

10 hours ago, CoderDrag0n8 said:

I understand that, and do not take offense. (to that last part)

The problem is, what is a 'good' action? No philosophy is perfect, and each one is loose and will disagree, regardless of religion.

Even religious people dont often use their morality compass imposed upon them by the bible.

The Bible has punishments like 'stone people' or 'make them eat their children' and I understand not believing it, but no matter who you are, you are picking and choosing what is right and wrong based on your own moral compass, religion or not.

The wall between good and evil is very blurry, and even if you believe in god, that line cannot and will not be defined.

While I can see where you're coming from, I personally see it as our understanding, and not the system as being flawed.

Kind of like geocentrism, the solar system is real, but the geocentric understanding of it was based on incomplete data.

I don't think that any particular religion, or religious individual is perfect. I rather believe that the purpose of religion is to give us an ideal of perfection to strive to become.

2 hours ago, Hmmm lies said:

Anyway, that's not what my philosophy is anymore. What I have now is anti-nihilism. It's not the inverse of nihilism like the name would suggest. Basically, I think that the world has no inherent purpose or meaning, but that we can make our own purposes.

Just because I don't think there's a reason for anything doesn't mean I can't find the world beautiful. I know it's because of signals in my brain, but why should that be any less real?

I think I've heard of that as Existentialism..

2 hours ago, Hmmm lies said:

I don't have the answer to everything, but I don't think anyone does. One thing that still stumps me is consciousness. In other words, why are we observers of the universe? Many theists have put forth that it necessarily means the existence of a god or soul. I think they might be right, but it has no more credence than any other ideas, and it doesn't necessarily have to be their religion.

And, I put forward a philosophy question. Let's say you had one person who was only a series of chemical reactions and substances, but had no soul/consciousness. They would act completely like a human, except they aren't actually experiencing anything. Would there be any way to tell this 'philosophy-zombie' apart from someone with a consciousness?

Well I can't answer for certain as I don't know everything about chemistry, let alone souls.

I'd say it probably would be pretty easy as they would only be able to react, and not take action for themselves, but I've never had any experience with such a thing, so I have no idea.

[Kansas Stormcursed he/him]

13 minutes ago, Frustration said:

I never meant to imply anything along those lines. I don't think morality is something someone can choose to participate in, we are all bound to it, willingly or not. I just have yet to encounter a non-religious moral framework I can agree with.

I'll kind of put this together with the next thought here because I find them related

My question is if emotion is what makes life have meaning why not fake it?

Would it be the morally right thing to put electrodes in people's heads that make them constantly feel happy and satisfied?

If so you're welcome to that opinion, if not I'd like to hear why.

While I can see where you're coming from, I personally see it as our understanding, and not the system as being flawed.

Kind of like geocentrism, the solar system is real, but the geocentric understanding of it was based on incomplete data.

I don't think that any particular religion, or religious individual is perfect. I rather believe that the purpose of religion is to give us an ideal of perfection to strive to become.

I think I've heard of that as Existentialism..

Well I can't answer for certain as I don't know everything about chemistry, let alone souls.

I'd say it probably would be pretty easy as they would only be able to react, and not take action for themselves, but I've never had any experience with such a thing, so I have no idea.

To throw my opinion in here, it's not emotion itself that makes life have meaning, but the variety and natural flavor of emotions. Making everybody constantly happy just psychologically worsens their mental state and makes the happiness not actually happy anymore, because we'd be accustomed to it and it would become our average base line

[ParaTulip fae/faer (declines as she/her)]

23 minutes ago, Hmmm lies said:

feel like there's just far far too much nuance for every situation for a set of rules to work. Perhaps it works well for a lack of doubt in one's actions, if one always follows one's rules, then one doesn't have to worry that one made the wrong choice. 

The concept of rules isn't unique to deontology. Divine command theories of morality will usually have the rules of a divine figure be the moral code. Rule utilitarians will have sets of rules they see as maximizing pleasure. What I find compelling about Kant is how his idea moves towards a system of reasoning about morality from intent and overlaping axiom. 

16 minutes ago, Frustration said:

Would it be the morally right thing to put electrodes in people's heads that make them constantly feel happy and satisfied?

Have you heard of the notion of an experience machine? This sounds like a similar notion.

 

[Frustration]

9 minutes ago, ParaTulip said:

Have you heard of the notion of an experience machine? This sounds like a similar notion.

 

Huh, I had not heard of that I was honestly basing it off of a mice experiment on addiction.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/video/steps-to-recovery-videos/2015-08-008-landscape-of-the-mind?lang=eng

 

Though I do notice a lot of similarities between the two.

[ParaTulip fae/faer (declines as she/her)]

9 minutes ago, Frustration said:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/video/steps-to-recovery-videos/2015-08-008-landscape-of-the-mind?lang=eng

 

Huh, this is not too dissimilar to the stuff I ran into when I was reading up on Catholic catechism. When it comes to the morality on this. I imagine that is because both are coming from a sort of Paul as read by Augustine perspective?

This is a bit of a strange way of understanding drugs, mostly since it is treating all drugs as one and the same. This is not a drug use discussion thread, but suffice to say I am experienced and read on the matter from a less scientific and more intimate perspective. To address the specific notions: What drives a person to start using drugs, what causes a person to relapse into drugs, why does society manufacture drugs, these are all clearly worth consideration beyond what the mouse model can say.

Consider reading William S Burrough's if you want to consider this more. 

Only got about 7 minutes into the video before the website crapped out on me, so maybe it brings this up, but we have been putting electrical stimulus devices in people for a while now.

[Honors Spectral Image She/her]

12 hours ago, Frustration said:

So I have a question for any atheists out there:

 

What are your philosophies? I've personally always taken religion as the necessary answer: to why we live, why we want to be good people, for our desire to continue living.

 

I've tried on a number of occasion and I actually cannot find any philosophy I find to be both compatible with atheism and internally consistent other than Nihilism.

Some have tried explaining it with love or other feelings, but without a soul all emotions are is just a concentration of hormones at a particular point in space-time.

It's a thought process that leads me to... dark places I don't like. 

Mmm honestly my philosophy is just like when relating to other people it’s be nice until they’re mean to me or my friends, and then my reason for existing is to leave a lasting impact (hopefully good) on this world and its people

But I determine what’s right and wrong based off of how many it affects negatively and how many it affects positively take for example like being queer, it affects everyone who’s queer positively and no one negatively so therefore it’s morally correct to allow queer people to exist like everyone else