Some Questions From Atheists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-02-2018, 06:33 AM (This post was last modified: 21-02-2018 07:01 AM by Hussein.)
RE: Some Questions From Atheists
(21-02-2018 06:28 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  1. No, I don't think so. It's a statement about my own preferences. I don't have to have beliefs about those, I have direct access to them. I'm not making any claim about my values outside of my brain/mind.

2. I don't know how that word would apply either. I'm not dogmatically committed to anything. I'm quite prepared to change my values after hearing different arguments, gaining more experience and thinking things through. My values are a summary of how I feel about things, at any particular time. Again, I know what my values are, so I don't need to have faith that my values are... my values.

I think that addresses my question and I find it very insightful. I will give my self some time to think about what you said. Thank you for your time. Smile

ETA: Ok, I meditated on what you said and I think there is gap here.
Person A values knowledge but puts little effort in gaining knowledge;
Person B values knowledge and puts all his/her effort in gaining knowledge

What is the difference between A and B? Can't we say that B has a stronger faith in his/her value than A?

Faith does not necessarily imply dogmatism, it can be fluid and dynamic in my experience. I think faith bridges the gap between value and action. Without faith values cannot turn into actions. What's your thoughts? Don't you think we need another concept, independent of value, in the context where "action" is also involved?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2018, 07:07 AM
RE: Some Questions From Atheists
(21-02-2018 06:22 AM)Hussein Wrote:  
(21-02-2018 05:44 AM)julep Wrote:  I think "the world is a trap" is a terrible teaching. Especially the way it is taught in religions, with the implication that the "trap" has been set intentionally, that the world is a test and if a human "fails" at it, there's the punishment of damnation.

I also vehemently disagree with the philosophical position that attachment to the transient is undesirable simply because of that quality. I prefer to be attached, to love things that will end deeply while I can, and then to grieve their loss when that happens. I find no use whatsoever in cultivating detachment. (Especially if what one is supposed to be attached to instead are the imaginary ideas of god and heaven.)

As for the dreaded "extreme euphoria," I'm not even sure what you mean by that and why it is so dangerous. I get "extreme euphoria" when I'm playing music sometimes, and as far as I know the only consequences of that are the pleasure of the audience and my own dedication to practicing harder so that I can have that feeling again sometime.

I respect your opinion, and I understand you are aware of the cost of attachments and make informed choices to be attached.

Considering what you said, I think at the very least it's reasonable to inform children that strong attachment will cause suffering. Whether they make the choice to be strongly attached, like you do, or not. Is their own choice.

Whether the dread and fear of being "trapped" in the world should be thought to children is something that you made me think about it. I'm not sure what to say about it right now.

Quote:I'm not even sure what you mean by that and why it is so dangerous
I think it's dangerous because extreme euphoria will be followed by extreme suffering once the source of pleasure ceases. Why "dangerous"? because one can never know whether he/she can bear the consequential suffering or not, so there is a big risk of not being able to bear the cost of attachment.

One of our basic learning processes as human beings within a society is to learn to manage our emotions, rather than to avoid them entirely.

Further, it seems to me that you're prioritizing some kinds of attachment and devaluing others. That is, you seem to be thinking about possessions, intoxicants, depressants, etc., when talking about "extreme euphoria." Surely you aren't going to warn your children not to be too attached to their parents because someday the parents will die. And surely we should not be warning a child not to feel great happiness at being loved and valued by a parent, just because the child will have grief at the parent's loss. Instead, we teach our children to enjoy their happiness and help them process grief--if we are decent parents. (which I have tried to be)

Extreme happiness is not necessarily followed by extreme suffering once the source of happiness is removed, and even when this is the case, both extremes are generally limited in duration.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2018, 07:13 AM
RE: Some Questions From Atheists
(21-02-2018 05:28 AM)Hussein Wrote:  It depends on the society, I think. In a secular society, sure, you are right. But in my country mockery can cause instability and disturbance in the society, people would be marching in the street to protest the mockery, causing many businesses to go off for a day, which would in turn be a waste of resources for the government. So enforcing laws to prevent it is reasonable IMO, what's your thoughts?

No. Rigidity is not a good thing, ever. It takes two parties to try to understand something.

If someone mocks something I hold dear, I want to know why. I want to hear all the reasons so I can think about it and see whether there is truth in it. One must always pursue the truth, not wear blinders.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Dom's post
21-02-2018, 07:15 AM
RE: Some Questions From Atheists
(21-02-2018 02:48 AM)Hussein Wrote:  BTW, it's sad that your journey in Sufism was disappointing, but if you find the lack of dichotomy in your current worldview, maybe you are with Sufis in this core message Thumbsup

I certainly see the truth as unified, but that unity is because each material reality achieves a balance between the various forces acting on it, both on the small scale and on the large scale.
I don't believe truth is unified because a conscious and willful being is behind it all, as theists universally maintain. If it was, God would have a lot of explaining to do.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2018, 07:43 AM
RE: Some Questions From Atheists
(21-02-2018 06:33 AM)Hussein Wrote:  Faith does not necessarily imply dogmatism, it can be fluid and dynamic in my experience...

Faith is defined as "belief without evidence". Consider

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2018, 07:43 AM
RE: Some Questions From Atheists
(21-02-2018 06:33 AM)Hussein Wrote:  
(21-02-2018 06:28 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  1. No, I don't think so. It's a statement about my own preferences. I don't have to have beliefs about those, I have direct access to them. I'm not making any claim about my values outside of my brain/mind.

2. I don't know how that word would apply either. I'm not dogmatically committed to anything. I'm quite prepared to change my values after hearing different arguments, gaining more experience and thinking things through. My values are a summary of how I feel about things, at any particular time. Again, I know what my values are, so I don't need to have faith that my values are... my values.

I think that addresses my question and I find it very insightful. I will give my self some time to think about what you said. Thank you for your time. Smile

ETA: Ok, I meditated on what you said and I think there is gap here.
Person A values knowledge but puts little effort in gaining knowledge;
Person B values knowledge and puts all his/her effort in gaining knowledge

What is the difference between A and B? Can't we say that B has a stronger faith in his/her value than A?

Faith does not necessarily imply dogmatism, it can be fluid and dynamic in my experience. I think faith bridges the gap between value and action. Without faith values cannot turn into actions. What's your thoughts? Don't you think we need another concept, independent of value, in the context where "action" is also involved?

You're welcome, thanks for taking the time to consider Smile

I would person B is more motivated, more committed, or perhaps simply values knowledge more. Maybe person A has other things they value more instead, or is just lazy. Who knows!

I'm not trying to avoid the word "faith" for the sake of it, but it's not a word I think I'd use here. I suppose you're saying it's a strength of conviction that the values are extremely worthwhile, and should be acted on. You could call that faith if you like Smile

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2018, 07:49 AM (This post was last modified: 21-02-2018 08:08 AM by Hussein.)
RE: Some Questions From Atheists
(21-02-2018 07:07 AM)julep Wrote:  Further, it seems to me that you're prioritizing some kinds of attachment and devaluing others. That is, you seem to be thinking about possessions, intoxicants, depressants, etc., when talking about "extreme euphoria." Surely you aren't going to warn your children not to be too attached to their parents because someday the parents will die. And surely we should not be warning a child not to feel great happiness at being loved and valued by a parent, just because the child will have grief at the parent's loss. Instead, we teach our children to enjoy their happiness and help them process grief--if we are decent parents. (which I have tried to be)

You are right. That's where I need to get a bit spiritual, hope you can bear me. In my experience love is not transient, even after the parents die, the love for them remains untouched. There is certainly a loss, but the love is not lost. So I think I will certainly teach my children to love.

Quote:Extreme happiness is not necessarily followed by extreme suffering once the source of happiness is removed, and even when this is the case, both extremes are generally limited in duration.
The suffering is limited, but the damage taken by the suffering self and those who are around can be permanent.

Thanks for sharing your insights Smile I'm yet to be a parent, I will marry in 3 years, if things remain stable here! But the issue of parenting is indeed of great importance for me even now.

I will think more about what you said.

I wish well-being for your family.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2018, 07:57 AM
RE: Some Questions From Atheists
(21-02-2018 04:16 AM)Hussein Wrote:  
(21-02-2018 02:08 AM)morondog Wrote:  [*]Insulting your religion is not a crime and getting pissed off that people do it is pointless. If your God is that weak that he needs you to rush to his defence why are you even worshiping him/her/it?
I agree that religious people should be tolerant about insults and mocking. But don't you think such acts would be immoral?

No, I would not consider them immoral. They might be rude, and possibly offensive, but that is not the same thing.

Quote:Imagine a child from a religious family who is developing his identity, deeply woven with religious teachings. I think insulting and mocking his religion would definitely damage his/her development, self-esteem and sense of identity I think it's also the case with adults who have not reached a certain level of personality development. What do you think?

From my perspective it is immoral to teach a child to accept things without evidence and if mocking the belief makes people stop and think then that is good.

Taking offense when somebody mocks religious belief tells me that the believer is insecure in their belief or, at the very least, sees some validity in the criticism. If your sense of self is so wrapped up in a belief that is so fragile that it can't be subjected to any questioning then it is not of much real value.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like unfogged's post
21-02-2018, 08:03 AM
RE: Some Questions From Atheists
(21-02-2018 07:43 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  
(21-02-2018 06:33 AM)Hussein Wrote:  I think that addresses my question and I find it very insightful. I will give my self some time to think about what you said. Thank you for your time. Smile

ETA: Ok, I meditated on what you said and I think there is gap here.
Person A values knowledge but puts little effort in gaining knowledge;
Person B values knowledge and puts all his/her effort in gaining knowledge

What is the difference between A and B? Can't we say that B has a stronger faith in his/her value than A?

Faith does not necessarily imply dogmatism, it can be fluid and dynamic in my experience. I think faith bridges the gap between value and action. Without faith values cannot turn into actions. What's your thoughts? Don't you think we need another concept, independent of value, in the context where "action" is also involved?

You're welcome, thanks for taking the time to consider Smile

I would person B is more motivated, more committed, or perhaps simply values knowledge more. Maybe person A has other things they value more instead, or is just lazy. Who knows!

I'm not trying to avoid the word "faith" for the sake of it, but it's not a word I think I'd use here. I suppose you're saying it's a strength of conviction that the values are extremely worthwhile, and should be acted on. You could call that faith if you like Smile

You're welcome Smile

It's not simply a matter of language. The word "faith" is pretty strong in most cultures, and I think this concept that you prefer to call by other names is very important, I think it deserves to be given a strong word Smile After all this is the faith that ultimately causes actions within a society, a society with no faith or as you put it "weak values" is not willful, it can be easily oppressed, and say nothing.

Another question, how do you strengthen your values? How do you make your values more valuable? Do you perceive the strength of your values as something within your control?

In other words, someone values knowledge but simply not enough to make him put enough effort. What would be your suggestion to him/her?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2018, 08:12 AM
RE: Some Questions From Atheists
(21-02-2018 07:43 AM)SYZ Wrote:  
(21-02-2018 06:33 AM)Hussein Wrote:  Faith does not necessarily imply dogmatism, it can be fluid and dynamic in my experience...

Faith is defined as "belief without evidence". Consider
True, but it's not incompatible with dynamism IMO. e.g. Belief in moral values lack evidential basis, but it can be fluid. You can have faith in various values in your lifetime.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: