Freethought & Rationalism Archive

NOGO · 10-18-2002, 06:37 PM

I vote with CaptainDave

Janaya · 10-19-2002, 11:01 AM

Quote:

"God GOOD. Man BAAAD!"

Here's my take on your summary:

"God Incompetent. Man Blamed."

Peace,
Janaya

Mageth · 10-19-2002, 11:38 AM

I know this has moved to another thread, but KJ said:

Maximizing pleasure or joy in virtual realms via combinations of mysterious psychic forces is not sufficient ground for ethics or meaning - it is essentially no different than the 'ethical' arguments of 'weak' hedonists.

I'm having a hard time distinguishing this description from the Xian description of an afterlife and our need to make sure we end up in the "pleasurable" alternative....

[ October 19, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]

Not Prince Hamlet · 10-19-2002, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by kingjames1:


Jeff, thanks for the repsonse...

I do not hold that atheism = naturalism. I am assuming that most here are naturalists, however. But perhaps there are a couple of new age type folks here, or some who believe in 'eternal' aliens from some 'mother universe' who can monkey with laws of physics (though perhaps this is a sort of theism, a 'little green-men' theology).

However, your example is actually not convincing regarding futility. Maximizing pleasure or joy in virtual realms via combinations of mysterious psychic forces is not sufficient ground for ethics or meaning - it is essentially no different than (sic) the 'ethical' arguments of 'weak' hedonists. See Hume's argument concerning the insufficiency of mere fact (whether pleasure or functionality) to ground moral obligations.

J.

KJ,

Well, you know, it's kind of funny. I deliberately tailored my fantasy religion to be as close as possible to Christianity without actually having an actual God in it. It's odd that you seem that the mere presence of a powerful being turns my fantasy religion into a "sufficient ground for ethics or meaning".

This must come as a shock to the Buddhists and Shintoists, neither of whom believe in a supreme being. (Buddha is not represented as more powerful than man; just infinitely wiser.)

Besides, where do you get the right to decree what is a "sufficient ground for ethics or meaning" and what is not? What makes your position so enviably wise? Is it because you're Christian? If so, you're basically arguing, "Unless you believe as I do, you can't possibly be wise enough to challenge my beliefs. And of course, if you believe as I do, you'd be wise enough to know that challenging my beliefs is futile."

Jeff

Not Prince Hamlet · 10-19-2002, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth:
I know this has moved to another thread, but KJ said:

I'm having a hard time distinguishing this description from the Xian description of an afterlife and our need to make sure we end up in the "pleasurable" alternative....

Full marks, Mageth! As you'll see in my post above, I was deliberately setting KJ up. Kudos to you for seeing the trap.

Jeff

10-19-2002, 11:38 AM	#143
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	I know this has moved to another thread, but KJ said: Maximizing pleasure or joy in virtual realms via combinations of mysterious psychic forces is not sufficient ground for ethics or meaning - it is essentially no different than the 'ethical' arguments of 'weak' hedonists. I'm having a hard time distinguishing this description from the Xian description of an afterlife and our need to make sure we end up in the "pleasurable" alternative.... [ October 19, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-18-2002, 06:37 PM	#141
NOGO Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Canada Posts: 1,562	I vote with CaptainDave

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.