Dixie, Step Up

[Damocles]

What comfort is derived is determined by the individual experiencing the comfort, comfort being, after all, subjective.

Subjective "comfort" does not seem to be the determining factor of your attempt to describe this phenomena. While some may find comfort in being part of a larger soemthing, others will not. This Deity does not, once again, meet your criteria except in certain cases. Much like some will find comfort from not being part of a larger thing, from believing that there can be no Hell, from believing any myriad of things, including "There is no God to punish me for deeds done here on Earth."

As I stated the Atheist too can take just as much comfort as those who take their comfort from such beliefs. Others, such a Deists, have no gaurantee of any such comfort at all, that some may take such comfort from their beliefs, as with Atheists, doesn't make it fit into your scenario where all of them take such comfort and that is why they believe it.

 

[uscitizen]

Umm, the realization that death is the end of all is not a comforting thing. I consider it realistic, but not comforting.

 

[Damocles]

But you aren't attacking my argument, or the premises that they sit upon. You are attacking what you percieve as my personal rationale for making the argument, not the argument itself.

I am attacking the argument itself. That you assume it is personal is up to you.

Also attacking methodology, such as you are attempting here, is a valid form of argument. The assumption of my personal rationale, as you are doing here, is ridiculous. I clearly simply turned the phrase, in the same language as you made it, around and showed that it could fit in either way. It had nothing to do with your "personal rationale" and had everything to do with the rationale of the current argument within the context of the thread.

When I later state things like, "Calling others fools for their beliefs" then we are speaking outside the context of this thread, but with the context of our personal knowledge of each other. It isn't an ad hominem attack. I am not attacking you as a person, just a larger rationale.

 

[Damocles]

Umm, the realization that death is the end of all is not a comforting thing. I consider it realistic, but not comforting.

To some it is. Imagine if you were a "psycho-killer". Would you be more comforted by the belief of eternal torture or by an ending?

 

[uscitizen]

Damo, I don't really think that psycho killers think much about that or in a clear manner at least. If they did they might not be psycho killers.

 

[AnyOldIron]

Once again, the Deist God does not "fill in those gaps". A Deist, while they believe in a Deity, wouldn't simply say "God did it" and move on. They want to know HOW. This Deity doesn't answer the question of origin. Such a Deity doesn't answer any question whatsoever.

Isn't the underlying axiom of their 'reasoning' that 'god' (however they wish to describe it) created existence and they attempt to reason how?

How does this differ from Xtian theologists who work from the premise that 'god' created existence and they attempt to understand how he did it?

Subjective "comfort" does not seem to be the determining factor of your attempt to describe this phenomena. While some may find comfort in being part of a larger soemthing, others will not. This Deity does not, once again, meet your criteria except in certain cases. Much like some will find comfort from not being part of a larger thing, from believing that there can be no Hell, from believing any myriad of things, including "There is no God to punish me for deeds done here on Earth."

The only point that you are making in this statement is that all humans seek comfort. This I don't dispute. But it is still part of the role of the deity in deism to provide comfort, just as it is to fill in the gaps in human understanding vis a vis origins of existence.

In your opinion, what other role(s) does the deist deity fulfill?

As I stated the Atheist too can take just as much comfort as those who take their comfort from such beliefs. Others, such a Deists, have no gaurantee of any such comfort at all, that some may take such comfort from their beliefs, as with Atheists, doesn't make it fit into your scenario where all of them take such comfort and that is why they believe it.

And again, you are simply making the point that all humans crave comfort, something I don't doubt. It is the provision of that comfort that I am stating is one of the main roles of a deity.

I am attacking the argument itself. That you assume it is personal is up to you.

Also attacking methodology, such as you are attempting here, is a valid form of argument. The assumption of my personal rationale, as you are doing here, is ridiculous. I clearly simply turned the phrase, in the same language as you made it, around and showed that it could fit in either way. It had nothing to do with your "personal rationale" and had everything to do with the rationale of the current argument within the context of the thread.

When I later state things like, "Calling others fools for their beliefs" then we are speaking outside the context of this thread, but with the context of our personal knowledge of each other. It isn't an ad hominem attack. I am not attacking you as a person, just a larger rationale.

But you are assuming things about the rationale behind my argument because I am an atheist and admit to be such. Outside this thread, I avoid mocking people's faith, but rather argue against it. I admit I mocked Dixie about getting financial advice in the shower, but.....

The rationale behind why I am making the point isn't relevant, concentrating on that clouds the point and leads the argument into pointless tangents.

That all humans crave comfort is the only extractable point from your statement, and I have already stated many times that this I don't disagree with.

 

[AnyOldIron]

To some it is. Imagine if you were a "psycho-killer". Would you be more comforted by the belief of eternal torture or by an ending?

If you were a psychopath, then eternal torture seems straight up your street....

 

[Damocles]

Damo, I don't really think that psycho killers think much about that or in a clear manner at least. If they did they might not be psycho killers.

Hence the quotes. Basically if you thought that there was a chance of hell, it would be a comfort to believe in an ending over an eternal torture.

 

[Damocles]

To some it is. Imagine if you were a "psycho-killer". Would you be more comforted by the belief of eternal torture or by an ending?

If you were a psychopath, then eternal torture seems straight up your street....

Again, hence the quote marks.... Taking it over-literally doesn't make it wrong. If a person believed that otherwise there would be eternal torture a belief in an ending would be a relief, a "comfort".

 

[Damocles]

That all humans crave comfort is the only extractable point from your statement, and I have already stated many times that this I don't disagree with.

This is not an extractable point from my point. My point was that it could be equally a comfort to believe the opposite, that such a "comfort" is not a point in itself in the argument. The premise, or the basis itself that "comfort" is what all seek in their belief is in itself a false premise.

I find no comfort at all in losing my individuality, yet I believe that is what will happen when this body ends its journey. Either by no longer existing, I see this as a possibility, or by once again becoming part of the larger whole, which I personally believe is more likely.

 

[Damocles]

The rationale behind why I am making the point isn't relevant, concentrating on that clouds the point and leads the argument into pointless tangents.

Rubbish. If the argument is about clouds, and how you believe that they form, attacking the basis of your belief in why they form is certainly pertinent to any argument on it as it can suggest that the entire basis of argument is invalid. Attempting to protect that foundation beyond rational argument doesn't mean you have set up a true rationale at all. It just means that you attempt to disregard any deeper argument about the subject matter at hand. And it most certainly isn't "Ad Hominem".

 

[uscitizen]

Hence the quotes. Basically if you thought that there was a chance of hell, it would be a comfort to believe in an ending over an eternal torture.

Naw, you could just find a religion / sect that would allow your relatives to pray or otherwise get your butt out of hell

 

[AnyOldIron]

Again, hence the quote marks.... Taking it over-literally doesn't make it wrong. If a person believed that otherwise there would be eternal torture a belief in an ending would be a relief, a "comfort".

I wasn't being serious with that remark, Damo.

The comfort comes, in the xtian notion of the afterlife, from the notion that justice is eternal, that justice will be found after life. Do you not consider that the notion that if I am harmed retribution is there eventually. The idea that existence is not chaotic, not indifferent, not amoral.... that it is ordered by the paternal figure(s) that there are checks and balances in existence.

All of these things provide great comfort. All provided by religion.

You seem to think that I am attempting to work out why the religious believe what they do, attempting to psycho-analyse them? Not at all, it is, as I have said, it is a dispassionate observation, rather than an attempt to create a philosophical stick with which to beat the religious. That is why, by attacking my motivation for making this argument, you are missing the main gist of what I am saying, and attacking a strawman.

This is not an extractable point from my point. My point was that it could be equally a comfort to believe the opposite, that such a "comfort" is not a point in itself in the argument. The premise, or the basis itself that "comfort" is what all seek in their belief is in itself a false premise.

I have already stated that all humans seek comfort. Some wouldn't find comfort in the idea that existence is ordered, moral, extendable past death with moral retribution or justice coming from that. But they are highly unlikely to be adherents to the faiths that state this exists, with the existence of these being the central tenents of the faith. Because some who don't adhere to these articles of faith are unlikely to find comfort in a non-chaotic, moral existence doesn't invalidate the notion that those who do adhere to these notions do so because they provide comfort from the cold, amoral, apparently chaotic nature of existence.

I find no comfort at all in losing my individuality, yet I believe that is what will happen when this body ends its journey. Either by no longer existing, I see this as a possibility, or by once again becoming part of the larger whole, which I personally believe is more likely.

Yet your beliefs create an order to existence out of its apparent chaos, an innate moral framework and relief from an indifferent and cold existence. Do you not find comfort in this? Do you prefer the concept that existence is chaotic, cold and amoral?

You might find the idea that you would lose your identity disturbing. Identity is what? What differentiates us from others of our group? Personality, character? Are such things solidly fixed? Doesn't personality change, morph, evolve? How do you lose something that is so fluid?

Rubbish. If the argument is about clouds, and how you believe that they form, attacking the basis of your belief in why they form is certainly pertinent to any argument on it as it can suggest that the entire basis of argument is invalid. Attempting to protect that foundation beyond rational argument doesn't mean you have set up a true rationale at all. It just means that you attempt to disregard any deeper argument about the subject matter at hand. And it most certainly isn't "Ad Hominem".

I am not attempting to protect my rationale for making the argument from rational discussion, I am saying that my personal motivation for making the argument isn't relevant to the argument I am making. We could discuss until the cows come home my personal rationale, but it doesn't illuminate whether or not deities fit into the two roles, or if deities have other roles. It is playing the man, not the ball....

 

[Damocles]

Again, hence the quote marks.... Taking it over-literally doesn't make it wrong. If a person believed that otherwise there would be eternal torture a belief in an ending would be a relief, a "comfort".

I wasn't being serious with that remark, Damo.

The comfort comes, in the xtian notion of the afterlife, from the notion that justice is eternal, that justice will be found after life. Do you not consider that the notion that if I am harmed retribution is there eventually. The idea that existence is not chaotic, not indifferent, not amoral.... that it is ordered by the paternal figure(s) that there are checks and balances in existence.

All of these things provide great comfort. All provided by religion.

You seem to think that I am attempting to work out why the religious believe what they do, attempting to psycho-analyse them? Not at all, it is, as I have said, it is a dispassionate observation, rather than an attempt to create a philosophical stick with which to beat the religious. That is why, by attacking my motivation for making this argument, you are missing the main gist of what I am saying, and attacking a strawman.

This is not an extractable point from my point. My point was that it could be equally a comfort to believe the opposite, that such a "comfort" is not a point in itself in the argument. The premise, or the basis itself that "comfort" is what all seek in their belief is in itself a false premise.

I have already stated that all humans seek comfort. Some wouldn't find comfort in the idea that existence is ordered, moral, extendable past death with moral retribution or justice coming from that. But they are highly unlikely to be adherents to the faiths that state this exists, with the existence of these being the central tenents of the faith. Because some who don't adhere to these articles of faith are unlikely to find comfort in a non-chaotic, moral existence doesn't invalidate the notion that those who do adhere to these notions do so because they provide comfort from the cold, amoral, apparently chaotic nature of existence.

I find no comfort at all in losing my individuality, yet I believe that is what will happen when this body ends its journey. Either by no longer existing, I see this as a possibility, or by once again becoming part of the larger whole, which I personally believe is more likely.

Yet your beliefs create an order to existence out of its apparent chaos, an innate moral framework and relief from an indifferent and cold existence. Do you not find comfort in this? Do you prefer the concept that existence is chaotic, cold and amoral?

You might find the idea that you would lose your identity disturbing. Identity is what? What differentiates us from others of our group? Personality, character? Are such things solidly fixed? Doesn't personality change, morph, evolve? How do you lose something that is so fluid?

Rubbish. If the argument is about clouds, and how you believe that they form, attacking the basis of your belief in why they form is certainly pertinent to any argument on it as it can suggest that the entire basis of argument is invalid. Attempting to protect that foundation beyond rational argument doesn't mean you have set up a true rationale at all. It just means that you attempt to disregard any deeper argument about the subject matter at hand. And it most certainly isn't "Ad Hominem".

I am not attempting to protect my rationale for making the argument from rational discussion, I am saying that my personal motivation for making the argument isn't relevant to the argument I am making. We could discuss until the cows come home my personal rationale, but it doesn't illuminate whether or not deities fit into the two roles, or if deities have other roles. It is playing the man, not the ball....

Yet, I have spoken to the larger issue, mentioning our personal experience with each other as a side doesn't change that I speak to the greater assertion that all Deities only serve these two roles.

You asked me to put forward Deities that do not. I have given two, you have attempted to take pieces parts of entire systems of belief to assert, "But these fit this way!"

Now speaking to that I have given reasons why, first the Deist's beliefs do not necessarily give any of that comfort, and why again people do not always believe in such because they derive comfort. You keep asserting that I am speaking only about your personal motivation, which is rubbish. I have pointed this out to you several times, yet you insist that I still am. That is disingenuous ad hominem.

 

[AnyOldIron]

Yet, I have spoken to the larger issue, mentioning our personal experience with each other as a side doesn't change that I speak to the greater assertion that all Deities only serve these two roles.

You asked me to put forward Deities that do not. I have given two, you have attempted to take pieces parts of entire systems of belief to assert, "But these fit this way!"
On the contrary, I have explain the criteria for each role; 'god of the gaps' for attribution of phenomenon not fully understood, and 'god, the great comforter' to describe the comfort brought by having order in apparent chaos, morality in a cold, amoral existence, alleviation of the fear of mortality and to a degree a sense of meaning. I have then demonstrated how the characteristics of the religions exhibit these as roles.

I cetainly haven't simply stated "But these fit this way", I have set down the criteria for the roles and demonstrated how they fit.

Now speaking to that I have given reasons why, first the Deist's beliefs do not necessarily give any of that comfort, and why again people do not always believe in such because they derive comfort.

Do you not consider that giving order in apparent chaos, morality in an amoral and cold existence and a sense of meaning where one is difficient to be comforts? Your objection seems to surmount to being that you find losing your 'individuality' after death uncomforting, yet I have commented that 'individuality' is a vague term, that individuality fluxuates anyway, it never remains the same...

You keep asserting that I am speaking only about your personal motivation, which is rubbish. I have pointed this out to you several times, yet you insist that I still am. That is disingenuous ad hominem.

The reason I considered it ad hominem was because you attempted, when we began the discussion, to use reductio per absurdum by comparing my claim that a role of a deity is to provide comfort by comparing that to intellectual arrogance being a comfort. This isn't addressing the thrust of my argument (let alone applying the Principles of Charity) because I haven't denied that humans seek comfort.

 

[Damocles]

"Do you not consider that giving order in apparent chaos, morality in an amoral and cold existence and a sense of meaning where one is difficient to be comforts? Your objection seems to surmount to being that you find losing your 'individuality' after death uncomforting, yet I have commented that 'individuality' is a vague term, that individuality fluxuates anyway, it never remains the same... "

Once again, the Deist's Deity gives none of that. You really don't read the posts do you? You just assume my argument.

Morality for a Buddhist is not the constrained commandments of other religions, you are supposed to find it yourself, not simply take the word of another. "Order" is not specifically any part of the religion. In fact it speaks to the here and now and not the later.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the religion if you think that it was designed to give you "meaning" or "morality". Much like Atheists you must work for your own understanding of those words, nothing is "given" you in Buddhism.

And once again, you took the turn of phrase and made it personal. My only point was that comfort can be found in both sides of that, and thus stating that people only believe in Deities for comfort was a false premise. That you assume it is ad hominem says more about your belief system than it proves that it was actually ad hominem. That you continue on this side-show of the argument rather than getting to the meat, which is that people often do not believe in a Deity for "comfort", and sometimes people specifically do not believe in a Deity for "comfort".

It is too simplistic to assert that these two reasons are the only ones people might believe in a Deity.

 

[Cancel7]

To some it is. Imagine if you were a "psycho-killer". Would you be more comforted by the belief of eternal torture or by an ending?

Well, that's true. But to the vast majority, the idea that you will cease to exist for eternity, is not comforting, it's actually scary. I find it scary. I would love to comfort myself with the belief that I'm going to go to heaven, see people I loved who died before I did, and exist in some sort of state of grace and euphoria forever.

I think that most people are terrified of the fact of death, and of what it might mean. That's why I consider the whole biblical story sort of like a Santa Clause for adults. If it ends up to be true, I'll be thrilled. But I kind of doubt it.

 

[Cancel7]

"Do you not consider that giving order in apparent chaos, morality in an amoral and cold existence and a sense of meaning where one is difficient to be comforts? Your objection seems to surmount to being that you find losing your 'individuality' after death uncomforting, yet I have commented that 'individuality' is a vague term, that individuality fluxuates anyway, it never remains the same... "

Once again, the Deist's Deity gives none of that. You really don't read the posts do you? You just assume my argument.

Morality for a Buddhist is not the constrained commandments of other religions, you are supposed to find it yourself, not simply take the word of another. "Order" is not specifically any part of the religion. In fact it speaks to the here and now and not the later.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the religion if you think that it was designed to give you "meaning" or "morality". Much like Atheists you must work for your own understanding of those words, nothing is "given" you in Buddhism.

And once again, you took the turn of phrase and made it personal. My only point was that comfort can be found in both sides of that, and thus stating that people only believe in Deities for comfort was a false premise. That you assume it is ad hominem says more about your belief system than it proves that it was actually ad hominem. That you continue on this side-show of the argument rather than getting to the meat, which is that people often do not believe in a Deity for "comfort", and sometimes people specifically do not believe in a Deity for "comfort".

It is too simplistic to assert that these two reasons are the only ones people might believe in a Deity.

I think some believers are afraid of themselves. I've been asked, on message boards, what keeps you from doing something "evil" if you don't believe there is any punishment for it in the hereafter. You know what? That tells me a lot about the person asking. But this comes from Christian fundamentalists, or at least, has in my experience. Buddhists obviously, are different.

 

[Cancel7]

Once again, the Deist God does not "fill in those gaps". A Deist, while they believe in a Deity, wouldn't simply say "God did it" and move on. They want to know HOW. This Deity doesn't answer the question of origin. Such a Deity doesn't answer any question whatsoever.

Isn't the underlying axiom of their 'reasoning' that 'god' (however they wish to describe it) created existence and they attempt to reason how?

How does this differ from Xtian theologists who work from the premise that 'god' created existence and they attempt to understand how he did it?

Subjective "comfort" does not seem to be the determining factor of your attempt to describe this phenomena. While some may find comfort in being part of a larger soemthing, others will not. This Deity does not, once again, meet your criteria except in certain cases. Much like some will find comfort from not being part of a larger thing, from believing that there can be no Hell, from believing any myriad of things, including "There is no God to punish me for deeds done here on Earth."

The only point that you are making in this statement is that all humans seek comfort. This I don't dispute. But it is still part of the role of the deity in deism to provide comfort, just as it is to fill in the gaps in human understanding vis a vis origins of existence.

In your opinion, what other role(s) does the deist deity fulfill?

As I stated the Atheist too can take just as much comfort as those who take their comfort from such beliefs. Others, such a Deists, have no gaurantee of any such comfort at all, that some may take such comfort from their beliefs, as with Atheists, doesn't make it fit into your scenario where all of them take such comfort and that is why they believe it.

And again, you are simply making the point that all humans crave comfort, something I don't doubt. It is the provision of that comfort that I am stating is one of the main roles of a deity.

I am attacking the argument itself. That you assume it is personal is up to you.

Also attacking methodology, such as you are attempting here, is a valid form of argument. The assumption of my personal rationale, as you are doing here, is ridiculous. I clearly simply turned the phrase, in the same language as you made it, around and showed that it could fit in either way. It had nothing to do with your "personal rationale" and had everything to do with the rationale of the current argument within the context of the thread.

When I later state things like, "Calling others fools for their beliefs" then we are speaking outside the context of this thread, but with the context of our personal knowledge of each other. It isn't an ad hominem attack. I am not attacking you as a person, just a larger rationale.

But you are assuming things about the rationale behind my argument because I am an atheist and admit to be such. Outside this thread, I avoid mocking people's faith, but rather argue against it. I admit I mocked Dixie about getting financial advice in the shower, but.....

The rationale behind why I am making the point isn't relevant, concentrating on that clouds the point and leads the argument into pointless tangents.

That all humans crave comfort is the only extractable point from your statement, and I have already stated many times that this I don't disagree with.

Dixe gets financial advice in the shower? Why can't he be normal and just masturbate while he's in there like the rest of us?

 

[Damocles]

Well, that's true. But to the vast majority, the idea that you will cease to exist for eternity, is not comforting, it's actually scary. I find it scary. I would love to comfort myself with the belief that I'm going to go to heaven, see people I loved who died before I did, and exist in some sort of state of grace and euphoria forever.

I think that most people are terrified of the fact of death, and of what it might mean. That's why I consider the whole biblical story sort of like a Santa Clause for adults. If it ends up to be true, I'll be thrilled. But I kind of doubt it.

Heaven actually sounds like torture to me. To exist as a changed individual, which is the only way singing perpetual praises to some Deity would be "bliss" to me, would be far worse than not existing at all.