Another Mopologist Bites The Dust, Bryce Haymond Edition

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Themis
Elder
Posts: 321
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 4:31 pm

Re: Another Mopologist Bites The Dust, Bryce Haymond Edition

Post by Themis »

Kishkumen wrote:
Thu Apr 01, 2021 8:33 pm
Acknowledging the existence off something that goes by the appellation God does not necessarily entail being anxious about God’s thoughts. In classical theism, I would not presume to imagine what God’s thoughts are.
I don't know that one needs to be anxious, but belief in God usually entails more then just belief in some kind of God's existence. If that belief is only about a God's existence then it's no different then believing in Bigfoot. At that point recognizing one doesn't know should put one in agnostic territory.
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 6121
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: Another Mopologist Bites The Dust, Bryce Haymond Edition

Post by Kishkumen »

Themis wrote:
Fri Apr 02, 2021 4:12 am
I don't know that one needs to be anxious, but belief in God usually entails more then just belief in some kind of God's existence. If that belief is only about a God's existence then it's no different then believing in Bigfoot. At that point recognizing one doesn't know should put one in agnostic territory.
God’s existence may be a lot more philosophically compelling and consequential than the existence of Bigfoot. In classical theism, God is the absolute upon which all else is contingent. Is Bigfoot logically necessary or that consequential? Are all things contingent on Bigfoot?
“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.”~Thomas Pynchon, Gravity’s Rainbow
Themis
Elder
Posts: 321
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 4:31 pm

Re: Another Mopologist Bites The Dust, Bryce Haymond Edition

Post by Themis »

Kishkumen wrote:
Fri Apr 02, 2021 10:35 am
In classical theism, God is the absolute upon which all else is contingent.
Then one would have more then just a belief in a God existing. That usually brings people to come up with ideas about God, like it's nature, what it wants, etc. In classical atheism one only needs to concern themselves with what they, or other people, think, and have a much better idea they exist, and what they want.
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 6121
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: Another Mopologist Bites The Dust, Bryce Haymond Edition

Post by Kishkumen »

Themis wrote:
Fri Apr 02, 2021 2:37 pm
In classical atheism one only needs to concern themselves with what they, or other people, think, and have a much better idea they exist, and what they want.
I am not exactly sure what you mean by "have a much better idea they exist." Who is the subject and who is the they?

In any case, I find the "only" in your statement somewhat disconcerting, as it suggests there is claim that everything is somehow philosophically and ethically easier when God is taken out of the equation. I don't think that is at all the case. Belief in this lighter burden is a real problem in itself.
“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.”~Thomas Pynchon, Gravity’s Rainbow
Themis
Elder
Posts: 321
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 4:31 pm

Re: Another Mopologist Bites The Dust, Bryce Haymond Edition

Post by Themis »

Kishkumen wrote:
Fri Apr 02, 2021 3:22 pm
I am not exactly sure what you mean by "have a much better idea they exist." Who is the subject and who is the they?
They would be the atheist.
In any case, I find the "only" in your statement somewhat disconcerting, as it suggests there is claim that everything is somehow philosophically and ethically easier when God is taken out of the equation. I don't think that is at all the case. Belief in this lighter burden is a real problem in itself.
The only thing that is easier is just figuring out what you think, not trying to figure out what some unknown being thinks. Kinda like the atheist girl who only has to decide if she wants to have sex with that Guy, where the theist girl has to try and decide if the guy is telling the truth that God wants her to sleep with him.
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 6121
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: Another Mopologist Bites The Dust, Bryce Haymond Edition

Post by Kishkumen »

Themis wrote:
Fri Apr 02, 2021 4:08 pm
They would be the atheist.
To put it in other words, then:

"In classical atheism the atheist only needs to concern themselves with what the atheist, or other people, think, and the atheist has a much better idea of the fact of their own existence, and of what the atheist wants."

Is that what you mean?

If it is, then I don't agree.
The only thing that is easier is just figuring out what you think, not trying to figure out what some unknown being thinks. Kinda like the atheist girl who only has to decide if she wants to have sex with that Guy, where the theist girl has to try and decide if the guy is telling the truth that God wants her to sleep with him.
People may impose their futile questions about God's thoughts on their own existential situation and feelings, but it could be that philosophical thought might free them from the trouble. I don't think it takes rejecting the possibility of God to do so. What you seem to be describing to me is not "classical atheism" (if there is such a thing) at all, but the garden variety atheism of people who are sloughing off the burden of popular theism.

That move looks a lot like what New Atheists do all the time. They set up a straw man based on popular theism, they ridicule it, and they talk, from a philosophically uninformed position, about why atheism is a much more rational point of view. I'm not convinced.
“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.”~Thomas Pynchon, Gravity’s Rainbow
Themis
Elder
Posts: 321
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 4:31 pm

Re: Another Mopologist Bites The Dust, Bryce Haymond Edition

Post by Themis »

Kishkumen wrote:
Fri Apr 02, 2021 5:07 pm
To put it in other words, then:

"In classical atheism the atheist only needs to concern themselves with what the atheist, or other people, think, and the atheist has a much better idea of the fact of their own existence, and of what the atheist wants."

Is that what you mean?

If it is, then I don't agree.
To hopefully be more clear, The atheist and theist are on equal grounds as to knowing their own existence and the existence of some kind of God. Both don't know as PG was saying. The advantage is one of them only has to concern themselves with what they think.
People may impose their futile questions about God's thoughts on their own existential situation and feelings, but it could be that philosophical thought might free them from the trouble. I don't think it takes rejecting the possibility of God to do so.
Perhaps it can, but that is not what we usually see. Like I said earlier, if one only has a belief in a God's existence, and nothing else about this God, it is not any different then a belief in Bigfoot as for what it means for a person. In this situation one would be in the same situation as the atheist only concerning themselves with what they, or other people, think. It gets more complicated when one concerns themselves with what God might think as for how we live our lives. I imagine the atheist girl that get propositioned by someone like Joseph Smith has an easier time then a theist girl who thinks he speaks for God.
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 5017
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 1:18 am

Re: Another Mopologist Bites The Dust, Bryce Haymond Edition

Post by Philo Sofee »

Themis
Like I said earlier, if one only has a belief in a God's existence, and nothing else about this God,
The assumption that there is nothing else about this God is the hang up. Obvious to many folks there is something else about God, or they wouldn't believe it. Just because the atheist doesn't experience something else about God doesn't mean others don't either. Just because an atheist has never done the work to become an astronaut is not proof that no astronauts have experienced space and moon walks and Mars orbital landing science experiencing the emotional, spiritual, and physicals highs such magnificent events give them. The atheist line is not the line from which to draw from in order to judge the rest of the world. Yes, it's very difficult to get some atheists to see this, but their worries are not my problem.
huckelberry
God
Posts: 2579
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:48 pm

Re: Another Mopologist Bites The Dust, Bryce Haymond Edition

Post by huckelberry »

Themis wrote:
Fri Apr 02, 2021 4:08 pm

The only thing that is easier is just figuring out what you think, not trying to figure out what some unknown being thinks. Kinda like the atheist girl who only has to decide if she wants to have sex with that Guy, where the theist girl has to try and decide if the guy is telling the truth that God wants her to sleep with him.
Themis,
A theist girl thinking this stupidly really needs to become atheist at least long enough to start thinking. I mean really, ugh.

This disablity reminds of some utube I watched where in a fellow explains that Christianity made him say such stupid things. The list of dumb stuff was impressive and I do not doubt that somewhere the fellow had found encouragement to think these stupid things. Still despite some social support the individual does bare some responsibility to think and make an honest effort to avoid ,making stupid statements.

There is a remainder in this matter that a believer like myself might notice. The atheist girl really needs to broaden her concern beyond the simple do I want to have sex. Perhaps it is assumed that the moment, I desire, is a result of awareness of broader issues like social responsibility and future as well as the immediate desires.

I feel sure both atheists and theists may be able to make thoughtful and aware decisions taking account of issues beyond biological directives. There are a variety of forms of blindness that both atheists and theist exercise.
Lem
God
Posts: 2456
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 12:46 am

Re: Another Mopologist Bites The Dust, Bryce Haymond Edition

Post by Lem »

huckelberry wrote:
Fri Apr 02, 2021 7:36 pm
Themis wrote:
Fri Apr 02, 2021 4:08 pm

The only thing that is easier is just figuring out what you think, not trying to figure out what some unknown being thinks. Kinda like the atheist girl who only has to decide if she wants to have sex with that Guy, where the theist girl has to try and decide if the guy is telling the truth that God wants her to sleep with him.
Themis,
A theist girl thinking this stupidly really needs to become atheist at least long enough to start thinking. I mean really, ugh.
i agree totally, but to add some context, consider that the girl grew up in an lds home where she was repeatedly told to "follow the priesthood," and possibly eventually married where in the temple ceremony she was told that her husband follows god, and her job is to follow her husband. That kind of upbringing really does a number on the emergence of independent thought.
This disablity reminds of some utube I watched where in a fellow explains that Christianity made him say such stupid things. The list of dumb stuff was impressive and I do not doubt that somewhere the fellow had found encouragement to think these stupid things. Still despite some social support the individual does bare some responsibility to think and make an honest effort to avoid ,making stupid statements.
I agree. One of the final stupid statements made by my lds (now ex-) husband was to tell a group of high priests that he didn't know what to do when he was the rocket and his wife, who he defined as his satellite, didn't follow his trajectory exclusively as his helpmeet but seemed determined to live a life of her own, as though she were also a rocket, and not only that, equal to him! His nonsensical words were sincerely motivated by his theistic understanding of his place as a male within the lds church.

Certainly, both an atheist and theist woman may decide to think for themselves, but hopefully I have provided some context for Themis' example. In my opinion, his quick anecdote, while admittedly not covering all possible bases, still captures quite a bit of the underlying dynamics, at least as I experienced it in my theist upbringing.
Post Reply