Another What's the Alternative Thread

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Themis
_Emeritus
Posts: 13426
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:43 pm

Re: Another What's the Alternative Thread

Post by _Themis »

KevinSim wrote:We're talking about different kinds of forevers. I'm not talking about preserving someone's life forever. I'm talking about our obligation today to all future generations. Those future generations may live out finite lives just like we do, but we do have an obligation to make those finite lives as good as we possibly can.


Already being done. Just because we haven't yet got to a point to guarantee future generations forever(if possible), doesn't mean people are not working on it. In fact atheists and agnostics are better then many groups here. Especially LDS.
42
_KevinSim
_Emeritus
Posts: 2962
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 5:31 am

Re: Another What's the Alternative Thread

Post by _KevinSim »

Themis wrote:Is this why you have been dodging people's question of what you think is real good.

I've been dodging people's questions, so to speak, because of the sheer irony of people asking me to define good.

Themis wrote:You seem to be saying you don't know what real good is, which in turn would mean you made it up. Why not just admit it from the beginning instead of the run around you have been doing?

Did you miss my other post? People don't carry on a discussion just to hear each other speak. They carry on a discussion because they think open and honest dialogue is a good thing. That's why asking me for a definition of good is so ironic. When people ask me to define it, the only reason to answer is because providing such a definition would be a good thing. If either of us didn't understand it was a good thing then we'd have no reason to expect what the other said to make any sense; we only assume the other person is going to make sense because we realize that discussion is something we both recognize as good.

There's a name for people who don't think open and honest dialogue is a good thing; they're called trolls. If a large majority of us didn't have in common the idea that open honest dialogue is good, then people would hardly have any reason to ask for a definition of anything, because as often as not the troll that responded would feel no obligation to give that person anything like what that person wanted. So why ask for a definition of something all parties clearly understand?
KevinSim

Reverence the eternal.
_Themis
_Emeritus
Posts: 13426
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:43 pm

Re: Another What's the Alternative Thread

Post by _Themis »

KevinSim wrote:
In five billion years from now the Sun is going to expand into a helium star and engulf the three inner planets, killing every single resident still on Earth (assuming there still are people on Earth). Those people are real people, with hopes, dreams, and feelings not that far removed from yours and mine. Five billion years is a long time, so maybe some people will be thinking that we can look for some way to keep away the pain and early death from those people when we get closer to the actual date. But the problem with that approach is that we don't know how long it's going to take to find a solution to get those billions of people off the planet. If we don't start now, can we really be sure we'll have enough time when the actual day of destruction arrives?


People have been working on the necessary foundation to make it possible, if it is possible. LDS are not one of the better groups in this regard. They think God is in charge and don't have to worry about such things. My parents are great people, but they think doing missionary work and temple work are far more important. I would say to many religious people put to much emphasis on this kind of thing so they end up doing less for things that really can make a difference. It's not that they don't have good intentions, but incorrect beliefs tend to steer us onto things that may not have us much value for improving the human condition. I do think most people religious or not want to help improve the human condition, which in general terms is the real good.

And that event is just a minor detail compared to another astronomical disaster. In roughly 100 billion years the universe is going to run out of hydrogen, all the stars are going to die, and all people on planets that rely on the stars for energy are going to be in big trouble. Once again (assuming they actually do get off Planet Earth before it's annihilated), these are real people, with hopes, dreams, and feelings. Can we in clear conscience say we don't care about those people, because they live so far in the future?


People are thinking about it, and doing something about it. You just don't seem to understand what cannot be done right now, and what needs to be done first to get to that point if it is possible.

You might say both those events are so far away they don't really matter. I disagree, but those are just the calamities we know about; there could be many more in the centuries until them that might also have quite a bunch of potential to wipe out the human race if we don't hunt them down and find out how to survive them.


Religion is not doing anything here, and never has. Many religious people and non-religious people have. You could call it science. Science has done a lot of good in improving the human condition, and it will continue to do so.

In fact, does anybody really know that global warming isn't such a species-threatening object?


LDS don't do much for the environment compared to other groups, because they think God will take care of it, and it's supposed to get worse before Jesus shows up.

I have no problem at all expending great amounts of energy joining with atheists and agnostics to achieve an enormous amount of short term philanthropy. But that doesn't give us the right to ignore future generations of humans facing such disasters, just because they live so far in the future.


Agnostics and atheists do more here since they don't have some idea God is in charge. People are working in these areas even if you cannot understand this.
42
_Themis
_Emeritus
Posts: 13426
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:43 pm

Re: Another What's the Alternative Thread

Post by _Themis »

KevinSim wrote:
Themis wrote:Is this why you have been dodging people's question of what you think is real good.

I've been dodging people's questions, so to speak, because of the sheer irony of people asking me to define good.


You brought it up. Again posts like this just show why you lose respect from others. Again people brought up examples and you said implied they were not real good. Put up or shut up.
42
_Themis
_Emeritus
Posts: 13426
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:43 pm

Re: Another What's the Alternative Thread

Post by _Themis »

madeleine wrote:KevinSim -- Just as there are hundreds (if not thousands) of churches you could attend in order to determine a path, there are ten thousand times more books.

If "good"means to you "moral good", then your choices are very broad, as all religions offer teachings in regards to what is morally good. But that perhaps could narrow your reading selection. Perhaps seek out books that describe the moral teachings of various religious groups?

Also, the atheism/agnostic argument for moral good outside of religion is valid. These arguments are usually more focused on what is ethical, rather than what is moral. From the point of view of a person with faith (me), the idea that religion is beneficial because it instills morality, is a reduction of faith.

What is "good" is also a philosophical discussion.

I don't know your background, but, I am biased towards Catholicism. :) I like the philosophical discussions of Dr. Peter Kreeft. He used to offer his lectures for free on his website. Now he has put them up on iTunes for $2. http://www.peterkreeft.com/audio.htm Perhaps you'll see something of interest. If not, I recommend the writings of Augustine, who was not only an influential philosopher but an influential theologian. His writings are freely available on the internet. Most philosophy courses start with "The City of God". http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1201.htm

Pray always, for God to lead you to Him.


I think kevin suspects answering the question may put him in a position he cannot defend as something the LDS church can only provide or is the best for providing it. He has tried this before.
42
_Fence Sitter
_Emeritus
Posts: 8862
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 3:49 pm

Re: Another What's the Alternative Thread

Post by _Fence Sitter »

KevinSim wrote:
Fence Sitter wrote: If you cannot articulate what they are then your question about alternatives makes no sense.

How does that follow?

I could list some of the things that I consider good in this life, and how they might be preserved. My list of good things would reflect my LDS upbringing, like raising our three children, making my wife happy, and entertaining a group of toddlers in my church's nursery, etc. But I'd like to think that if someone were to successfully persuade me that those things are not good, and that the real good things are something else entirely, my commitment to find ways to forever preserve some good things would be transfered over to the new things that I'd been persuaded were good. My commitment is to good things, not to the things I get when I articulate what preserving good things is.



I am not trying to persuade you what "preserving good forever" might mean, as I frankly don't know what it means. I do know as humans it is clear what is important to us varies tremendously based on a variety of criteria not a few of which are our age, culture, gender, era, upbringing and so on. Your questions continuously presuppose your acceptance of most of those factors from your own life. Were you to have been born and raised in another country and or at another time you may very well be asking these same sort of question from the perspective of a Muslim, Buddhist or Jew with an entirely different concept of what "preserving good forever "even means. Ironically those answers would be different even if you were a Mormon from Joseph Smith's time or Brigham Young's time or Joseph Fielding Smith's time or, from members of the LDS Community of Christ in a hundred years.
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
_Cylon
_Emeritus
Posts: 416
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2012 9:08 am

Re: Another What's the Alternative Thread

Post by _Cylon »

Kevin, your explanation of believing in God because humanity needs him is a backwards argument. And by that I mean you start from the conclusion and work backwards. Whether or not humanity needs God to survive the end of the universe is irrelevant to the question of the existence of God. If you're right and we do need God to survive, it's still entirely possible that God doesn't exist and we will go extinct in billions of years. God either exists or he doesn't, and whether he does or not is completely independent of any believing or wishing that you may do.

But your illustration of the state of humanity in the far far future is useful nonetheless. If it's a question of which group will do more for the prospects of our umpteenth-great grandchildren, I would much rather place my bet on the group of atheists and agnostics who have an incentive to do everything they can to figure out answers to their problems because they know no one else will, instead of on the group of LDS who will spend their whole lives working out their exaltation, which in all likelihood is a fantasy.
_sock puppet
_Emeritus
Posts: 17063
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 2:52 pm

Re: Another What's the Alternative Thread

Post by _sock puppet »

Cylon wrote:Kevin, your explanation of believing in God because humanity needs him is a backwards argument.

If Kevin is meaning that some people have an emotional need to believe in a higher being, then I would agree with him. It would be a first, but it would be a point of agreement.
_Tchild
_Emeritus
Posts: 2437
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 2:44 am

Re: Another What's the Alternative Thread

Post by _Tchild »

wrong thread
_Tchild
_Emeritus
Posts: 2437
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 2:44 am

Re: Another What's the Alternative Thread

Post by _Tchild »

For myself, the "alternative" isn't a specific path per se, but finding your unique path.

From my experience, there is no "one" path. Every person must find their own unique way to peace and purpose, and that is the challenge for each individual.

Stay in Mormonism if you like. Or, explore other avenues if you like. It is your life and your life journey so you need to find what works for you.

If you think that others need to convince you, or that they even care to, then you are missing the point.

For me personally, Mormonism ceased to work and will never work again (maybe it will once our sun turns into a red giant and burns up our earth, the universe collapses in on itself and a new one is created in a future big bang 15-150 billion years in the future)...so Mormonism still has a chance, just not in this universe.
Post Reply