Does hell exist?

Interbane · Posted: Mon Sep 29, 2008 6:36 pm Post subject:

I hope that all people can see the truth and structure to the Nazi regime. Personally, it fills me with pride at the depth of the human intellect to realize what sacrifice must be made to ensure our gene pool is of the highest caliber...

Ideas and beliefs are contagious. They spread, and their method of contagion is widely varied. The bad part is that there are so many false or harmful beliefs or ideas. Some only mildly harmful or annoying, but still negative. If you have aids and bleed on me, I will be angry with you. If you hope for me to believe in nazism, I will be angry with you. Hope isn't simply openness. It contains bias. You will act upon that bias whether or not you realize it. All beliefs should be thoroughly examined.

GentleReader9 · Posted: Mon Sep 29, 2008 7:12 pm Post subject:

Yes, it is always beneficial to examine beliefs, as they really exist, on their own terms, in their real contexts, without distorting them. In order to show how a hope could be harmful by itself, you had to state something you don't actually believe. It's not exactly and literally lying, but it is taking something out of the context where it can be thoroughly explored and examined for true accountability. A person can only be held accountable for his or her beliefs if he or she is willing to be honest about what they are. The world is only safe for honest dialogue when we let other people speak for themselves without distorting what they are saying.

If we had an actual Nazi asserting the belief you stated at this forum and they were willing to be honest with us about the basis for that belief, we would be able to have a dialogue and understand if they were lying about the purity of their hope to manipulate others for an agenda of control, and if so, whether or not any fears were underlying that motivation. As it is, you were not being entirely sincere in claiming this belief, so we can't ask you as anything you say will be a projection.

Don't get me wrong. I have stated things here lightly, flippantly, carelessly at times, at times as a rhetorical strategy to create more dialogue I think will be interesting. I don't think you're doing anything wrong in a moral sense. I do think that since we are examining reason, ideas, motives and evidence we should discuss standards for looking at those.

Evidence can be looked at dispassionately by anyone and should apply to concrete, objective claims about the material world we share. That is one discursive context.

Reasons need to be looked at in terms of the argument or thought sequence they occupy and how well they belong there, logiaclly, rhetorically, or sometimes poetically and symbolically, depending on what is being argued or considered.

Motives, like fear, anger, greed, hope, love, generosity can only be rightly assessed and understood within an understanding of their context, i.e., the emotional and motivational state of the personality that feels and is moved by them. They need someone, the person who really feels what's going on around those motives in order for us to be sure of where they are coming from and where they are likely to go. We interact with that process that determines where they will go ourselves in communicating with the person, and we make the world more dangerous or safer for those we address and for ourselves as a result of our willingness to be authentic and honest, and to allow the other person to be the one who gets to speak to us about their position.

Telling someone like Penelope she intends, or will unwittingly cause with her careless intent, something that will hurt you when you know (or should know) she doesn't, isn't going to make the world safer. I truly believe that. You can hold me accountable for explaining as much about it as you want. You can tell me why you disagree and I promise to listen and be ready to revise my position if I am wrong.

Interbane · Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2008 1:21 am Post subject:

Gentle: "The world is only safe for honest dialogue when we let other people speak for themselves without distorting what they are saying."

Throw hypothetical rhetoric out the window?

"Telling someone like Penelope she intends, or will unwittingly cause with her careless intent, something that will hurt you when you know (or should know) she doesn't, isn't going to make the world safer."

And killing a logger won't save the forest. I'm making no attacks against Penelope. What I dislike is the contagious effect of certain memes. If that meme is a belief that does damage, I will speak out. The damage might be minor or insignificant, like the millions of chain emails that clog up email inboxes. I will speak out against that also. If you fail to send an email to 10 people, you will not die tomorrow. Stop wasting my time with that nonsense.

"If we had an actual Nazi asserting the belief you stated at this forum and they were willing to be honest with us about the basis for that belief, we would be able to have a dialogue and understand if they were lying about the purity of their hope to manipulate others for an agenda of control, and if so, whether or not any fears were underlying that motivation."

This hypothetical Nazi was a counterargument to the statement that hope is only a good thing. When I say that jealousy can exist without fear, then it's likely that other emotions can exist without fear. That was a different line of discussion and I had hoped was put to rest. We wouldn't need to interrogate the Nazi to see if fear was truly an underlying motive, since that wasn't my point.

My original point was that skepticism is a virtue. Hoping for someone to believe in something that isn't true isn't virtuous. The concept of heaven and hell is a belief trap. Once you believe, it's hard to break free of that trap.

Skepticism > Faith

Penelope · Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2008 10:40 am Post subject:

Interbane and GR - I agree with both you here.

It is not good to feel certainty in spiritual matters. I think that is probably why 'God' and spiritual truths remain so elusive and personal and inexplicable.

I can only explain myself by saying, that when I have managed to absorb or assimilate, certain spiritual matters, it is like a feeling of recognition...I feel as though I have rediscovered something that my soul has alway known.....or already knows. A feeling of timelessness.....and that we, as souls, have all the time in the World to discover the truth about what we are.

Now, doesn't that sound ridiculous? You see, I can't explain myself, so maybe, it isn't that important to try.

I do know that when mankind tries to categorise, analyse and pigeonhole 'God' or spiritual truths.....and when people believe they have it all sorted.....and then attempt to inflict their truth on others.....then follows the inquisition. With certainty.....follows the inquisition.....so, let us not be certain.....let us just have hope and encouragement, and if not love, then at least affection for one another.

We seem to be all feeling about in the dark.....with just enough enlightenment and encouragment to keep us interested.

Well, that's what it's been like for me. Wink

,

Interbane · Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2008 11:55 am Post subject:

Penelope: "I can only explain myself by saying, that when I have managed to absorb or assimilate, certain spiritual matters, it is like a feeling of recognition..."

That feeling can and has been explained scientifically numerous times. The human mind is incredible. Don't take that personally. Words can't express the complexity of this matter, of course.

I sometimes feel sorry for people that can't see the magic that is all around us and instead must believe in the fantasy of angels and demons and omnipotent beings. Reality is so must more mezmerizing than the illusion of religion.

Penelope: "I do know that when mankind tries to categorise, analyse and pigeonhole 'God' or spiritual truths.....and when people believe they have it all sorted.....and then attempt to inflict their truth on others.....then follows the inquisition."

The only people that have suffered rape, murder, slaughter, and other atrocities via inquisition are people who religion saw as nonbelievers. This is part of our history that motivates me to speak out against religion. I would never cross that line, it's ridiculous. Only someone with absolute faith would do something like this, too fearful of a false hell to change their beliefs.

Mr. Pessimistic · Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2008 1:07 pm Post subject:

Penelope · Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2008 1:11 pm Post subject:

Well, Interbane, I happen to think that God and Spirituality is 'natural' to us. We can't explain it, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.

I can pray with all my might and main for bananas to grow on my tomato bushes in the garden.

But God doesn't do those kind of miracles.

God, the spirit, the reality....whatever it is....uses natural means....

and during my life....I have been satisfied...in my search....but all searches and pilgrimages are personal.....

If you see life as a pilgrimage....a search...then you will receive the answers that are relevant to 'your' questions......but 'your' questions will always be different than 'mine', or the next persons. It is personal you see, that is why it is wrong to inflict our own questions and answers, of a spiritual nature, onto other people, who might have different questions entirely.

Interbane · Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2008 2:15 pm Post subject:

Penelope: "It is personal you see, that is why it is wrong to inflict our own questions and answers, of a spiritual nature, onto other people, who might have different questions entirely."

My belief is fluid. Constantly changing. I've reached this point by being inquisitive and searching for the truth my entire life. During my mental journey, I've come across almost every common explanation and have had it answered in a way that does not involve anything Spiritual or God. The explanation you give, I've had my own brain ask myself in the past. I've felt that way. My responses are to answer your explanations the same way I've answered my own, not to inflict my beliefs upon you. No matter what you feel, or how you interpret things, that is able to be explained without spirituality.

"If you see life as a pilgrimage....a search...then you will receive the answers that are relevant to 'your' questions......but 'your' questions will always be different than 'mine', or the next persons."

I'll respond again in a second, gotta jump computers.

Okay... lost my train of thought.

I appreciate the compliment. I realize that my beliefs may be unique, but having a cookie cutter belief such as yours is less noble. You shouldn't rely so much on the answers that others provide. Think deeply about your beliefs, they may then not be so inexplicable.

GentleReader9 · Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2008 7:49 pm Post subject:

Hey, Interbane,

Interbane · Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2008 11:19 pm Post subject:

Gentle: "This is factually incorrect. Most people who suffered at the hands of the Inquistion were believers in something slightly different, but no less spiritually grounded, than what the Inquisitors believed."

I stand corrected. Religion is responsible for slaughtering all types of people, not just nonbelievers.

"As very broad category for diverse expressions of subjective experiences."

The term "subjective" is enough for me. It is cookie cutter because it involves initial indoctrination, then when critical thinking is concerned, it leads 99% of the time to emotions and feelings and "I just know" rather than anything remotely objective. The templates for the cookie is monotheism, structured with a few different templates that get more specific. Created by men thousands of years ago.

Penelope: "It is personal you see, that is why it is wrong to inflict our own questions and answers, of a spiritual nature, onto other people, who might have different questions entirely."

You may have your questions, but you've been indoctrinated to accept a certain answer. Everything else with respect to your belief follows suit. Following faith, subjective experiences fill the gaps.

If you think it's wrong to inflict your answers onto others, then you agree that monotheism is doing exactly the opposite in "spreading the word."

If your spirituality is not only completely separate from all major religions, but also didn't start with them originally, then you have my full apology for being a turd.

GentleReader9 · Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2008 7:35 pm Post subject:

Interbane,

You are not "a turd;" I don't think so and I'll bet Penelope doesn't either. As usual, it's a straw man, or should I say a "turd man?" Very Happy

You said:

Chris OConnor · Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 12:13 am Post subject:

Interbane · Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 12:25 pm Post subject:

Me: "The term "subjective" is enough for me. It is cookie cutter because it involves initial indoctrination..."

You slightly took that sentence out of context. The primary point was there there is no reference to anything objective for the people I'm speaking of. They cannot point to empirical evidence that supports their beliefs. Their system is based entirely on internal feelings and subjective experiences.

"The Inquisition would not have admitted it was at all "subjective." It claimed to uphold "objective" truth about an absolute reality, applicable to everyone, regardless of how they felt or what they sensed or experienced subjectively."

That is what scares me. With religion, it's capable of producing radicalists who warp the truth of things. Such thinking gives way to events like the inquisition. The torture and slaughter of so many people. The only support that is objective is a book, written by man. That is terrible support, even given it can be considered objective as Popper would see objective knowledge.

"These are ususally called premises. You cannot start a logical line of argument without a given, a language to make statements with, someone who has a life, culture, history (read potential "indoctrination") to influence the framing of whatever is said or argued."

You used the word indoctrination differently than I. There are a few different connotations, one of which has to do with imbuing a person with an ideology or belief. Another, separate, definition is simply to teach someone. The difference may be minor, but precision is critical to discussions like this, and it makes all the difference.

The endpoint of supposition... how about we only really need faith in our senses, with respect to how we percieve other people? That is about as basic and fundamental as you can get, and nearly entire worldivews can be built upon it. There isn't need for faith in your emotions or to base beliefs on your emotions to gain a highly truthful(for lack of a better phrase) perspective on reality. Further, emotions do nothing but cloud our perspectives if our goal is a belief or understanding that is highly truthful. They should have no part in the critical thinking that we use to understand the world, unless they are the topic of the critical thinking itself.

"But we will never know for a fact what the Truth is, and it is highly unlikely that any of us has it completely right at this point."

I completely agree. The most we can do is aim for the Truth as an ideal, and attempt to get as close as possible.

"If it were objective truth, and some evil people who didn't think so had to be offed.."

That's hypothetically flawed. Who would be the one to define whether or not the people in question were evil? It couldn't be an objective truth, evil is a subjective concept. But for the sake of discussion, let's say you're right. An evil person is loose on this world. Objectively defined, this person isn't even a human, but is the embodiment of evil that will lead to the end of the universe. Your subjectivity that influences you to not pull the trigger indirectly destroyed the entire universe.

Playing with words works both ways, and it's a world all it's own. Taking sentences out of context(which I do sometimes unintentionally), creating concepts that are false, yet too slippery to be debated against or refuted. Using a word ever so slightly out of context as to be almost undetectable, to prove a fallacious point. I'm not pointing the finger, I do these things too, again unintentionally. It is the power of belief bias that helps us shift the truth of concepts in certain directions, even against what is true, most times without us conciously realizing this false shift. I have faith that my perceptions of other humans is true. All else follows suit and is able to be altered. I think that's the only way to battle belief bias and hold a truthful perspective on reality. My current beliefs are much more complicated, of course, but the only anchor I rely on is what I've said above.

GentleReader9 · Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 8:04 pm Post subject:

I think that on the most important things at issue, Interbane, you and I would actually be in agreement if we could figure out how to explain enough things to each other.

What I am really hoping you will understand and agree with is that everyone's culture, experience, background and basic humanity makes their notion of truth necessarily subjective and somewhat limited, regardless of if they choose to use religious, scie


	FORUMS	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	TRANSCRIPTS	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CONTACT