:up:

:up:

I don't think people's metaphysical views are generally good predictors of their actions (apart from what they might say, if you want to count that as being in the 'action' category).

Really? All theism is based on metaphysical beliefs, imo. Do theists not act based on such beliefs?

What, do you mean go to church? I thought you were referring to the moral quality of actions; if not that what would it matter?

Of course some religious ideologues do bad things, but so do some non-religious ideologues.

Where did the concept of the divine right of Kings to rule over masses of people come from?
Where does the idea that theistic believers are moral are non-theists are immoral come from?
Where does an action such as 'a teacher who is not a catholic, cannot teach in a catholic school,' come from? (only changed relatively recently.)
What was the actions of the crusades based on?
What is the action of a holy jihad based on?
I find your suggestion that theistic beliefs only ever result is such benign actions, as attending a church, almost comedic, in it's naivete.
My main point was that I do really care about what other people think, as it influences the actions they take, very strongly, and that has a direct affect on the type of society humans currently have to live under.
You have stated that you are a lot less concerned about what others think about the viewpoints you hold.
I think that such attitudes, are part of the problems we have and not part of the solutions we need.

Beauty is often treated as the starting point. I would suggest that it is the end point aimed for. The question of the beautiful stands beside the question of eros. The philosopher desires wisdom and is drawn to the beautiful. Both are seductive and are for that reason problematic, requiring a degree of critical distancing.

In moral teachings the beautiful is often connected to the good. We aspire to be and desire to have what is beautiful and what is good, as if with one we get the other. What is at issue is not simply the aesthetic judgment of what is beautiful but the poetic making of the idea or image of what is beautiful. For the former is dependent on the latter.

Would not the concept of beautiful and how one sees it depend upon one's wisdom?

In moral teachings the beautiful is often connected to the good. — Fooloso4

In people, the beautiful are often amongst our most treacherous. :razz:

Would not the concept of beautiful and how one sees it depend upon one's wisdom? — Tom Storm

More often on one's education and opinions. Most of us are not wise but we may be fortunate enough to have teachers who are wiser than us.

I find your suggestion that theistic beliefs only ever result is such benign actions, as attending a church, almost comedic, in it's naivete.
My main point was that I do really care about what other people think, as it influences the actions they take, very strongly, and that has a direct affect on the type of society humans currently have to live under. — universeness

As I already said I'm no fan of ideology, religious or otherwise. I have nowhere claimed that religious belief only leads to benign actions.

If you think it leads to maleficent actions in the majority of cases then I would say it is you that is naive and/or ideologically driven in your thinking.

I don't agree with your normative correctness; I find the notion stifling and a kind of thinking found only in ideologues. As I said I have no time for ideologies; I think they are the very divisive forces that underpin the main problems humanity faces.

If you think it leads to maleficent actions in the majority of cases then I would say it is you that is naive and/or ideologically driven in your thinking. — Janus

I think you constantly attempt to fog and obfuscate the main point I am making regarding your comment about not caring about what others think of your viewpoints.
You have tried a few varieties of poor responses instead of accepting the criticism constructively.
I have wasted enough time on what has now become a pantomime exchange.

I don't know what point you are trying to make, so you don't need me to render it as fog. If you are saying that religion is bad and should be criticized and eliminated, then I simply disagree with you, and that is from a non-religious point of view. If you are not saying that but saying that all ideology is bad, then I agree with you.

As to not caring about what others think of my viewpoints, I don't think I am anywhere near alone there. In all my time on these forums i have rarely seen anyone change their views on account of a counterargument.

Please do yourself a favour and don't waste any more time on this, you started out off the mark with your purportedly "constructive criticism" and don't seem to have gotten any closer to it along the way.

As to not caring about what others think of my viewpoints, I don't think I am anywhere near alone there — Janus

Thankfully, you are far more isolated in this than you realise.

Please do yourself a favour and don't waste any more time on this, you started out off the mark with your purportedly "constructive criticism" and don't seem to have gotten any closer to it along the way. — Janus

My responses to you on this exchange were not targeted at you. You are already fully cooked.

Apparently I misunderstood you then; my apologies. — Janus

But you never answered it. Let me lay it out again...

A world where suffering and hardship is supposed to be part of the cosmic game but is beyond the understanding of its participants, is not beautiful, perfect, or good. At best it’s as indifferent and amoral as a Cthulhu. Possibly unable to make much more than a suffering world. At worst, he wants this scenario. Is an entity that uses people thus good because it is godly to want to see people suffer? Even worse is the notion that the world could be worse and we should be thankful our world wasn’t made in an even more suffering version. Everything about it is suspect.

In an inversion of our norm, if humans are the cruelest animal because we know what we do, and do it anyway, how much more so is something infinitely more knowing? Again, if there is one, signs point to a cosmically indifferent Cthulhu perhaps. — schopenhauer1

You were sort of engaging here?

Yaldabaoth, the flawed creator of a flawed creation? — Janus

As to not caring about what others think of my viewpoints, I don't think I am anywhere near alone there. In all my time on these forums i have rarely seen anyone change their views on account of a counterargument. — Janus

Goodness. That's interesting. Do we come here to sharpen our monomanias, perhaps? :razz:

Perhaps. or alternatively we might come here to test them, or to quell them...but it doesn't always work. :sweat:

I get what you're saying and yet I don't see how

A world where suffering and hardship is supposed to be part of the cosmic game but is beyond the understanding of its participants, is not beautiful, perfect, or good. — schopenhauer1

is a given. It's a possible, even reasonable, attitude, but other attitudes are also possible and reasonable.

That's basically all I've been saying/

is a given. It's a possible, even reasonable, attitude, but other attitudes are also possible and reasonable.

That's basically all I've been saying/ — Janus

No, I don't think you do because you are cutting out the rest of my quote, and it seems deliberate. In other words, how is this not a Cthulu god, one beyond "good and evil"? But don't even use that, use the quote I originally sent you as I said it better. OFten here I have to repeat myself and the repetition is just a mere shadow of my original :D.

No, I don't think you do because you are cutting out the rest of my quote — schopenhauer1

Okay, you say that the god who created the world must be beyond good and evil; is that because you see the world as being beyond good and evil or just plain evil? In any case. all I've been saying is that some see the world as good, and therefore they can with consistency think the creator good.

I hope this fits in here. It was written by Google's Bard. It cracked me up.

“So, Plato, you say that the soul is immortal?” Bukowski asked, taking a bite of his hamburger.

“Yes, that is correct,” Plato replied. “The soul is eternal and cannot be destroyed.”

“Well, that’s a load of bullshit,” Bukowski said, taking another bite of his hamburger. “The soul is just a bunch of chemicals and electrical impulses. When you die, those chemicals and electrical impulses stop, and that’s it. There’s no afterlife.”

“That is a very simplistic and materialistic view of the soul,” Plato said. “The soul is much more than just a bunch of chemicals and electrical impulses. It is the essence of who we are, and it cannot be destroyed.”

“Whatever you say, Plato,” Bukowski said, finishing his hamburger. “But I’m going to keep eating my hamburgers, and I’m going to keep enjoying life, and I’m going to die when I die, and that’s all there is to it.”

And with that, Bukowski stood up and walked away, leaving Plato standing there, dumbfounded.