|
|
Post by palaver on Jul 20, 2009 21:01:16 GMT -5
No. I believe that satisfied desires = happiness, and unsatisfied desires = misery (i.e. "it's not what I wanted  "). Desire=/ happiness. It is not an identity (=) or an implication (=>). Desiring things isn't a state of happiness and sometimes desire doesn't yield happiness. In fact, a Buddhist would tell you the opposite, that desire and attachment is root cause of suffering--and that the cessation of desire would end our misery. Other religions have similar prescriptions. This might be our fundamental disagreement--and I'd wished you had disagreed with me more directly. That you didn't challenge me on it, made me think you were in agreement. So it's full circle again. If you are merely "observing", you wouldn't be using it like a rule to predict or dictate human intentions or behavior. This isn't an observation, it is a preconceived notion and a strict one at that. It causes you to misunderstand or declare the actions/intentions of others to be a mistake when it doesn't conform to this rule. In fact, the notion of mistake in Greek philosophy can only be determined by the individual who admits to it--as opposed to other errors. You shouldn't act so humble with your rules.  Another rule? "When immediate happiness is at odds with long term happiness, people choose long term happiness." This is my observation: Many people believe in Hell, but they still choose to sin. Did they make a mistake or misunderstand their options? I don't think so. |
|
quiapo
Junior Member
Posts: 188
|
Post by quiapo on Jul 28, 2009 21:02:05 GMT -5
The question reminds me of the situation some atheists face when they lose heir faith - some have said they were much happier in the fold of the church than as enlightened beings outside it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Groink on Aug 8, 2009 23:20:28 GMT -5
^
Do you think that's because they've lost the social aspect of church? Atheism seems to a lonely pursuit -- in that, there isn't an organization where atheists join/go to NOT believe. At least, I'm not aware of any.
|
|
|
|
Post by hapatite on Aug 9, 2009 14:23:57 GMT -5
^When I was young I went to church (because of who I was living with, I didn't believe in it personally). Maybe it was because it was a very white village in England, but I found it completely alienating and didn't talk to anyone in church. Now, I find I'm doing social things with friends who live near me (even if it's just lazing around at their place) than being cooped up in a church.
|
|
|
|
Post by betahat on Aug 9, 2009 15:03:38 GMT -5
^Atheism seems to a lonely pursuit -- in that, there isn't an organization where atheists join/go to NOT believe. At least, I'm not aware of any.
Probably a pub or a university. Though it's true that on Sunday morning you're most likely to find us atheists sleeping in or watching tv at home (though the lazy Christian can always watch the many religious broadcasts on tv). Having a built-in community and social network is no doubt one of the advantages of organized religion, and without it you have to work a little harder to develop community with your family, school and work friends. On the plus side, you have more time because you don't have to read from a particular book, pray silently, or attend religious services.
|
|
|
|
Post by grassgrace on Aug 10, 2009 7:20:21 GMT -5
^ there are many atheist associations around the world
|
|
|
|
Post by betahat on Aug 10, 2009 10:58:27 GMT -5
True, but who do you know that goes to one? At least if you went to a socialist's club or an objectivism club you would have some constructive project to work on and some books to read. Since atheism is really the negation of religion, it doesn't really offer a natural framework for association, though I can imagine what some atheist clubs do - (a)share their experiences about being rejected by families (b)mock religion ceaselessly (c)discuss some books by atheists and (d)try and get Christmas trees removed from the local school. I guess I've never been interested.
|
|
|
|
Post by Groink on Aug 10, 2009 13:30:51 GMT -5
I tried to find a Socrates' Cafe in the Bay Area, and there are a few, but they are spaced far apart, and meet infrequently. Not that Socrates was an atheist (accused, yes), but point being organized religion does a much better job of rounding up people for discussions on whatever dogma they are of a mind to discuss.
Universities are great for secular groups to meet, though. I think that's one of the few things I miss about it. But the religious factor is high there, too.
|
|
|
|
Post by halfbreed on Aug 23, 2009 9:43:49 GMT -5
Immediately inferring that the acquisition of all forms of knowledge induces happiness is a form of bad cognition and deduction. Knowledge can contribute to misery and happiness. Knowing that your family and friends are going to die soon induces one to feel miserable. Knowing that HIV and AIDs are killing millions in Africa induces one to feel miserable. Knowing that 36% of the world live below the poverty threshold induces on to feel miserable. Knowing about these doesn't bring happiness. They bring understanding on how and why. To conclude that these automatically contribute to happiness is a fallacy. Knowledge per se, does not have an emotional property. It is the same notion that events and actions by themselves do not have a right or wrong property. Subjectively you are applying right/wrong, happiness/sadness to these objective things. For example, 'the Earth revolves around the sun' is knowledge statement. By itself it does not have an emotional property assigned to it. You'd be hardpressed to find someone who will subjectively apply an emotional property. Or, the act 'of someone kicking a ball' is an act or event. By itself it has no right or wrong property assigned to it. You'd be hard pressed to also find someone who will subjectively apply a moralistic or ethical view to this. Why do you want all this knowledge?  What's the contradiction exactly? >_> Being an omniscient being but without knowledge on: - happiness - cause of happiness - how to induce happiness Lets use logic: 1. There exists knowledge about emotions that can be obtained 2. There exists knowledge about the cause of emotions that can be obtained 3. There exists knowledge about how to induce emotions that can be obtained 4. Happiness is an emotion 5. If absolute knowledge exists, then a being with absolute knowledge will understand about happiness, the cause of happiness, and how to induce happiness 6. Therefore one cannot be eternally miserable and an all knowledgeable being. If 1,2 and 3 are true, then 5 is true. If statement 4 is true then statement 6 is true. I can't assert with certainty that 1,2,3 are true and I'd likely assert that no one can. I can assert that it is highly probable that 1,2,3 are true. There are no flaws in that logic. Yep, if the person was all-knowing, they'd know what happiness is and how to get it. My argument is that though they know how, etc., they would be unable to achieve happiness. It's like the example I used earlier. You may know how to walk, but be in a completely kaput body. Here, you may know how to be happy, but the hypothetical circumstance is the broken body. It states that you will be eternally miserable and that cannot be broken by all the knowledge in the world. How can you combat or overcome the cause of this eternal misery, when there is none? It's just there, by law of the situation. It's like the unstoppable force meets the immoveable object. The trick is that they cannot both exist. To me, misery is the immoveable object (as dictated by the scenario) and infinite knowledge is the illusion of the unstoppable force. In reality, there are no such immoveable objects and so, infinite knowledge would be an unstoppable force. However, in this case, an immoveable object is present, making the knowledge obsolete. No. I believe that satisfied desires = happiness, and unsatisfied desires = misery (i.e. "it's not what I wanted "). Desire=/ happiness. It is not an identity (=) or an implication (=>). Desiring things isn't a state of happiness and sometimes desire doesn't yield happiness. In fact, a Buddhist would tell you the opposite, that desire and attachment is root cause of suffering--and that the cessation of desire would end our misery. Other religions have similar prescriptions. Desiring itself isn't happiness, no. Fulfilling them is what brings happiness/contentment/satisfaction (< though I've yet to work out the differences between these) An example of desire not yielding happiness please? Yes, desire yields suffering as it goes unfulfilled. Should they be fulfilled, they would yield happiness/contentment. Another rule? "When immediate happiness is at odds with long term happiness, people choose long term happiness." This is my observation: Many people believe in Hell, but they still choose to sin. Did they make a mistake or misunderstand their options? I don't think so. Well, it's not necessarily long-term. You'd probably get turned into a pig right away, so it's effectively making a decision towards your happiness in the next minute. I'm sure there are lots of reasons people believe in Hell and still sin. 'There's an exception to every rule, and most people think they are it.'They may not see what they've done as evil as they know it's seen to be. They may feel as though their actions are justified in some way and so, of less consequence. They may plan to ask for forgiveness last minute. |
|
|
|
Post by keeper of the funk on Oct 15, 2009 11:00:22 GMT -5
If i knew everthing i would use the knowledge to make the world a better place, therfore i choose to sacrifice my own happiness for a greater cause.
|
|
|
|
Post by keeper of the funk on Oct 15, 2009 13:41:38 GMT -5
^^^lol yeah, the if i knew everything id know how to be happy thing, i just took the misery as terms of contract set by the mystical being. there's always a catch |
|
").
