What actually do JREF religious believers believe?

[Darth Rotor]

@ Tsig: that was rich, coming from you, mate.

Cheers.

Catholic, protestant and jewish people don't have the same "conventional 10". And I am not even counting potential cults.

I alluded to that by using the link that I provided. Did you not bother to open it and examine the table of comparisons?

"In the absence of people" nothing exists, and therefore has no value.

Respectfully disagree.
In the absence of people, what exists is a set of things that is all "NOT PEOPLE" and if there is any value to be had, that value is assigned and experienced by what/who remains in the set of all that is NOT PEOPLE.

You with me so far?

Sam:

Sorry it wasn't as filling as a few pints of Guinness. I'll offer up the point made frequently that 'simply going to church does not one a Christian make. The whole thing is a journey, and a lot of it is experiential. I find some of it profound, and some damnably frustrating. But I am keeping the faith, and moving forward one step at a time.

If this **** was easy, anybody could do it. What remains to be seen is if I can, and how well I can. Still a work in progress.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Best of luck with that.
It just never resonated with my mindset.
Dull world if we were all the same.

 

[HansMustermann]

Well, the same thing could be said about raising Cthulhu. It's a journey, and a lot of it is experiential, and it's frustrating at times (rise already, dammit!), and I don't know if I can, and all that And of course just going to a sacrifice and some chanting around some ancient idol does not a cthultist make

Doesn't make it sane. Though I guess for Cthulhu going insane is kinda confirming that one is on the right track

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

No, the professed belief that the universe is valueless, and the implied belief that people are worth something.

People are 'worth something' only to themselves and others they affect. The universe doesn't give a toss. What are you finding difficult / irreconcilable about that?

Atheist have values largely because they recognise that those values generally enhance the greater good and by extension themselves* plus they've been socially conditioned to those values just like everyone else. That has nothing to do with some greater 'worth' beyond humanity.

*If you think that's selfish then it is no more so (and I'd argue less so)than following a set of values because if you don't you'll be damned to an eternity of hellfire but if you do you'll have an eternity of paradise.

 

[eight bits]

There was an overlooked, directly responsive answer to the OP's title question (What actually do JREF religious believers believe?). Apart from its topicality, the answer is also interesting for the light it casts on more abstract and generalized treatments of the issues raised by the question.

Soetkin (post 113)

I'm now a member of a small religious group where I am very happy and spiritually fulfilled. We generally see the myths pertaining to our religion as symbolic explorations of the nature and character of our deities; not as descriptions of actual provable events. We also have no Holy Book of any kind.

The conjecture that myths were typically written as factual biographies of the characters who appear in them is sparingly supported and certainly not self-evident. Maybe its advocates believe that no genre of figurative narrative existed until recently. If so, then they must also believe that nobody shared their dreams with others until recently.

For example, I don't believe that any of the characters or major incidents in the Odyssey recount portions of the true history of the real world. It is perfectly obvious that this work is profitably approached as a "symbolic exploration of the nature and character of" archetypal figures and situations.

There is nothing about that assessment which is peculiar to any specific time or place. That's what "archetypal" means. Given this reason to write the text, its composition is meager evidence that it was written for an incomaptible purpose, to document an ontological belief, or that anybody ever believed in the existence of the supernatural characters who are depicted there.

It is also plausible that the supernatural characters aren't original with Homer. Art works shown to this very day include Athene, Hermes and Circe, even though almost every living person believes these gods don't exist. Thus, artistic or ritual use of these figures furnishes equivocal evidence that any audience of the Odyssey believed these characters existed in the prosaic sense that a modern Nicene Christian believes that Jesus was executed by Pilate.

 

[westprog]

I don't know what's more sad, the idea that you really can't recognize that something doesn't have to be valued by the entire universe to have value to a person, or the idea that you do recognize that but are so blinded by hate and prejudice that you mentally block out that recognition just so you can look down on atheists.

Do you really think that my posts on this subject are characteristic of someone "blinded by hate and prejudice", or you just trying to live up to your name?

 

[westprog]

Yes (we agree that these discussions matter, as able to affect what we think [introduced definition of "matter": able to affect us]).

I accept that people have different points of view and different values, but not that those different values are equally valid (I would need see the basis of Y's argument that X is worthless).

It's certainly possible for Y to have unsound reasons for thinking X is worthless. However, if it's just a preference, then there's no scientific reason to disagree with him.

Does "matter" in what sense? Every person is able to affect us and so matters by my introduced definition (and not only affect by actions; the bare fact of their existence affects me, leads me to reason that they are conscious and autonomous and have the right to be just as I would ask it for myself); are you thinking of a definition where people matter just as people, with no other moral reasoning required?

I mean in the sense that it matters what happens to a child, whereas it doesn't matter what happens to a rock.

 

[I Ratant]

..
Respectfully disagree.
In the absence of people, what exists is a set of things that is all "NOT PEOPLE" and if there is any value to be had, that value is assigned and experienced by what/who remains in the set of all that is NOT PEOPLE.

You with me so far?

...

.
Sure, but...
Who cares what something other than a person values, in the absence of a person to evaluate that value?
The odd tiger or tiger shark may value a meal of person, but that's not a universal problem, and would of interest to the main course only.

 

[westprog]

People are 'worth something' only to themselves and others they affect. The universe doesn't give a toss. What are you finding difficult / irreconcilable about that?

Nothing. I've said that that's a perfectly legitimate position.

Atheist have values largely because they recognise that those values generally enhance the greater good

This is exactly what I mean. In the context of the universe not giving a toss, there's no "greater good".

and by extension themselves* plus they've been socially conditioned to those values just like everyone else. That has nothing to do with some greater 'worth' beyond humanity.

The acceptance of values, plus the acceptance that the values are acquired by social conditioning, is the conflict to which I have been referring.

*If you think that's selfish then it is no more so (and I'd argue less so)than following a set of values because if you don't you'll be damned to an eternity of hellfire but if you do you'll have an eternity of paradise.

If someone does something to avoid punishment, rather than because it's right, then your criticism is apt.

 

[tsig]

Nothing. I've said that that's a perfectly legitimate position.



This is exactly what I mean. In the context of the universe not giving a toss, there's no "greater good".


The acceptance of values, plus the acceptance that the values are acquired by social conditioning, is the conflict to which I have been referring.



If someone does something to avoid punishment, rather than because it's right, then your criticism is apt.

Why do you keep conflating the universe with humans?

 

[dafydd]

Hominins-7 million years
Universe-13.5 billion years.

We're not even a blip on the radar.

 

[I Ratant]

Why do you keep conflating the universe with humans?

.
Who gives a **** about the universe?
We should pay attention to here and now on earth.
That other stuff.. nice to look at and speculate, but otherwise, of zero consequence to anything anyone can do here.

 

[Soapy Sam]

This is exactly what I mean. In the context of the universe not giving a toss, there's no "greater good".

Of course there is. It's short term, but that doesn't matter. What happens to the universe a trillion years hence is interesting , even though it won't matter to anyone. What happens to a hungry kid today matters - even if it's not very interesting.

If someone does something to avoid punishment, rather than because it's right, then your criticism is apt.

That's only so if you postulate absolute "right" and "wrong". If morality is actually derived from the biology and nature of people, and punishment is part of that nature (as for example, being ostracised by the group is punishment) then avoiding punishment IS "right".

 

[blobru]

It's certainly possible for Y to have unsound reasons for thinking X is worthless. However, if it's just a preference, then there's no scientific reason to disagree with him.

Right, the value of a human life doesn't show up on a valu-o-meter, or whatever (I assume that's what you mean by "there's no scientific reason..."). So it has to be a matter of definition, of ongoing philosophical, iow rational, discussion. If we agree that no single person (Socrates's insight and the origin of philosophy) is an authority (here philosophy necessarily departs from religion) in matters of value, is fit to universalize his or her private visions and intuitions and preferences as unimpeachable morality, then we have to depend on each other in our search for value, on rational dialogue (Socrates again) tending to rational values. Where someone's preference is to dismiss any sort of criticism and rational dialogue about values, unless he can offer another way to derive them, so be it: nothing to contribute to the dialogue, put him on ignore.

So, not just preference, but not scientific either; philosophical disagreement, the best means we have, apparently, for discovering value (ideal social assumptions and relations for material beings, if you like).

I mean in the sense that it matters what happens to a child, whereas it doesn't matter what happens to a rock.

Well, it's either philosophy or just take someone's word for it, isn't it? If rationality can't assign value, if by "inherent" value we mean something we have to accept prior to rational discussion, we mean obedience to authority (and some philosophers have and do argue for this: "WWJD?" universalized; but again, thanks to Socrates (see Euthyphro Dilemma^WP), their sway has been relatively brief, thank... Zeus (counting the Middle Ages as relatively brief, and hoping the current Islamic versions are much briefer). Whose authority? How do we know it's moral (seems to beg the question, if we care about the question at all)? If, however, by "inherent" value we mean something that is there waiting to be discovered by rational discussion, as a "necessary" (or sufficiently compelling, let's say, assuming Kantians wrong about a priori ethics) conclusion, then philosophy may demonstrate that a child does indeed have inherent value (and moral worth, whereas a rock doesn't), without appeal to any other authority except human reason.

Oh gosh, that's a much longer answer than I'd intended, usually not a good sign. Good luck reading it all; hope it's more or less consistent - if not, let me know - and doesn't read like a harangue - certainly wasn't intended as such.

 

[westprog]

Oh gosh, that's a much longer answer than I'd intended, usually not a good sign. Good luck reading it all; hope it's more or less consistent - if not, let me know - and doesn't read like a harangue - certainly wasn't intended as such.

There aren't many professionals here, and I'm quite sure that my own viewpoint could do with polishing. I'm always glad to see rigorous disagreement, and I wouldn't confuse it with haranguing.

Will address the substance shortly.

 

[Irony]

Do you really think that my posts on this subject are characteristic of someone "blinded by hate and prejudice", or you just trying to live up to your name?

Yes, I do. You show all the signs. You tell us what we believe, and when explained to you in the simplest of terms you simply dismiss the explanations and continue ascribing false beliefs to us despite knowing better. Also, these beliefs you ascribe to atheists seem structured to denigrate them as much as possible. Just because your words are polite doesn't make them less laced with hatred and prejudice.

 

[westprog]

Yes, I do. You show all the signs. You tell us what we believe, and when explained to you in the simplest of terms you simply dismiss the explanations and continue ascribing false beliefs to us despite knowing better. Also, these beliefs you ascribe to atheists seem structured to denigrate them as much as possible. Just because your words are polite doesn't make them less laced with hatred and prejudice.

Well, I'm sorry you feel that way, but I do have the consolation that you will burn in hellfire for eternity.

 

[Minarvia]

Well, I'm sorry you feel that way, but I do have the consolation that you will burn in hellfire for eternity.

That... has to be the sickest, most horrible thing I've ever seen someone say on this forum.

That is really, really awful. I just couldn't lurk any more. What you said is sick and horrid.

 

[westprog]

That... has to be the sickest, most horrible thing I've ever seen someone say on this forum.

That is really, really awful. I just couldn't lurk any more. What you said is sick and horrid.

Oh, ffs. I should have known irony doesn't work on the Internet.

 

[Minarvia]

I had hoped I was wrong, and I guess I was. You are right that things don't always come off as you may want in print. Just reading it - it looks awful. But again, this wouldn't be the first time I've been mistaken about a poster's meaning.