Emma Goldman on the front page

[haverbob]

To disbelieve in the Gods, as Emma Goldman wrote, is at the same time to affirm life, pupose and beauty
I"m not quite sure that I understand this statement although I like alot about it. I ask because the creators of the site chose it as their flagship statement (at least for right now), so it must be pretty significant to alot of people in here (particularly the more knowledgeable and experienced people here). If someone can help clarify this for me and help me learn, I would be appreciative.

"Affirm life" I have no misunderstandings about.

"Affirm beauty", yes maybe. I understand the beauty of love and beautiful lakes, trees, people.... However I'm struggling to find the "beauty" of a snake that swallows a cute little field mouse whole while the mouse squeals in agony and horror. Of course, maybe that IS beautiful (at least until you are the little field mouse). I have a hard time finding the beauty of someone who suffers from Alzeihmer's disease.

"Affirm purpose" is probably the most cryptic part of that statement. It seems as though that means "you create your own purpose". Okay, but if I decide to put on a Napolean costume and really believe that I'm Napolean, have I not created my own purpose? Also, I'm trying to find the purpose that someone who has Alzheimer's creates for themselves. No I don't personally know anyone that has Alzheimer's, I just thought it might be an appropriate example in both cases. God only knows what they are thinking, and yet they continue to exist.

This question might seem weird, but it's not intended to be so. I am sincerely confused about how someone creates this beauty and purpose for themselves. I would love to ask Emma Goldman herself, but obviously this probably is not too realistic. So I have no choice but to ask the members of this forum who appear to subscribe to this statement.

Signed,
Still Confused

[mimi]

Originally posted by haverbob


"Affirm beauty", yes maybe. I understand the beauty of love and beautiful lakes, trees, people.... However I'm struggling to find the "beauty" of a snake that swallows a cute little field mouse whole while the mouse squeals in agony and horror. Of course, maybe that IS beautiful (at least until you are the little field mouse). I have a hard time finding the beauty of someone who suffers from Alzeihmer's disease.

"Affirm purpose" is probably the most cryptic part of that statement. It seems as though that means "you create your own purpose". Okay, but if I decide to put on a Napolean costume and really believe that I'm Napolean, have I not created my own purpose? Also, I'm trying to find the purpose that someone who has Alzheimer's creates for themselves. No I don't personally know anyone that has Alzheimer's, I just thought it might be an appropriate example in both cases. God only knows what they are thinking, and yet they continue to exist.





Haverbob -

I'm only a baby at this philosophy stuff, but this is one of my more favoured topics ;)

My jumping-off point was when we studied Camus' 'The Outsider' for VCE last year. I suggest you read it, and then read it again... it's deceptively complex. It's not quite purely existential, but it covers alot of the basics...


Firstly, your p.o.v seems extremely negative - yes, there is nothing beautiful about someone with alzheimers, there are many 'ugly' things we are faced with in life, but for there to be a good there must also be a bad. The 'beauty' Emma is talking about may be better understood as the beauty of life itself - the fact that we are all here on this earth, we have each been given a life to live (no religious connotations intended).

The one truth in existential philosophy is that death is absolute. There is no afterlife, no second chance, THIS IS IT. The importance of this is that our life is finite and will imminently end, and whilst this may be depressing for some (I know it was for me) this actually gives life its value, or maybe its beauty.

This leads me to the second question - what are we to do with our time here? What 'purpose' is there? If you want me to get really cliched - What is the meaning of life? Whilst most believe there is no one true purpose of our existence, the existentialist philosophers break into two sub groups here:

The 'true' existentialists - believe that whilst there is no one true purpose of our existence, we are free to create our own purpose in our lives (you touched on that above)

The absurdists (of which Camus himself is considered the 'founding father')- believe that our only purpose is to enjoy life itself, namely the intrinsic pleasures of life without abstractions such as wealth or love.

I think I would rather be the latter, but as you can probably tell, 99% of the population are existentialists on some level, either by choice, necessity or without even realising it ;) Such is our way of life...

I am sincerely confused about how someone creates this beauty and purpose for themselves...

Well so am I...don't let it get you down though. I sincerely think that there is no real answer - but that's the price you pay as a non-theist ;)


mimi

p.s. be nice guys... this is my first post :rolleyes:

[haverbob]

Overall, that was a good attempt, although it didn't REALLY answer my question. Perhaps I'll look in to that book you mentioned and see what it has to say.
Well so am I...don't let it get you down though. I sincerely think that there is no real answer - but that's the price you pay as a non-theist
True...true...true... That is the price that is paid for being "RIGHT" (even assuming that you are, so let me re-phrase that by saying that is the price that is paid for BELIEVING that you are right

[haverbob]

A few other things that I didn't reply to in your answer
believe that whilst there is no one true purpose of our existence, we are free to create our own purpose in our lives (you touched on that above)
Yes and I believe Napolean summed it up pretty well.
The absurdists (of which Camus himself is considered the 'founding father')- believe that our only purpose is to enjoy life itself, namely the intrinsic pleasures of life without abstractions such as wealth or love.

I think I would rather be the latter,
I guess if I had to choose between the two, I would agree with you. At least I wouldn't have to make up as much stuff. However, life can be void of intrinsic pleasures in many instances (starvation, disease and once again "Alzheimer's"). Therefore, in this situation, the absurdist would logically commit suicide. I think both of these existentialist paths have as many holes as does the Theists. Just as "made up" as the Theists concept of God.

You may say, "well what else can one do?". I would say I don't know, but I could say that the Atheists are just as funny as the Theists. They just make up more sophisticated things in their head, that's all. Based on this concept that I keep hearing from the Atheists, "nobody has shown a reason to believe in God", I think the the Atheists would have fallen on the "earth is flat" side of the argument back in the late 1400's. Wouldn't you agree?

[haverbob]

Crickets Chirping. I think I have created the most boring thread on this entire site. That's okay, I love the sound of crickets chirping.

[exnihilo]

Originally posted by haverbob
Crickets Chirping. I think I have created the most boring thread on this entire site. That's okay, I love the sound of crickets chirping.

Hey, give us a chance. Although this forum is labeled philosophy it seems that most discussions here are in the much more narrow philosophy of science department. There seems to be little interest in talking about philosophy proper from my limited experience. Check out my post "Science and the limits of human knowledge"...
Anywho, back to Emma:

The first thing you should know is that Emma Goldman was an Anarchist and believed firmly in the duty to take decisive action (not just nonviolent civil disobedience). She prescribed to Kropotkin's idea (although he later seemed to have changed his mind on the subject) that "one act is worth a thousand pamphlets".
So to understand such a great line, which it should be remembered was taken out of its greater context--sorry I can't help you out on that, but you should look in her books 'Living My Life' and 'Anarchism and Other Essays'--you must understand that she was a dedicated anarchist and contemplate what that implies.

"You quoted: "To disbelieve in the Gods, as Emma Goldman wrote, is at the same time to affirm life, pupose and beauty"

I think when she speaks of beauty for instance she is not saying that everything in the world as beautiful per se, but simply expressing a more abstract idea about life and its ideal form of existence as expressed through the theory of anarchism.

Anarchism is based upon the idea that humans are inherently good and as such need no form of overarching structure legal, political or otherwise, to govern over us. Instead, anarchists believe that any such structures are put in place simply to ensure the domination of one group over another--regardless of what benefits such a structure gives--such as police protection, legel redress and political representation *laughs out loud*.

Thus, one could read that the beautyand purpose Emma is speaking of is simply the natural result of an anarchist model of free association and mutual aid between people that allows for the highest potentials of human life to be realized and having inherent meaning of itself. As oppossed to a systems where ones life worth and purpose are determined by economics as in capitalism or faith in a metaphysical world or state as in most religions. For Emma and anarchists the most desireable forms of beauty and purpose of human life, where they attain their highest potential, comes through living a life free from the fetters of domination and control.

Hope that helps, other great resources that you could look at would be the work of Petr Kropotkin, Mikhail Bakunin, Alexander Berkman and more recently Ken Knabb's "Public Secrets"

--exnihilo

[mimi]

Originally posted by haverbob

I guess if I had to choose between the two, I would agree with you. At least I wouldn't have to make up as much stuff. However, life can be void of intrinsic pleasures in many instances (starvation, disease and once again "Alzheimer's"). Therefore, in this situation, the absurdist would logically commit suicide. I think both of these existentialist paths have as many holes as does the Theists. Just as "made up" as the Theists concept of God.



I wouldn't say they have too many holes... think about how easy it is to apply those principles to your life, rather than "there's a big fat omniscient big brother up in the clouds watching everything I say and do" ;)

Also, you just stumbled across the biggest part of absurdism - suicide. Le Mythe de Sysiphe (the Mythe of Sysiphus, also by Camus) apparently addresses this dilemma, but I am yet to read it (I didn't get quite that depressed). But basically the greek god Sysisphus was condemned to roll a boulder up to the top of a hill until it fell back to the bottom, over and over, for eternity. (Representing the futility of life) This poses the question; why doesn't he just kill himself and escape the punishment? It all depends on his view point - if he chooses to defy the gods and 'enjoy' his activity, so to speak, then the punishment isn't really a punishment at all. The same is seen in The Outsider; Meursault, sent to jail for a crime he undoubtedly committed, yearns to be free, but finds simple pleasures in his cell, re-reading the same news clipping, and focusing on his next minor positive event rather than his current dire situation. I guess it is supposed to reflect whether your a pessimist or an optimist, i.e. "If I'm going to die anyway, what's the point?" or "I'm going to live my life to the max". But as I said, I haven't really read it, it's just my 5 cents.


You may say, "well what else can one do?". I would say I don't know, but I could say that the Atheists are just as funny as the Theists. They just make up more sophisticated things in their head, that's all. Based on this concept that I keep hearing from the Atheists, "nobody has shown a reason to believe in God", I think the the Atheists would have fallen on the "earth is flat" side of the argument back in the late 1400's. Wouldn't you agree?

Hopefully the atheists would have used their brains and seen the science of it - but, stubborn as we are, I can definitely see the parallels :p


Oh and by the way, Exnihilo - there's a bit too much science here for my liking too :p

[contracycle]

Originally posted by exnihilo

Anarchism is based upon the idea that humans are inherently good and as such need no form of overarching structure legal, political or otherwise, to govern over us. Instead, anarchists believe that any such structures are put in place simply to ensure the domination of one group over another--regardless of what benefits such a structure gives--such as police protection, legel redress and political representation *laughs out loud*.


Indeed.

One might read, for police protection, a standing body of armed men trained and legitimised to exercise violence against the citizen in the defense of expropriation.

One might read, for legel redress, a formal process by which interests which challenge orthodoxy are suppressed, the suppression legitmised by orthodoxy.

And one might read, for political representation, that representation is substantially inferior to actual political power.

[haverbob]

Hey, give us a chance
I was just trying to stir the mud up a bit. Thank you for your answer. In fact thank you to anyone who answers this because I think it was a tough question that goes to the root of things. However, as the title of the philosophy section says "for people who like to think hard". I prefer to think easy, but that's a different discussion.
So to understand such a great line, which it should be remembered was taken out of its greater context
Okay, but that out of context statement is used as a flagship statement on this site for Atheism and Secularism. Just pointing that out.
I think when she speaks of beauty for instance she is not saying that everything in the world as beautiful per se, but simply expressing a more abstract idea about life and its ideal form of existence as expressed through the theory of anarchism.
Okay, but you said "I think", maybe Emma doesn't think so. Emma didn't say beauty and peril, so Emma sugar coated it a little to meet his needs I suppose.
Anarchism is based upon the idea that humans are inherently good and as such need no form of overarching structure legal, political or otherwise, to govern over us.
I can agree with this to a large degree, although I think traffic lights are useful rather than have people sort it out for themselves.

I think "humans are inherently good" is a correct statement, I semi-agree with the rest. I will say this much, that the overbearingness of authority does take an inherently good person and slowly turns them into a nasty little thing. It starts happening at age three (or around there). Jesus (assuming he existed) was somewhat of an Anarchist and when he taught hate your father, mother... and to die to oneself to be born again, he was speaking about breaking free from the overbearing and false social norms
For Emma and anarchists the most desireable forms of beauty and purpose of human life, where they attain their highest potential, comes through living a life free from the fetters of domination and control. As oppossed to a systems where ones life worth and purpose are determined by economics as in capitalism or faith in a metaphysical world or state as in most religions
Again, the teachings of Jesus were actually a little Anarchist. So when you include religion as controlling, understand that you are including HOW people USE religious teachings and not always the teachings themselves.

There's the story of a wiseman who comes to a village and shows everyone how to make fire. Before they could thank him, he was gone. He goes to the next village and while he is teaching them this , the tribal priests hear of him and get worried that he is getting too much attention from the villagers and therefore could usurp their authority. So they kill him. Now being the wise priest that they were, they knew there would be anarchy if the villagers found out about this. So they tell the villagers that he decided to leave and he left behind his fire making tools for us to worship. So for years, everyone worships the tools, but there was never any fire. This is the religion that everyone rails against in here and I can't say that I blame them. It's just a shame, that's all.

Thanks for your post. I'll see if I can check out those books

[haverbob]

I liked your second post and I would like to reply. Unfortunately I am at work right now and I will do so later. Just didn't want you to think I was ignoring what you said.:)

[Clutch]

haverbob,

I have no useful conjecture on what EG might have intended by the quote. But here, at least, is one interpretation:

To reject the existence of gods is to reject the idea that life, purpose and beauty are anchored in the thoughts and schemes of some inscrutable, even alien, higher agency. When we force ourselves to make sense of these notions in our own terms, they acquire a new vigour and urgency; they become meaningful to us in a way that far outstrips their former sense of "Because Dad says so".

Again, I have no idea what EG meant. But if someone put a gun to my head and said, "Make this quote plausible", that's what I'd say.

[haverbob]

Thanks for your patience and let me just say that I loved your post and I respect it (before I tell you why I'm not quite sure whether I agree or not). I'll get right down to it
I wouldn't say they have too many holes... think about how easy it is to apply those principles to your life, rather than "there's a big fat omniscient big brother up in the clouds watching everything I say and do"
I disagree. I think it's easier for someone to tell me what to do. Maybe it's not correct or maybe it is, but it's certainly easier than struggling with creating one's own explanation isn't it? Consider a job where you have well laid out rules as opposed to the one where you have to create the rules and create the direction, purpose...My proof is that the latter typically get paid more (because what they do is harder). Right??? Also, which would you rather be, a child with a parent that's a disciplinarian and also loving and kind or would you rather be an orphan?
Also, you just stumbled across the biggest part of absurdism - suicide.
Yes, I suppose that the simplicity of my statements would cause one to believe that I merely "stumbled" upon this. Yes I'm not well studied, I do this on my own (or at least alot of it is, but I have to admit I get a little help and I cheat a little bit).
if he chooses to defy the gods and 'enjoy' his activity, so to speak, then the punishment isn't really a punishment at all.
Yes, getting warmer.
The same is seen in The Outsider; Meursault, sent to jail for a crime he undoubtedly committed, yearns to be free, but finds simple pleasures in his cell, re-reading the same news clipping, and focusing on his next minor positive event rather than his current dire situation.
He still sees events in the sense of positive and negative. This is called "healthy denial" by psychologists (and don't think for a second that I am one, I am a mere web developer). You know that stuff...ignore the bad, focus on the good, pretend that digging a ditch is actually useful, ignore death and focus on life. Do you REALLY believe that in your heart??? I love that term "healthy denial". How can anybody be healthy by shoving more and more skeletons in their closet? How can "healthy" and "denial" be used in the same sentence?? I always get alot of amusement from that statement, but that's all that Atheists are left with. At least the "typical" cookoo theists have their imaginary version of their "rock". Both sides are just as pointless and crazy.
I guess it is supposed to reflect whether your a pessimist or an optimist
What about if you could be neither and not care about be either?? Has anyone ever made you consider this??? Why are there only two choices?? Pessimism and optimisim have nothing to do with reality. Just go ask an animal (assuming that you could). Somehow they exist with neither so we could both agree that this type of thinking is not a necessary staple of living. They are just little fairly tales that we make up in our possesive, selfish little minds. Nothing to do with reality.
But as I said, I haven't really read it, it's just my 5 cents.
No, I would call that a quarter and I mean that in a complimentary fashion. I may speak in a toddler fashion, but my sandbox has alot of stuff in it that I really like and that I'm trying to figure out and I like quarters more than nickels. Thank you for the thoughtful response.

[haverbob]

Again, I have no idea what EG meant. But if someone put a gun to my head and said, "Make this quote plausible", that's what I'd say.
Shit, I respect you even more now, although I have to admit that I like your funny statements even more (I'm still laughing about the "Jesus is Felt" post and I still sincerely thank you for making my day, that day)

[exnihilo]

Originally posted by haverbob


There's the story of a wiseman who comes to a village and shows everyone how to make fire. Before they could thank him, he was gone. He goes to the next village and while he is teaching them this , the tribal priests hear of him and get worried that he is getting too much attention from the villagers and therefore could usurp their authority. So they kill him. Now being the wise priest that they were, they knew there would be anarchy if the villagers found out about this. So they tell the villagers that he decided to leave and he left behind his fire making tools for us to worship. So for years, everyone worships the tools, but there was never any fire. This is the religion that everyone rails against in here and I can't say that I blame them. It's just a shame, that's all.

Thanks for your post. I'll see if I can check out those books Okay, but that out of context statement is used as a flagship statement on this site for Atheism and Secularism. Just pointing that out.

Just pointing out that fact, not making a value judgement, Emma's words are ripe for such uses anyhow...
Okay, but you said "I think", maybe Emma doesn't think so. Emma didn't say beauty and peril, so Emma sugar coated it a little to meet his needs I suppose.
Yes, I mean to say that any such interpretation Emma's words, or anyone elses, is always already subjective. I simply tried to answer your question to the best of my knowledge, taking into accout all of her writings and bio that I have read, as well as countless books on the philosophy of Anarchism. You may also want to check out Richard Drinnon's fine study on Emma as well. Based on what I have read I would say, no, Emma does think so.
I can agree with this to a large degree, although I think traffic lights are useful rather than have people sort it out for themselves.

Well, I am only articulating what Emma believed as expressed through her life and writings, but anarchist theory in general is another topic altogether. I lived in a rural area growing up, we had no stop signs, traffic lights, or speed limits posted on any roads and I cannot recall one accident occuring as a result of the lack of these instruments. However, I am not saying they are not needed in areas of larger population. Emma was writing at the turn of the century when populations were far less, but she was also an strong advocate of birth control too.

I think "humans are inherently good" is a correct statement, I semi-agree with the rest. I will say this much, that the overbearingness of authority does take an inherently good person and slowly turns them into a nasty little thing. It starts happening at age three (or around there). Jesus (assuming he existed) was somewhat of an Anarchist and when he taught hate your father, mother... and to die to oneself to be born again, he was speaking about breaking free from the overbearing and false social norms

Thanks, but I certainly wouldn't assume such a thing. Be that as it may, such "anarchistic" ideas predated Jesus and can be found in buddhist, taoist and early greek philosophy in abundance.

Again, the teachings of Jesus were actually a little Anarchist. So when you include religion as controlling, understand that you are including HOW people USE religious teachings and not always the teachings themselves.

For anarchists any religion is ultimately authortarian and tyrannical simply because they attempt to promulgate certain behaviors while forbidding others. Anarchist reject all such universal notions, even and especially the prohibition against killing--Emma even wrote an essay advocating and celebrating such actions. No anarchist of Emma's persuasion would accept such a statement about religion as relatively innocuous.

There's the story of a wiseman who comes to a village and shows everyone how to make fire. Before they could thank him, he was gone. He goes to the next village and while he is teaching them this , the tribal priests hear of him and get worried that he is getting too much attention from the villagers and therefore could usurp their authority. So they kill him. Now being the wise priest that they were, they knew there would be anarchy if the villagers found out about this. So they tell the villagers that he decided to leave and he left behind his fire making tools for us to worship. So for years, everyone worships the tools, but there was never any fire. This is the religion that everyone rails against in here and I can't say that I blame them. It's just a shame, that's all.
Huh, don't know what that has to do with Emma, but the way the word anarchy was used is in the corrupted sense, which not at all conforms to what that term means in philosophy and especially to anarchists as a principle of such theory. Personally, I would agree that the practitioners of religion are flawed in large part because of the flaws in the religion itself, especially christianity.

--exnihilo

[haverbob]

Based on what I have read I would say, no, Emma does think so
Well okay, I'll accept your interpretation but I would have to say that Emma did a pretty deceptive job with that phrase. The only thing she had to do was say beauty and peril as opposed to just beauty and it would have been perfectly clear. Instead she left it for you to fill in the blank that could have been clearly described by her in one word. It still seems to me, that by leaving out the negative part, she makes her ideas more appealing and hence less need for "the gods".
I lived in a rural area growing up, we had no stop signs, traffic lights, or speed limits posted on any roads and I cannot recall one accident occuring as a result of the lack of these instruments. However, I am not saying they are not needed in areas of larger population.
Well, okay, but this was merely a figurative example anyway.
but she was also an strong advocate of birth control too.

Hmmm....this looks like, hmmmm..... a contradiction. And boy, if one wants to be controlling, she sure picked a very hot issue to be controlling about and she picked it when population was not a problem (even less justified than modern China). Maybe she was just talking about urging people to practice birth control but not suggesting that people be forced to do so. That's the only excuse I could think of for that view in her time period.
Thanks, but I certainly wouldn't assume such a thing. Be that as it may, such "anarchistic" ideas predated Jesus and can be found in buddhist, taoist and early greek philosophy in abundance.

I don't remember saying that Jesus invented it. I was merely pointing out that alot of religious teachings actually railed against social norms and control much like Emma appears to do with one exception that I will grant, the exception that ultimately one answers to God, but not to the Governor, Mayor.... But, of course, inevitably, society grabbed those teachings, put a spin on them and used them as a control mechanism. I was merely distinguishing some religious teachings (Jesus, Buddha...) from the economics and capitalism that you lumped them with in your first post, although people's interpretation and more importantly USE of those teachings can be lumped with econ, capit... That was kind of the reason for that village story although that was obviously not necessary and unfortunately merely caused confusion. Sorry about that. Party foul.
Personally, I would agree that the practitioners of religion are flawed in large part because of the flaws in the religion itself, especially christianity.

We still disagree here. I don't see this in the case of Buddha and Jesus, although I will agree that I see some pretty twisted usages for the words of Jesus (maybe Buddha also, don't know).

[Clutch]

n/m

[exnihilo]

Originally posted by haverbob

[/B] Well okay, I'll accept your interpretation but I would have to say that Emma did a pretty deceptive job with that phrase. The only thing she had to do was say beauty and peril as opposed to just beauty and it would have been perfectly clear. Instead she left it for you to fill in the blank that could have been clearly described by her in one word. It still seems to me, that by leaving out the negative part, she makes her ideas more appealing and hence less need for "the gods".

I would just say that Emma didn't write that line to be used as a slogan per se, so that goes back to the context thing, whether we like it or not. I do think that people who just pick things out of say Bartlett's quotations just because something sounds "neat" or "cool" without having any idea of who the author was or what they stood for is the main problem. But, then again that is what is easy and people seem to have an aversion to reading these days anyhow. I agree with what you say, however, but that is a matter of stylistics and we all have our own preferences in that araea.
Hmmm....this looks like, hmmmm..... a contradiction. And boy, if one wants to be controlling, she sure picked a very hot issue to be controlling about and she picked it when population was not a problem (even less justified than modern China). Maybe she was just talking about urging people to practice birth control but not suggesting that people be forced to do so. That's the only excuse I could think of for that view in her time period.
I would just say to read Emma yourself. She was not for forcing people to do anything, just advocating that burth control be available for those who wanted it. As an anarchist Emma was naturally concerned with women's rights, which in her time weren't very many. Because of the horrendous conditions that existed in cities, population was a serious problem even then, but primarily because of social injustice and the greed of early capitalism. Don't forget that this was a time when it was common for a woman to have over 10 children in a lifetime--with little say in the matter--so that they could go to work and help provide for the family. Women wer definately seen as lowerclass citizens and possessions of men--Emma was vhemently oppossed to this domination. So, I would suggest that population was a serious problem, especially in cities, but not for the reasons you put forth.

I was merely pointing out that alot of religious teachings actually railed against social norms and control much like Emma appears to do with one exception that I will grant, the exception that ultimately one answers to God, but not to the Governor, Mayor.... But, of course, inevitably, society grabbed those teachings, put a spin on them and used them as a control mechanism. I was merely distinguishing some religious teachings (Jesus, Buddha...) from the economics and capitalism that you lumped them with in your first post, although people's interpretation and more importantly USE of those teachings can be lumped with econ, capit...
So the crux of this is whether or not god exists, if so, then you could be right. However, if not, as Emma would say, then the idea of god is a human creation and is thus a tool of domination.

We still disagree here. I don't see this in the case of Buddha and Jesus, although I will agree that I see some pretty twisted usages for the words of Jesus (maybe Buddha also, don't know).
Buddha isn't a god and Buddhists don't look at him that way. Buddhism is by definition atheistic. As for christianity, the spanish inquistion, european and american witchcraft hysteria, the genocide of Native Americans, slavery and lynchings, the colonial conquest of Africa, the presecution of jews in europe from medieval times to the holocaust and on and on ad nauseum--yeah those could be called twisted usages.

Anyway, good discussion, its nice to see a true american hero like Emma Goldman discussed here as her ideas are just as relevant today as when they were written.

" We Americans claim to be a peace-loving people. We hate bloodshed; we are opposed to violence. Yet we go into spasms of joy over the possibility of projecting dynamite bombs from flying machines upon helpless citizens."--Emma Goldman

--exnihilo

[haverbob]

So the crux of this is whether or not god exists, if so, then you could be right. However, if not, as Emma would say, then the idea of god is a human creation and is thus a tool of domination.

No. it's not really whether Gods exist or not and perhaps I have steered you away from the initial crux of my question. The crux is what the Ateist does to fill the void that occurs when they become convinced there is no God. I just talked about Emma because it is a good example of how Atheists make stuff up to fill that void and there it was, right on the front page of this site. If you re-read my initial post, I questioned beauty (you saw that part). However, I said the MOST cryptic is the "purpose" part of her statement which you haven't seemed to address at all in contrast with Mimi. Again, I'll repeat. If I decided to put on a Napolean costume and believe that I'm Napolean, have I not created a purpose for myself?? Is this purpose any more valid then believing in a God?? What is YOUR purpose in life??

[contracycle]

Originally posted by haverbob
No. it's not really whether Gods exist or not and perhaps I have steered you away from the initial crux of my question. The crux is what the Ateist does to fill the void that occurs when they become convinced there is no God.

There is no void, because the existance of god is merely a lie that people tell to convince you to Obey. Thus there is no void that is filled.

Again, I'll repeat. If I decided to put on a Napolean costume and believe that I'm Napolean, have I not created a purpose for myself?? Is this purpose any more valid then believing in a God?? What is YOUR purpose in life??

No, you will have created an delusion.

My purpose is to procreate and then die. In the interim, I have decided to amuse myself by trying to make the world a better place, as I see it anyway. The god-trick is to convince us that the only way ti improve oursleves, and the world, is through prayer anf god. Goldman is saying, go out and do it for yourself, don't pray for a better world, build one. There is no pie in the sky when you die.

[haverbob]

My purpose is to procreate and then die
Well I'm glad for you. At least you are not sterile and neither am I. Perhaps you would like to give that explanation to someone who IS sterile, or maybe even give it to all of the homosexuals in the world. I would love to see their reaction

[contracycle]

Originally posted by haverbob
Well I'm glad for you. At least you are not sterile and neither am I. Perhaps you would like to give that explanation to someone who IS sterile, or maybe even give it to all of the homosexuals in the world. I would love to see their reaction

Actually, some might argue that the homsexuality obviates some sexual competition among the group, and makes matings among other members of the group more succesful over the long term. And as for sterility, too bad: people also die in accidents before they procreate, or in war. Some societies have even gone so far as to forgo procreation and employ celibacy.

The world does not owe you a living, or even an explanation. But there are other ways to decide for yourself what your purpose will be; many gain siolace from medicine, from being able to extend the lives of others and thus, in a sense, procreate by proxy. Making the world a better place, I think, is the sort of thing the Goldman is alluding to.

[haverbob]

Actually, some might argue that the homsexuality obviates some sexual competition among the group, and makes matings among other members of the group more succesful over the long term. And as for sterility, too bad: people also die in accidents before they procreate, or in war. Some societies have even gone so far as to forgo procreation and employ celibacy

And in this case, at least according to the purpose YOU have created for yourself, they would have had no purpose at all. So we can both agree that you were not speaking of a universally acceptable purpose. I just wanted to make sure because people use that "procreate and die" a little too often which strikes me as some sort of shared purpose or universally acceptable purpose or else so many people wouldn't say that.
The world does not owe you a living, or even an explanation.
I can agree that the world does not "owe" you one.
many gain siolace from medicine, from being able to extend the lives of others and thus, in a sense, procreate by proxy. Making the world a better place, I think, is the sort of thing the Goldman is alluding to.
Okay, now we are getting somewhere. The purpose is to gain "siolace" and I guess that sometimes procreation fits in to that or is a peice of that. So instead of putting good/bad...in to the hands of a diety, one seeks "Siolace" instead because one is often not happy. One needs comforting for their unhappiness or their sense of injustice.

[contracycle]

And in this case, at least according to the purpose YOU have created for yourself, they would have had no purpose at all.

Actually, the very opposite, as I pointed out.


So we can both agree that you were not speaking of a universally acceptable purpose.

I thought that was clear from thr outset. Why would you expect there to be one?


I just wanted to make sure because people use that "procreate and die" a little too often which strikes me as some sort of shared purpose or universally acceptable purpose or else so many people wouldn't say that.

Sure, becuase that is our biological nature. Except, of course, we might get anagathics a few years, in which case our 'purpose' will be to just procreate :) And we are ewwell past the point of technically enabling homsexuals to procreate, and have been since the 70's.


Okay, now we are getting somewhere. The purpose is to gain "siolace" and I guess that sometimes procreation fits in to that or is a peice of that. So instead of putting good/bad...in to the hands of a diety, one seeks "Siolace" instead because one is often not happy. One needs comforting for their unhappiness or their sense of injustice.

Solace. my mistake.
But I still fear you are missing the point I am attempting to make. You have to decide for yourself. Maybe some people will decide that living fast and leaving a good-looking corpse is good enough for them.

[haverbob]

I thought that was clear from thr outset. Why would you expect there to be one?
Why not? Sorry for the question to a question, but it displays that both points of view are on equal ground. Just a matter of choice.
Sure, becuase that is our biological nature. Except, of course, we might get anagathics a few years, in which case our 'purpose' will be to just procreate And we are ewwell past the point of technically enabling homsexuals to procreate, and have been since the 70's.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'anagathics" and I couldn't find it at websters.com. Please clarify. No biggie, because it looks like you are really saying on the one hand that there is no universal purpose, one creates a purpose for one's self that can be anything one wants it to be and on the other hand you are trying to preserve the commonality or universiality of procreation as a purpose by claiming it to be our biological nature and by suggesting that now we have solved "the problem" of homosexuals not being able to participate in this universal purpose.

So which is it? If it's the latter, then again, what purpose does someone have who cannot procreate or what purpose did they have in earlier years before advanced Biotech. I think you actually meant the former. Therefore I can create any purpose I want as long as it makes me happy (or if it gives me solace as you mentioned). I chose Napolean and you said that was delusional. I still don't think so based on this "anything goes" concept.

[freeth1nker]

Sorry, I cannot help myself but interject.
The earlier post about the Existential imperative of "creating your own purpose" whoever brought up that point. This is part of Sartre's philosophy of transcending your "factilicity," which is a special Sartean terminology. It basically refers to the "facts" of your life, e.g. you are born with two arms, into a poor working class family, with a delitating illness, etc. etc. These are the conditions of your life that you cannot change. But Sartre says that you are not limited to your factilicity. You may be born with a deformed leg, you can sit and wallow in self-pity, or you can use it as a source of strength and decide to become a researcher in an attempt to find a cure for the genetic defect that crippled you, or you can use it to tell a cocktail party story. The point is that the facts of your life doesn't change but what you make of these facts (which is ultimately a subjective endeavour) is all up to you.
Sartre as the advocate of free will thinks that we always have a choice. And whatever makes *your* life meaningful is a choice you have to make and not for someone else to decide.

Anyway, I also read Camus' "The Stranger" (the American translation of L'Etranger, "The Outsider" is the same thing but British) this year in English class. We had to do an analysis between a play and novel, so I did Sartre's No Exit and Camus' The Stranger. I must say I personally liked Camus better but since someone already explained Camus' Absurdism to you. I just thought I should do the latter on Existentialism.



Well okay, I'll accept your interpretation but I would have to say that Emma did a pretty deceptive job with that phrase. The only thing she had to do was say beauty and peril as opposed to just beauty and it would have been perfectly clear. Instead she left it for you to fill in the blank that could have been clearly described by her in one word. It still seems to me, that by leaving out the negative part, she makes her ideas more appealing and hence less need for "the gods".


Maybe, she was intentionally trying to emphasize the "beauty" part of it. I doubt she didn't recognize or as you say, "denied", the ugly side of life. But merely saying that the beautiful is perhaps more important than the ugly. Why focus your energy only on the ugly part? The beautiful is what makes life worth living. At least that is my interpretation of that quote.

Edit: I am really embarrassed about some of the spelling mistakes I made. :o I hope nobody caught that.

[freeth1nker]

I think my previous post may have strayed a little bit away from the original topic, which I gather is "I am sincerely confused about how someone creates this beauty and purpose for themselves."

I would say these very notions, i.e. beauty and purpose, are in themselves relative to the person. Actually, some aesthetes would say beauty is completely subjective. What one person may consider beautiful is not universally shared. I find intellectual literature extremely beautiful and meaningful, but someone else may find it a waste of time.

In the end, it is only a matter of taste.

And about your Napolean dilemma. Yes, you may wish to do that if you like, as it is your own choice. But if you end up in a mental institution somewhere as a result of that, it is also the consequences of your own choice, in which you alone must take responsibility for.

[haverbob]

Sorry, I cannot help myself but interject.
Well if you can't help it then you should consider a different screen name. Right???[/quote]
You may be born with a deformed leg, you can sit and wallow in self-pity, or you can use it as a source of strength and decide to become a researcher in an attempt to find a cure for the genetic defect that crippled you, or you can use it to tell a cocktail party story.
Well, okay, then perhaps I'm Napolean with only one arm and somebody needs to light my cigar while I'm holding a martini.[/quote]
The point is that the facts of your life doesn't change but what you make of these facts (which is ultimately a subjective endeavour) is all up to you.
Yes, although I have only one arm, I can still be Napolean (as long as I "make it so"). Why is objectivity so bad?? Why is it always look on the bright side or dark side of things. Hasn't any of your professors told you that optimism and pessimism have nothing to do with reality? Our stupid little possesive minds create optimism or pessimism. Read some prior posts in this thread for more explanation.
Anyway, I also read Camus' "The Stranger" (the American translation of L'Etranger, "The Outsider" is the same thing but British) this year in English class. We had to do an analysis between a play and novel, so I did Sartre's No Exit and Camus' The Stranger. I must say I personally liked Camus better but since someone already explained Camus' Absurdism to you. I just thought I should do the latter on Existentialism.
Yeah... and I read "secrets of how to flush to toilet correctly". So what?? Doesn't ANYBODY in this place know how to do something other than parrot their favorite books or their favorite professor??? I would love to hear, for the first time, something that comes from the heart or intuition. Oh, and by the way, that person who explained this stuff to me earlier in this thread (Mimi) gave me quite a nicely condensed version of both Existentialism and Absurdism, and I believe she did a good job because she was able to explain the crux of the matter to me quite quicky (kudos for her, no personal offense to you).
Maybe, she was intentionally trying to emphasize the "beauty" part of it. I doubt she didn't recognize or as you say, "denied", the ugly side of life. But merely saying that the beautiful is perhaps more important than the ugly. Why focus your energy only on the ugly part? The beautiful is what makes life worth living. At least that is my interpretation of that quote.

Yes, maybe....maybe...maybe. However she does a good job ignoring the negative in order to make her point of view more acceptable or pallatable, that's all. I read this one book called "Awareness" and for as much as this guy tells you that life is great, he has a subtitle that says "the opportunities and PERILS of reality", and he doesn't sugar coat it.
I am really embarrassed about some of the spelling mistakes I made. I hope nobody caught that.
Relax, I make them all of the time. This is funny when people think this way. It's like a publishing house is watching you. Well, I have an open mind, who knows, maybe they are. They sure as shit won't want to have anything to do with me, but maybe you will be different. Thanks for for stimuli (I know I'm crass, but I mean that sincerely).

[freeth1nker]

Well if you can't help it then you should consider a different screen name. Right???
???


Well, okay, then perhaps I'm Napolean with only one arm and somebody needs to light my cigar while I'm holding a martini.

And your point being...?


Yes, although I have only one arm, I can still be Napolean (as long as I "make it so"). Why is objectivity so bad?? Why is it always look on the bright side or dark side of things. Hasn't any of your professors told you that optimism and pessimism have nothing to do with reality?

I never thought the issue here was objectivity vs. subjectivity. You asked something along the lines of what do atheists do to fill in the gap once they know that there is no God?
That in itself is a psychological question. Now, you are charading me for taking a subjective stance? You need get your question straight first. Besides, my answer had nothing to do with pessimism and optimism. I never said that those are the only ways of looking at the world. But however you interpret it, it is always subjective. Hasn't any of your teachers told you not to put words in people's mouths? Tsk, tsk...


Our stupid little possesive minds create optimism or pessimism. Read some prior posts in this thread for more explanation.

You can speak for yourself on that one. :p
BTW, I always read all the posts in the thread before I reply.


Yeah... and I read "secrets of how to flush to toilet correctly". So what?? Doesn't ANYBODY in this place know how to do something other than parrot their favorite books or their favorite professor??? I would love to hear, for the first time, something that comes from the heart or intuition.
Making a reference to your favourite books/authors/whatever doesn't mean you are an unoriginal charlatan. The quotes and whatnot that I post do reflect what is in my heart. I just think these authors can put it into words more eloquently than myself. Besides, I never even directly quoted them. I pointed them out as good references to look if you want your questions answered. It is up to you if you choose to read them or not.


Oh, and by the way, that person who explained this stuff to me earlier in this thread (Mimi) gave me quite a nicely condensed version of both Existentialism and Absurdism, and I believe she did a good job because she was able to explain the crux of the matter to me quite quicky (kudos for her, no personal offense to you).

It is worth pointing out that what we say here is an oversimplication. To really get to the crux of it, you actually have to read the literature out there yourself, but be careful you might hurt that fragile little thing inside your skull.


Yes, maybe....maybe...maybe.

The reason I used "maybe" was because I don't like stating my opinion as if it's the absolute truth. Let's not get drowned by rhetoric when we have nothing better to say. ;)


However she does a good job ignoring the negative in order to make her point of view more acceptable or pallatable, that's all. I read this one book called "Awareness" and for as much as this guy tells you that life is great, he has a subtitle that says "the opportunities and PERILS of reality", and he doesn't sugar coat it.

So who is parroting their favourite books now? :p
Like I said before, she wasn't "ignoring" or "denying", she's merely "emphasizing" something else. You are the one who seem to be fixated by the negative part, as you keep repeating ad nauseam about how atheists are denying the negative side of life. And like we touched on before, the quote was meant to be inspirational so it has some optimistic overtones. And optimistic is not always realistic. So what?!! There are moments when it is good to be optimistic and there are those when it isn't! Are we going to keep beating on a dead horse here?


Relax, I make them all of the time. This is funny when people think this way. It's like a publishing house is watching you. Well, I have an open mind, who knows, maybe they are. They sure as shit won't want to have anything to do with me, but maybe you will be different. Thanks for for stimuli (I know I'm crass, but I mean that sincerely).

No need to psychoanalyze every one of my sentences. I know I got problems. At least, I am in "healthy denial" and not obsessing over every little negative detail. :p

Addenum:
I don't know why I just noticed this now and it's probably not worth wasting my time further. But the quote in the front page says, "to affirm life, beauty, and purpose."
These are only the things she wants affirmed. Why should we be affirming perils? No matter who you are, atheist or theist. Does it matter?

[exnihilo]

Originally posted by haverbob


[B]No. it's not really whether Gods exist or not and perhaps I have steered you away from the initial crux of my question. The crux is what the Ateist does to fill the void that occurs when they become convinced there is no God.

If that is your point it certainly isn't discernable in your previous posts. The only void being filled is in people who cannot bear the responsibility of living life for itself. Thus, the void I am speaking to would be more like a lack of responsibility--yes it may sound existensialist--but I am using it in a broader way. Christianity is the crutch, as Marx said, that allows people to shirk their responsibility and defer it to a metaphysical entity. As for Athiests making stuff up, that is a contradiction in terms, the lack of belief is not the promulgation of one. Unfortunately, as this shows christians will never be able to understand this concept.
If you re-read my initial post, I questioned beauty (you saw that part). However, I said the MOST cryptic is the "purpose" part of her statement which you haven't seemed to address at all in contrast with Mimi.
Well, perhaps you aren't reading because that was the first thing that I talked about::::Emma's idea of taking decisive action as another has already point out. Action, as oppossed to stagnation or mere passivity as the implicit result of am ontology centered on belief. Although I liked alot of what Mimi said, existentialism doesn't have much to do with anarchism, as absurdity never enters into the picture--they are really two quite opposite philosophies.
Again, I'll repeat. If I decided to put on a Napolean costume and believe that I'm Napolean, have I not created a purpose for myself?? Is this purpose any more valid then believing in a God?? What is YOUR purpose in life??
Well at least the Napolean costume is real????Unless it is a delusion and then it would be your own delusion as oppossed to the mass delusion that christianity promulgates.
Thanks also to contracycle and freeth1nker who have answered quite well many of the other points you raise here.

[mimi]

Hey Haverbob - sorry it's been a while...

Rather than regurgitate someone else's rhetoric, i'll try to bore you with my own this time :)

...it looks like you are really saying on the one hand that there is no universal purpose, one creates a purpose for one's self that can be anything one wants it to be and on the other hand you are trying to preserve the commonality or universiality of procreation as a purpose by claiming it to be our biological nature and by suggesting that now we have solved "the problem" of homosexuals not being able to participate in this universal purpose.

This is the problem with higher thinking. Whilst we are all animals with the intrinsic urges to survive and procreate, humans have been blessed (or cursed) with the ability to question. And so whilst a cat lives it's life in blessed ignorance, we spend our lives thinking "...why am I here?...what should I do here?...why am I doing it?...and so on and so on.

I think maybe the issue of procreation is also blurred because humans have evolved past the 'instinctive' stage. Pretty much everything in our lives is consciously decided, measured, and thoroughly planned. Civilisation has grown to the point where a government can dictate our birth rate.

...what purpose does someone have who cannot procreate or what purpose did they have in earlier years before advanced biotech?

Good question... but maybe if you view procreation as a natural responsibility rather than a purpose, those with genetic defects can be excused. Mutations will happen, defects will arise, it's just natures way. Having said that, we have evolved further than other species, and our priorities have changed. Having children is just what you do - some of our instinct seemed to have been retained in our evolution - but now, instead of being a completely instinctive action, it's part of our lifestyle. I doubt that those that are unable to have children are disappointed because of their inability to contribute to the species. Our 'purpose' in life now seems to lie elsewhere.

Maybe you are making it hard on yourself by using animal analogies to analyse existential philosophy :)

Therefore I can create any purpose I want as long as it makes me happy (or if it gives me solace as you mentioned). I chose Napolean and you said that was delusional. I still don't think so based on this "anything goes" concept.

I'm not quite sure what to say to this...If I can create any purpose, as long as it makes me happy, then is it ok if I start a murderous cult? I'd like to know who introduced this 'anything goes' concept... I don't know if you misinterpreted that from a phrase such as 'create your own purpose'. I'd suggest that there are healthy limits to that statement. :)

[haverbob]

Good question... but maybe if you view procreation as a natural responsibility
Who created that responsibility?? Was it you? Or someone else that you know? Or your family, history teacher, friends, boss.......You said "natural", what really is "natural" and who created it? (sorry, maybe that needs a few passes). Responsibilities don't just "happen", either God or we create them. Anyway, I love the word "natural". "Natural" suggests a plan, doesn't it?? You just stepped in theist doo-doo. If not, then what is "unnatural" (please don't assume I'm speaking Bio/Chem args)

then is it ok if I start a murderous cult?
If you decided that was your purpose, you would, according to the "create your own purpose" theory. That theory works just as well on the bad side as it does the good (assuming that one should believe in either).
I'd like to know who introduced this 'anything goes' concept...
That would be me.
I don't know if you misinterpreted that from a phrase such as 'create your own purpose'. I'd suggest that there are healthy limits to that statement

It was said in other, more complex words by others but that's what it boiled down to for me. I would love to hear the complicated rationalizations behind the healthy limits delimiter. If you create your purpose, then it should be anything you want. Otherwise, you are, at least, partially deriving this purpose from forces outside yourself or maybe/also "acceptable bounds" for this or any other given society. So one really doesn't create one's purpose in that condition. Do they??.
So we still probably need to rephrase this "create one's own purpose". You know? Societal demands can become so great that we decide to make THOSE our purpose. "I live for the collective, yeah".

[haverbob]

Well at least the Napolean costume is real????Unless it is a delusion and then it would be your own delusion as oppossed to the mass delusion that christianity promulgates.

And your "self created" purpose is not delusional right?? Anyway, I'll drop this simple Napolean example. It seems to confuse people. Seems like they want to concentrate on Napolean proper. It's kind of like pointing to food and having people focus on the blemish on the finger.

[haverbob]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well if you can't help it then you should consider a different screen name. Right???
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


???

Okay, Ill explain it again (never as funny the second time). Put "I just couldn't help it" together with the name "freeth1inker".


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, although I have only one arm, I can still be Napolean (as long as I "make it so"). Why is objectivity so bad?? Why is it always look on the bright side or dark side of things. Hasn't any of your professors told you that optimism and pessimism have nothing to do with reality?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I never thought the issue here was objectivity vs. subjectivity.
Neither did I. Mimi simply brought up pessimism and optimism, so I responded

Besides, my answer had nothing to do with pessimism and optimism. I never said that those are the only ways of looking at the world. But however you interpret it, it is always subjective. Hasn't any of your teachers told you not to put words in people's mouths? Tsk, tsk...

I didn't. You never said pessimism or optimism to my knowledge. That's what Mimi was talking about. Do you have a split screen name or something?
So who is parroting their favourite books now?
This looks like you are slightly frustrated with my parrot comment.
I quote the title of a book and suddenly I am a parrot?? I think it takes a little more than that.
And optimistic is not always realistic. So what?!!
Look, I was just pointing out what's going on here. Choose atheism and then ignore the negative aspects of that choice. That's all. Choose theism and ignore the things that don't make sense. That's what everybody tells the theist, right?
Why should we be affirming perils? No matter who you are, atheist or theist. Does it matter?
Well, I just thought atheism was about objectivity, that's all.

[junkyardgod]

"Affirm life" I have no misunderstandings about.

Haverbob,

Ironically, as a determinist, I am free to say that I was compelled to repley to your post. While I am familiar with, and generally ascribe to anarchist therory, ironically, again, I am not very familiar with Emma's writings per se.

In any event, I think you are being somewhat unfair, and possibly disingenous in your critque of an isolated quote. Any broad statement of belief, or dibelief, as may be the case, needs to be "unpacked", so to speak.

Personally, I think Emma's point is that disblief can lead one to a better and fuller life than belief in what is probably a false notion.
You seem to agree with this assessment, as evidenced by the above quote, but then you seem to quibble about the meaning of the word "purpose".

If you'd like, please respond.

jyd

[haverbob]

In any event, I think you are being somewhat unfair, and possibly disingenous in your critque of an isolated quote.
Is was about how and why the quote was used, not about the author. The quote, as used, focuses on the positive aspects of atheism, but fails to mention the negative, therefore, it is somewhat subjective. I'm really not even trying to blame it, I'm just pointing out what I see to be kind of a romantic kind of spin on the realities of atheism.
You seem to agree with this assessment, as evidenced by the above quote,
Wa Wa WHAT ?? I don't think that "affirming life", "beauty" and "purpose" are all meant to mean the same thing. So I say that I get the "affirm life" part and somehow you must think that the purpose part means the same thing. I would disagree in the context used on the front page.

[exnihilo]

Originally posted by haverbob
And your "self created" purpose is not delusional right?? Anyway, I'll drop this simple Napolean example. It seems to confuse people. Seems like they want to concentrate on Napolean proper. It's kind of like pointing to food and having people focus on the blemish on the finger.

The point is your examples simply don't make sense given the original question, which you yourself posted. This is an interesting thread, however, and very entertaining. Mty advice would be to simply read Goldman's work for yourself, which will allow infinitely more insight into her work than a snippet taken out of context because it sounds cool. I doubt, based on your posts, that you will find her to your liking. She reveled in the assasination of president McKinley, actively participated in a plot to assasinate Henry Clay Frick of Carneige Steel and generally lived by her words, which is far different and more threatening to the system--as illustrated by the corporate/police state repression of anarchist and socialist groups in the following years-- than milquetoast leftists populating the "radical" scene today.

"Revolution is but thought carried into action."--Emma

"Man will never be free until the last king is hung by the entrails of the last priest"--voltaire

--exnihilo

[junkyardgod]

Haverbob

The statement is not inteneded, IMO, to address specific positives or negatives of any system. It is a broad statement.
It simply conveys the author's conclusion, i.e., disbielf leads to a better life than belief.

My main point is, if one wants to know the reasons behind such a statement, one may need to do some research.

As an aside, by my way of reasoning, if something "affirms life", by default it also affirms beauty and purpose, as those concepts seem to be part and parcel of a "fuller" life. Of course, this is not to say that life does not include ungliness or disilliusion. But the disbielf that Emma is talking about, IMO, does not affirm these aspects of life. Again, this is not to say that such things can be denied or ignored, but they don't have to be used as an excuse for not living life to its fullest potential.

JYD

[junkyardgod]

oops

[haverbob]

Mty advice would be to simply read Goldman's work for yourself, which will allow infinitely more insight into her work than a snippet taken out of context because it sounds cool.
Please read what I said to you earlier and what I just said to Junkyardgod. I don't care about Emma right now. It was not the meaning of the post. You are the one who cares about Emma so much which is why you interpret my words in a way that makes you think that I care. Emma was a wonderful anarchist. Great.

[haverbob]

oops
I'll take that to mean that you get what I was doing with the thread. It was not about Emma. It was about someone using her words to create a less than objective spin on the realities of atheism.

[junkyardgod]

Haverbob,

Is every opinion "spin"? The quote in question is being used to present a certain viewpoint in a concise a manner. How can any opinion be other than subjective?

If someone said to me, " Eating hotdogs is the best thing for you", I may or may not agree. If I wanted to know more about the subject, and why someone would say such a thing, I would do some research.

Again, If you want to know why someone, Emma or anyone else, might say that it is better to disbelieve than to believe, you may need to at least attempt to find out why that person would say that. There is all kinds of literature out there.

So no, I guess I didn't get it.

JYD

[junkyardgod]

Haverbob,

What are these "realities of atheism" that you allude to?

JYD

[haverbob]

.Is every opinion "spin"?
No. However, atheism is about objective thinking. It's about, I have no reason to believe in God until it's proven to me. That's fine. That's objective. But watch how opinions start to come into play when an atheist can't easily and outright explain a difficult question. Suddenly they turn to shadowy things like "opinion", but when a theist says "it's my opinion that there is a God, don't you have a sneaking desire to expose that opinion to objective thought? And yet you are saying that it's okay to be subjective in your atheist beliefs or in the case of an author you like, right?? If you like the author, then it's suddenly time to be subjective. Aren't you making your own interpretations of what Emma said???
What are these "realities of atheism" that you allude to?
Okay, let's carry on. You seem to think that "affirm life", "beauty" and purpose are the same things. I think not. If I look at a flower, do I not affirm it's life? If I look at a flower, do I not affirm it's beauty? If I look at a flower, do I affirm it's purpose??? No. That's the little thing that disturbed me the most about the quote, because it's a little thing that gets slid underneath the door, but purpose is a whole different thing then the last two examples that were mentioned. So it wasn't about Emma, it wasn't about beauty, it was really about "so where does she, or the people that chose to quote this, get this "purpose" from. Surely I can create a purpose by digging a ditch and filling it back up again if I choose to. Do you invent that purpose?? Is that objective???Have you not fallen out of the objective thinking that prides you so much when you choose the atheistic response to the God question that says "I don't know, it's up to the theists to prove it to me". So let's use the same logic. Prove to me that you have a purpose as an atheist. Until you do, I say that you don't. Fair enough??

[exnihilo]

Originally posted by haverbob
Please read what I said to you earlier and what I just said to Junkyardgod. I don't care about Emma right now. It was not the meaning of the post. You are the one who cares about Emma so much which is why you interpret my words in a way that makes you think that I care. Emma was a wonderful anarchist. Great.

So in other words you are just throwing out random quotes and then when you have problems with what it entails you retreat. The problem is that you fail to show any point whatsoever. First you argue that the intwerpretation is wroing, although it is obvious that you have no idea what Emma wrote and then you bring up all kinds of unrelated stuff, as if it has a bearing on the subject that you yourself raised. Hey, Emma was a great woman, although I wasn't the one who brought her up, you did. So don't blame me if you can't twist her words to prove your point, if there is one.

--exnihilo

[mimi]

Originally posted by haverbob

No. However, atheism is about objective thinking. It's about, I have no reason to believe in God until it's proven to me. That's fine. That's objective. But watch how opinions start to come into play when an atheist can't easily and outright explain a difficult question. Suddenly they turn to shadowy things like "opinion", but when a theist says "it's my opinion that there is a God, don't you have a sneaking desire to expose that opinion to objective thought? And yet you are saying that it's okay to be subjective in your atheist beliefs or in the case of an author you like, right?? If you like the author, then it's suddenly time to be subjective. Aren't you making your own interpretations of what Emma said???

Haverbob - this is ALL subjective! None of us a can prove or disprove anything - that is why atheism/theism is discussed, argued, debated etc... it's just individual opinions/beliefs. There is nothing objective about it.


Okay, let's carry on. You seem to think that "affirm life", "beauty" and purpose are the same things. I think not. If I look at a flower, do I not affirm it's life? If I look at a flower, do I not affirm it's beauty? If I look at a flower, do I affirm it's purpose??? No. That's the little thing that disturbed me the most about the quote, because it's a little thing that gets slid underneath the door, but purpose is a whole different thing then the last two examples that were mentioned. So it wasn't about Emma, it wasn't about beauty, it was really about "so where does she, or the people that chose to quote this, get this "purpose" from. Surely I can create a purpose by digging a ditch and filling it back up again if I choose to. Do you invent that purpose?? Is that objective???Have you not fallen out of the objective thinking that prides you so much when you choose the atheistic response to the God question that says "I don't know, it's up to the theists to prove it to me". So let's use the same logic. Prove to me that you have a purpose as an atheist. Until you do, I say that you don't. Fair enough??

Again, haverbob, please use human examples and make life easier for all of us. But if you want my short answer, I'd say that a flower has it's purpose in part of the wider food chain. (And before you tell me to stop talking in bio terms, that's my final answer. Refer to my earlier post re: humans and higher thinking vs. other animals ) You are using specific examples without looking at the big picture.

The crux of the matter, as I see it, is:

In disbelieving in the gods, you are choosing to disbelieve in an afterlife.

Therefore, your life is finite and valuable.

In disbelieving in the gods, you are choosing to disbelieve in the partial control of your life by another being.

Therefore, during the limited time you have, you may wish to choose your purpose in life.

Now, the problem of purpose; while we are here, what can/should we do? And my own problem - what is most worth doing?

'Purpose' by definition:


(noun) - something set up as an object or end to be attained

(transitive verb) - to propose as an aim to oneself

IMO the former sounds more suited to a theist's way of thinking, the latter to an atheist's. So I'll go with the second.

We are talking about aims on a large scale here, more in terms of a personal philosophy, not "how much money do I want to save this week" kinda stuff. Ask yourself, when you die in x years, are you going to be happy that you spent your time masquerading as a nineteenth-century french emperor? If the answer is yes, and you are satisfied, then fine. But otherwise don't bring up stupid examples.

As far as a worthy 'life purpose' goes, I'm still trying to figure that out, I have no answers for you. Most likely this is because the issue is SUBJECTIVE, if you want to pretend to be napoleon, start a murderous cult (sorry to bring up an equally stupid example) then that's up to you. Emma, for example, had a purpose to bring down the constrictive governance of society, an aim not widely accepted. I'm not going to pretend to know what the 'healthy limits' I alluded to earlier are either, I can only suggest that you use common sense. (This is also subjective, I know, eg. leaders of murderous cults obviously think murdering people is okay. But I'm talking about general guidelines accepted by society which (I believe) are there for a reason.)

And in regards to an earlier post...

Who created that responsibility?? Was it you? Or someone else that you know? Or your family, history teacher, friends, boss.......You said "natural", what really is "natural" and who created it? (sorry, maybe that needs a few passes). Responsibilities don't just "happen", either God or we create them. Anyway, I love the word "natural". "Natural" suggests a plan, doesn't it?? You just stepped in theist doo-doo. If not, then what is "unnatural" (please don't assume I'm speaking Bio/Chem args)

Haverbob, to debate this point you have no choice but to argue in biological terms. To me, that's what 'natural' means. The responsibility (that all members of a species have a responsibilty to continue their species) I was referring to does NOT have to be created by either god or humans, it is an evolutionary necessity. But as a said, humans may be in a different position due to the nature of our progression as a species - advanced civilisation, society, etc.

Haverbob, sometimes I feel like you are looking at this issue through a tunnel.

[junkyardgod]

Haverbob,

So , from what I'm gathering, your problem here is something like this: This website's home page indicates that atheism , per se, enhances life's "purpose". For some reason, I'm not sure why, you take exception to this assertion. You seem to want some type of "objective" reason for this statement.

Well, to tell you the truth, I don't have any sort of overarching PURPOSE in life, if you get my drift. I do try to treat myself, and the people around me decently however. Sometimes I'm more succesfull at this than at other times.

With this "purpose" in mind, I can honestly say that it can be better achieved without some sort of God getting in the way. Why might I say this?

1. I can better assess physical evidence on it's merits. It does not have to fit into some preconcieved system.

2. I have no need to conform to a congregation.

3. I have no need to wait for devine guidance or inspiration.

4. I don't need to listen to priests and such that seem to address the world with pat answers and platitudes.

I could go on, but I hope you can begin to see, that at least from my perspective, atheism leads to a better way of life than theism.

None of this is probably "objective" enough to satisfy your needs. Oh well.

JYD

[haverbob]

So in other words you are just throwing out random quotes and then when you have problems with what it entails you retreat. The problem is that you fail to show any point whatsoever.
What??? Rather than repeat myself, once again I will ask you to read what I said to JYD (once again) right next to your post.

"Okay, let's carry on. You seem to think that "affirm life", "beauty" and purpose are the same things. I think not. If I look at a flower, do I not affirm it's life? If I look at a flower, do I not affirm it's beauty? If I look at a flower, do I affirm it's purpose??? No. That's the little thing that disturbed me the most about the quote, because it's a little thing that gets slid underneath the door, but purpose is a whole different thing then the last two examples that were mentioned. So it wasn't about Emma, it wasn't about beauty, it was really about "so where does she, or the people that chose to quote this, get this "purpose" from. "

Now tell me that you still don't understand my point. Why is it so hard for people to see this. Why are you STILL bothering to defend Emma. Who cares about her. I'll make this REALLY simple for you. What is your purpose? Is that purpose "self created". Is that not the same as self creating a purpose that I am Napolean. I can do that because when I create purpose for myself, it can be anything that I want. I've already been in and out of this subject with Mimi and Freeth1nker and now I am re-explaining it to JYD. Welcome to the thread.

[junkyardgod]

Haverbob,

"If I look at a flower, do I affirm it's purpose???"

Are you claiming to know what the "purpose" of a flower is? How do you know if I affirm that flower's "purpose" by looking at it, or not?

It seems obvious that flowers are "meant" to attract attention. Isn't that a "purpose"?

There is a great danger in anthropomorphiseing various natural phenomena. Hence, the liberal use of quotations.

JYD

[haverbob]

Are you claiming to know what the "purpose" of a flower is?
No. Would you please read over that section again a little more carefully. Also, I saw your "list". I have a few things to say about that but I'm at work right now. Maybe tonight I can give it the time that it needs. Right now I can only answer the short ones.

[haverbob]

Sorry for being a little abrupt today.
This website's home page indicates that atheism , per se, enhances life's "purpose" For some reason, I'm not sure why, you take exception to this assertion
Because I don't believe that a lack of belief in God enhances one's sense of purpose, maybe it doesn't hurt it (maybe it does) but I don't see where it enhances it.
Well, to tell you the truth, I don't have any sort of overarching PURPOSE in life, if you get my drift.
You may have contradicted yourself with your previous statement above. Well I'm not SURE what you mean but perhaps I do catch your drift. If you mean that 1) you don't really have a purpose, then obviously atheism has not enhanced YOUR sense of purpose, or 2) you mean that you do have a purpose but it's vague and general, then you still haven't had your sense of purpose "enhance by atheism" (your words, not mine).
I do try to treat myself, and the people around me decently however.
This sounds like you are saying this is your purpose. That's a fair and honest statement from you although I wouldn't call that "enhanced". However, you are actually very close. Best purpose I've heard from anyone so far (or should I say "the least invented").

Okay your list. I'm not sure why you got involved in a nanny, nanny poo poo comparison, but I do understand what you are saying and it's not silly.

1. 1. I can better assess physical evidence on it's merits. It does not have to fit into some preconcieved system

2. I have no need to conform to a congregation.

3. I have no need to wait for devine guidance or inspiration.

4. I don't need to listen to priests and such that seem to address the world with pat answers and platitudes.

I could go on, but I hope you can begin to see, that at least from my perspective, atheism leads to a better way of life than theism.

If I had a way to sum that up in one sentence, I would say "nobody's tellin' ME what to do". Let me first say that I agree with number 3, I don't "need it" either. Although alot of atheist say that they don't believe in God (of any type) simply because they have been given no proof to do so, you may be a little different. I think the core reason for you is because you have an inherent dislike for authority in general (or for at least alot of kinds of authority). You just showed that to me in your comparison. That seems to pair well with your affection for anarchist beliefs. Very interesting.

I'm going to veer of course a little for a moment. First let me say that there is something to be said for people that clash with the status quo. As I mentioned to someone else, even Jesus was somewhat of an anarchist who clashed with the status quo. So there is a part of your thinking that I believe is right (to an extent), but it would take me too long to explain.

But if you try to think, really hard, where some of the stuff that you like comes from, you will see that ultimately alot it comes from sources or rules that you disagree with although often it can be very hidden and it takes a great deal of examination and self examination to find these sources. It's kind of like finding out that a charity organization was being propped up by a drug ring without the charity organization even being aware of it. Once you find it, you must drop it to stay true to your ideals, even if it means the orphans at the charity organization starve. I hope you are willing to REALLY become conscious of the origin of some of the things you like and that you will be willing and able to drop those things. Once you identify the fact that they are not possible without some form of authoritarianism that you may not care for, you should be true to yourself and sacrifice the benefit. Sometimes that can be quite painful. Until you do, the thoughts are meaningless. You may say, "I already have" but I think that takes a hell of alot of examination. I'll bet there are plenty of things still left that you haven't taken the time to identify. Same goes with me, except that I seem to be a little more accepting of authority so I am not as obligated to do so. Good luck. Don't cheat yourself.

[haverbob]

I haven't been ignoring you. I want to take a little bit more time with your response. You hit upon a few things that are closer to the point, that I will never make here, than you think. Talk to you soon.

[junkyardgod]

Haverbob,

Well, that's all very nice. But I still say that I can affirm the "purpose" of a flower, a person, a dog, and all life that may or may not exist throughout the Universe without relieing on some type of imaginary god being.

I can do it better basically because I can address whatever it is, as it is, no intermediary god bull shit added or needed.

Coming here to preach is very bad form, IMO.

If you wish to continue this discussion, let's at least be real about it. Appearantly, you feel that some sort of god being is needed to supply a "purpose" to people and/or things. Why might that be? Because you had some sort of "revalation", some sort of personal knowledge? Maybe the bible helps you. It's all pretty meaningless and silly to me; and don't think I haven't heard it all before.

Or, if you were really sincere about wanting to know something about atheism you would do a little reaserch. Like i've said, and a number of others on this thread have said, you're taking a broad statement of conviction out of context and trying to refute it without any sort knowledge on the subject.

Anyway, back to the real question, does a flower have a "purpose" (other than the obvious biological ones)? I say that I can assign many purposes to flowers. Examples: Sex objects, expressions of love, remores, or grief; certain flowers can be eaten, or maybe they're here because life inherently is beautiful, maybe not.

JYG

[haverbob]

I can do it better basically because I can address whatever it is, as it is, no intermediary god bull shit added or needed.
That's right
Coming here to preach is very bad form, IMO.
Show me the religious quote that I have used to preach
If you wish to continue this discussion, let's at least be real about it. Appearantly, you feel that some sort of god being is needed to supply a "purpose" to people and/or things. Why might that be? Because you had some sort of "revalation", some sort of personal knowledge? Maybe the bible helps you. It's all pretty meaningless and silly to me; and don't think I haven't heard it all before.
This is all your own personal interpretation of what I'm saying. I can't blame you, societal training does a real head job on people.
Or, if you were really sincere about wanting to know something about atheism you would do a little reaserch. Like i've said, and a number of others on this thread have said, you're taking a broad statement of conviction out of context and trying to refute it without any sort knowledge on the subject.
Whatever, you're still hopelessly trapped on words. That's what your society has taught you. I don't blame you. That's why you don't see the underlying meaning, because words are very important to you. You see the words I'm saying, but you don't understand where they are pointing to. It's like someone who points to the food, but the other person can only see the blemish on the finger, and not the food that the finger is pointing to. I understand, you have been brought up in a world of words, just like I have been. So what else can you do but focus on the words??
If you wish to continue this discussion, let's at least be real about it.
Oh, I have been all along the way, your just still not ready to hear some of the things that I say (whether you know it or not). You think that I mean what your experience and training has told you that I mean, that's the way you see what I'm talking about, and believe me, I completely understand, I used to think the same way. You are only listening to my words as it gets reflected from the mirror that our society and you have created for yourself. I'll promise you that little.
Anyway, back to the real question, does a flower have a "purpose" (other than the obvious biological ones)? I say that I can assign many purposes to flowers. Examples: Sex objects, expressions of love, remores, or grief; certain flowers can be eaten, or maybe they're here because life inherently is beautiful, maybe not.
And you, yourself have decided that purpose. Thank you for illustrating that point. Other people have already gone there in this thread. I prefer to assign a purpose to myself, (just like everyone else) and that is to be Napolean. If I assign this purpose to myself, who's really going to tell me I'm wrong?? I guess a mental institute, but who says they're right. It's "free wheeling", create your own purpose, so I'm allowed to create whatever purpose I want , as long as it makes me happy, OR should I listen to the people that tell me, "you can't be Napolean". If I do, then they have created my purpose to a certain extent. There goes the free will that everyone seems to covet and thinks that they have.

[junkyardgod]

Haverbob,

Unfortunately, particularly in a format such as this, all we have to work with is words. If you can't express your ideas cogently with words, in a textual format, then there's nothing more to say.

Stay lucid.

Present one or two clearly, concisely, stated ideas in each post and we'll get along fine.

Now, here's some simple, clearly stated questions that you can responde to, or not.

If one dosen't create a "purpose" for one's self, what does create purpose? As a corrallary, is it possible to to even have a "purpose"? Finally, why cannot atheism serve to affirm an individual's sense of "purpose"?

JYG

[haverbob]

Haverbob - this is ALL subjective! None of us a can prove or disprove anything - that is why atheism/theism is discussed, argued, debated etc... it's just individual opinions/beliefs. There is nothing objective about it.
I can agree with that. Some other atheists (like the one I quoted this to) would disagree. That statement was made for somebody else based on their statements, not yours.
Again, haverbob, please use human examples and make life easier for all of us.
Okay.
In disbelieving in the gods, you are choosing to disbelieve in an afterlife. Therefore, your life is finite and valuable.
This is making the assumption that theism is about devaluation of life, that it's all about the afterlife. I'm a theist, and I don't believe that.
Now, the problem of purpose; while we are here, what can/should we do? And my own problem - what is most worth doing?
You know, you're the only person that seems to understand exactly where I'm going with this. I can tell by your answers. And to think you were apologetic about being "new at this stuff".
Ask yourself, when you die in x years, are you going to be happy that you spent your time masquerading as a nineteenth-century french emperor? If the answer is yes, and you are satisfied, then fine. But otherwise don't bring up stupid examples.
Okay. The truth of the matter is that I prefer to masquerade as a successful banker. That is my purpose in life. Does that now sound a little better to you?
As far as a worthy 'life purpose' goes, I'm still trying to figure that out, I have no answers for you.
Ding !! Ding !! Ding !! An honest, look at yourself in the mirror answer. Thank God. This is why I like your responses. One, you don't seem to bother nitpicking at words and pretending that you don't understand what I mean like some others. Two, you look at yourself honestly and are aware of yourself. That's great. I can't tell you how many people have encyclopedia volumes of the outside world shoved in their head but they know so little about themselves.
But I'm talking about general guidelines accepted by society which (I believe) are there for a reason.)
Yes, the reason is convenience, nothing more.
Haverbob, to debate this point you have no choice but to argue in biological terms. To me, that's what 'natural' means.
Well have you ever heard someone say "naturally, I would say...." ? I've heard that countless times. I wonder what they mean by that? Do they mean, "biologically, I would say" or do they mean "logically, I would say".
I was referring to does NOT have to be created by either god or humans, it is an evolutionary necessity. But as a said, humans may be in a different position due to the nature of our progression as a species - advanced civilisation, society, etc.
So if this necessity can change based on circumstances, is it a biological or evolutionary necessity? Sounds like a decision that a human can make to me. I grant you this, sexual desire seems to be a biologically created urge. One does not decide that one will start having sexual desires during puberty. However, we now, in modern days, choose whether we want those desires to create life or not. So creating life is a human decision (or maybe God inspired, either one), not a biological one.

I have one last thing to say, but I would like to say that in a private message that I will send you when I can get a chance

[haverbob]

If you can't express your ideas cogently with words, in a textual format, then there's nothing more to say.
Maybe. I'll tell you that there are many things in this world or life that can never be expressed properly with words. Take love for example. Websters does the best that it can to describe this phenomenon, but as part of it's definition, it admits that it is ineffable. The only thing I can really do with words when I enter the topics that I enter, is to "point" to a concept. I will never represent it correctly but hopefully people will look past my finger (words) and see the thing I'm pointing to. So maybe you're right. Maybe I should stop.
If one dosen't create a "purpose" for one's self, what does create purpose?[QUOTE]
That's an easy one. God creates it, according to most theists. Now you get where I'm going with this. The theist has the God purpose and then decides that he or she will switch to atheism. The switch is fine. I want to know how the new purpose is created. Let me just also mention, for now, that I don't believe that ultimately God creates purpose for us, we do indeed create it for ourselves but in a much different way and for a much different reason than Emma or other people seem to suggest. Maybe next post I'll get in to that. You are getting very close.[QUOTE]As a corrallary, is it possible to to even have a "purpose"? Yes. In fact it's impossible to not have one. Again, I mention that in my next post, you'll see. I'm hesitating for time reasons right now. It will take a little time and some examples to explain.
Finally, why cannot atheism serve to affirm an individual's sense of "purpose"?
It can, but not for the reasons that you seem to think. So can theism as well.

[junkyardgod]

Haverbob,

Ok, now that you've actually said it, I'll bite. How does God create "purpose"? But then you go on to say that ultimately god does not create purpose, that we create it ourselves.

As usuall I am left with nothing. Of course that is to be expected under the circumstances.

I guess all will be revealed in your next post, looking forward to it.


JYG

[haverbob]

I guess all will be revealed in your next post, looking forward to it.
Okay my faithful son, yee hasth suffered enough. Yes, "it shall be revealed to thee", and you'll get a big kick out of it. It's friday night and I've had a few drinks and I lost my robe and sandals (damn, can't do nothin' without em"). I don't think I should be trying to write right now, too much holy wine. I just got on the forum to read for right now. Talk to you soon. Hopefully tomorrow morning sometime.

[haverbob]

Well, I still can't find my holy robe and sandals (musta' left 'em at the strip joint). I'll try my best without them.

Everyone has a purpose, in fact one cannot avoid having a purpose. You are obviously waiting to hear the "God" purpose, but I never identified God as our purpose. If I have, show me where and I'll apologize, because it was not my intention. You may have just logically assumed my purpose is to love God because I am a theist. I was waiting for just one person to ask me what I think my purpose is after all the times I asked everyone else what their puropse was. Seems like everyone else just assumed the same thing.

Your purpose in life is "to look after your happiness", and everyone else has the same purpose to themselves as well. No more, no less. To me, that is a great purpose. Larger purposes than that??? Ha! Impossible. Let me attempt to prove it.

1) The "God" larger purpose
The Catholic (or any mainstream Christion religion) will say that one's purpose is to "love God". Ha! Ha! What happens if that doesn't make one happy? That would be one of the common reasons for atheism. So happiness still comes first, even over God. Theists are simply happy about their belief, that's all. If they are not happy about it, and still believe, then it gets ugly. Then it means they are making God their purpose out of fear.

Next time a converter starts waiving the bible in your face, ask them if they are a "God fearing man, or woman". If they're stupid enough to say yes, then tell that person to think about this. We don't like things that we fear, in fact we often hate them, don't we?? So while this person claims that they have so much love for God, they are also saying that there is a part of God that they hate. Interesting. In general, I would say that it is impossible to truly love anything that we also fear. Watch their jaw drop as you say these things. I've seen it and I have to admit, I LIKE IT. It's funny. Nobody ever told these poor bastards this.

2)The "good for humanity" larger purpose
Nobody would deny (atheists, humanists, theists) that Mother Theresa was a kind person and a good role model for the drive to do a greater good and help humanity.
Look at this statement "Mother Theresa did all of that stuff to help others". How kind of her, how disciplined and sacrificing of her. BULL !! I can assure you that she was getting something out of the deal, and maybe even alot more than anyone would imagine. If she wasn't, then she would lose interest. Basically, all that stuff she did made her very happy, nothing more, nothing less. If someone gives to charity, not because it makes them happy, but because they avoid a bad feeling (guilt, remorse..whayever) by doing so, then are they wasting their time. Just get rid of the false guilt and that solves that dilemma forever. One has to do altruism because it makes them happy. No other good reason for it. One is always the ultimate beneficiary of one's intentions (with the rare exception of the "awakened person", but I'm not even gonna' go there right now).

3) What about people that torchure or hurt themselves, are they not neglecting to look after their happiness.??
Well, to my knowledge, there's two types of people who cause themselves pain, martyrs and sado masochists. The martyr is easy to figure out. From the religious perspective, the reward is a larger gift in Heaven than they would have gotten had they not martyred themselves. For the soldier or lets just say, "non God related" martyr, it's sacrificing for the ideals that his or her society has taught or trained them or even better, I can say it's so that they can live up to their ideals and satisfy themselves (although those aren't really THEIR ideals, they were created by the surrounding society). The sado masochist is obviously much more difficult to figure out. I'm not a psychologist, obviously, and I'm sure that they have studied this much more. However, I firmly believe, that after it is unwound, at the center, you will find the benefit. It might be strange, but there was a benefit to that person, whether they were aware of it or not. So in a very weird way, that person was trying to make themselves happy, which is their purpose, as is with everyone.

I don't know if those examples are good enough or if I've cited enough examples, but that's my quick try at proving what I said about happiness as the purpose. I can't write a book here. Now maybe one can say God is the purpose because he made us in a way so that our purpose is naturally to look after our happiness. One can also use the Darwin kind of Bio something as the purpose in the same manner. No difference either way. Regardless of creator or bio origin or whatever, our happiness is the purpose.

Now, about what I was doing in this thread. Let's take another look at Emma's statement, and again, this need not be about Emma per say, it's as much about the way her statement was used as well. Anyway, no matter how one interprets Emma's statement, one part is clear. That is, that one gains a better sense of purpose by disbelieving in the gods. Yes, I suppose, if that's what makes HER happy. Get it?

But she seemed to be making a suggestion that it would logically make anyone's purpose better (if they could just understand that). Well then she seems to be under the impression that there are greater and larger purposes than being happy. In this case, the larger purpose is to disbelieve in the gods first and to then see the better purpose. She's certainly not saying happiness as the core purpose. I don't think she would because there are and were alot of happy thiests walking around. Maybe some might say delusional, but very happy nonetheless. So to her, it probably couldn't be something as simple as happiness if someone "needed" atheism to gain this better purpose.

Often, people who see the most problems and have the most complaints about the world, are people that know the least about themselves and their motives. They don't bother, they are too focused on "the problems" of the world because they believe that all the solutions to their "problems" lie in the outside world. Well I'll say one crazy thing. The world never had one single problem until we came along and it will never have a problem after we've gone. So who creates problems? Problems are a judgement that we create.

Why didn't I just come out and say this stuff?? Because I wanted to first really get to the bottom of everyone's opinions first. Also assuming that you or anyone else agrees with the jist of what I'm saying, I didn't feel like hearing "oh yeah, no kidding, I knew that" because I can say "show me where you said that or even properly alluded to that". It would have been a very easy answer to give. "Create one's own purpose" is not correct because your true purpose has already been created. At best, that can be considered a subset of happiness (your true purpose). One person came really close when they said "to get a little fun along the way" or something like that. Except that statement was his second choice, his first was "procreation" as his primary purpose, then if he could have a little fun, great. So then I had to chase him down for a while about this "procreation" purpose using examples of people that can't procreate......

What about people who commit suicide? What's their purpose? It's still the same as everyone else's purpose, to look after their happiness. They have simply lost all hope that they can fulfill their purpose. See how fundamental "happiness" is as a purpose? Someone does not kill themselves out of guilt, fear, hate, they kill themselves because they don't think they can ever find a way to be happy. Maybe the guilt, fear...are blockers to happiness, but they are not the central issue, it is happiness.

My friend, our purpose is to look after our individual happiness and there's no way around that. So yes, we ALL have a purpose and it's the same for all of us and we can't avoid having it.

Whew!! That's enough. I'm tired now. You may not agree, but I hope you at least appreciate the effort that I put in as I promised you that I would.

[junkyardgod]

Haverbob,

I probably agree with about 95% of what you said. Except that, of course, God is pretend; nothing more, nothing less.

I know that if you go back through my posts, and number of the other's posts, you will repeatedly see the acknowledgement that Emma's statement is pruely subjective. It is a personal statement of conviction, nothing more, nothing less.

Also, if you look through the thread, you may notice how various posters tried to explain how they might have come to share that conviction. I think most of them arrived at thier position through some sort of logical process. In that vien, I'll repeat my advice, one last time, here: GO LEARN SOMETHING ABOUT THE SUBJECT before attempting a critisim.

I have given a number of concrete examples and explanations as to why I think atheism better affirms life, and its inherant "purpose", than any type of god belief; so I won't repeat them here. But basically, pleasure or happiness, are good enough for me.

Now, repeatedly, throughout the thread, you seemed to take exception with the notion that atheism could better affirm "purpose", than say theism. I still haven't seen a reason why you might take such exception. A short and sweet answer will do; if you care to provide one.

JYG

[haverbob]

Now, repeatedly, throughout the thread, you seemed to take exception with the notion that atheism could better affirm "purpose", than say theism. I still haven't seen a reason why you might take such exception. A short and sweet answer will do; if you care to provide one.
Oh God, am I starting this thread over? I didn't take exception. I didn't say that was impossible, I said "where is this purpose coming from, if not from "God?" And then it gets to the "create your own purpose", then Napolean example.......I thought I've been through this already with alot of people. If you say "looking after one's happiness" is the same as "creating one's purpose", or "don't know purpose", as some have said, then I disagree, and I've heard these phrases alot here. No one has any choice for a purpose but to seek their happiness. That's not like the choice of creating one's own purpose and it's not like saying one doesn't know one's purpose. Try as one may, but it is impossible for one to intentionally do anything with the ultimate purpose of making one's self unhappy, although we can do that quite effectively by accident. So if the purpose ultimately is "looking after one's happiness", you're just really saying that atheism makes YOU and some others happier.

So where did you get the "better affirm" that you mentioned above? Strangely enough, the "better" might actually mean "right" and not really as much from being "happy" (your purpose). Maybe not, but if so, then even though your happiness is your purpose (I am assuming this based on the 95% agreement), you have an even greater purpose than happiness when we both seemed to agree that there could be not be such a thing. Your higher purpose is to be "right" and the "right" is what leads to your happiness (sometimes, sometimes not). And you will strive to be right almost at all costs, even if it's at the expense of your happiness. Sorry I know it sounds weird, but that's my answer. Alot of times I say "aged horse manure is the best for flowers" and then people ask me how old the horse should be.

[haverbob]

Sorry, forgot something.
I probably agree with about 95% of what you said. Except that, of course, God is pretend; nothing more, nothing less.
I missed the significance of this statement on the first go round.
I don't think you agree 95% with me like you said. You agree 95% with what your filter told you that I was saying, that's all. Why do I think that?? Because you seemed to suggest that the 5% disagreement is because God is pretend. So somewhere you saw in that post that I said God is not pretend, hence creating this 5% disagreement. So if you are not reading my words through a filter, then show me exactly where I mentioned that God is not pretend in that post. I never got in to that but yet you saw that, didn't you?? You might say, "well, what I really meant was what you have said on other posts". Okay, but that's not what you said. You clearly said "I agree with 95% of WHAT YOU JUST SAID, and disagree with 5% of WHAT YOU JUST SAID". So I said, "God is real and not pretend" in that post according to you. Go find that for me. That's why I love writing stuff down, very useful. Unfortunately, all of that effort I put in was a complete waste of my time (with the exception of the small amount of happiness that I gained for myself by writing this stuff down). you think you got it, but I beg to differ.

[junkyardgod]

Haverbob,

Well then maybe the question becomes, can there be "purpose" without "intention"; or possibly "volition" is the right word?

I mean, if you're going to seek pleasure no matter what, which I think is the 95% that we agree on, then isn't it only the "how" part that counts?

For example, if writing to me was the only thing that made you happy, but your computer broke and you couldn't fix it. You'd either have to remain unhappy, or look for something else to make you happy. Maybe you'd have to THINK about it and find another "purpose".

In other words, I think you may be confusing "behaviors" , or possibly "traits", with "purposes". My dog can be happy just being a dog (presumably), but only I can assign it a purpose. I think the distinctions go beyond semantics.

Which of course brings us back, again and again, to some of the objections to some of your statements. I will list some of them for you, again, if you can't figure them out for yourself.

JYG

[contracycle]

Haverbob, I think you need to do a liitle investigating of your eye for the speck. If anyone is getting hung up on words, or is applying filters to what is said and read, it appears to me that you are doing it.

This thread began with hangup about the word "affirm". It then goes into a hangup about subjectivity and objectivity. At no point does this appear to have a bearing on real, practical reality.

It is not an abandonment of objectivity to have subjective thoughts, or to subjectivley generate a purpose. Because, objectivity applies only to a subset of endeavors, most importantly, to that set making claims about how the world IS. If you decide that your "purpose" is to be Napoleon, that is in at least some ways (i.e. abstract ways) just as valid as any other self-generated purpose... but it would still be insane.

Subjective does not necessarily mean irrational. A purpose may be both rational and subjective, this does not invalidate it. I hagve found your question, or argument, or whatever, steadily becomeing more opaque: it seems to me that you already now what Goldmans purpose was, as you assert say yourself that "No one has any choice for a purpose but to seek their happiness."

[haverbob]

I mean, if you're going to seek pleasure no matter what, which I think is the 95% that we agree on,
First of all, you did not reconcile why you had a 5% disagreement with me when I never bothered to say God existed in that post. You never found that for me. Just ignored that part and moved on.
then isn't it only the "how" part that counts?
Oh man, I'm sorry but you still do not get what I'm saying. I only said that our ultimate purpose is "to look after our happiness". So why are you bothering to introduce the how part? That part is up to you but the "seeking happiness" part is not up to you, you have no choice. If you want to say "create your own purpose" is the "how" part of "looking after one's happiness" then I "guess" your statement makes sense. We were speaking about the ultimate purpose and now you are introducing a subset and calling that the ultimate purpose.
My dog can be happy just being a dog (presumably), but only I can assign it a purpose.
No you can't. You can't even assign yourself a purpose because that purpose is "to look after your happiness". I'll say it one more time "you have no choice in the matter, you cannot intentionally do something that is ultimately designed to make you unhappy, although you can unintentionally do that. If you find this so hard to understand then let's try an exercise that might help. Name me one thing that anyone in the world has ever done with the intention of ultimately causing themselves unhappiness. I'll bet you I'll find the happiness motive every time. Just to make sure you understand me, I said INTENTIONALLY not UNINTENTIONALLY.
I will list some of them for you, again, if you can't figure them out for yourself.
Yes, please do. And this time around, I'll try to answer those in a different language.

[haverbob]

Haverbob, I think you need to do a liitle investigating of your eye for the speck. If anyone is getting hung up on words, or is applying filters to what is said and read, it appears to me that you are doing it.