But I'm interested, what does a 'religious worldview' mean?
Generally speaking a religious worldview is a dualistic belief stating that there is some form of "good" and "Evil" and that only "good" should be strived for despite the simultaneous existence of "evil." This, by definition, comes complete with some form of prescribed life actions and tracks. Certain things you are and are not "allowed" or "supposed" to do due to an external all powerful force/entity doling out some form of reward or punishement for obedience/disobedience. All religious worldviews suffer from the infinite regression problem of causality, unable to explain why the definitions of good and evil are
those definitions and not something else. Resulting in a belief that is logically self-contradictory, hypocritical and ultimately only held on faith. As such, all defenses of religious worldviews are emotional, displaying the true nature of the belief, narccissism. Proponents of religious beliefs do not typically respond to reason since their belief itself is not based in reason. As a result standard defensive tactics rely on the emotional dependence of the questioner and include but are not limited to:
Tone Policing - "You didn't say that very nicely so you're wrong."
Appeals to Experience - "Well you just don't understand because you don' have my experience but I'm right"
God of the Gaps - "You don't know how A is connected to B, therefore I'm right."
And the more direct, honest methods of question dodging, censorship, and violence.
However, what I AM saying is that IF the survivors CHOOSE to remain in that state of 'darkness' for longer than is necessary, possibly many years on, allow ego to wallow in pity for a lifetime, I do feel very strongly that this behaviour will have a big negative effect on people they might be close to, as well as themselves! If they die in that state they will not find themselves miraculously free from the darkness that THEY attach to THEMSELVES. Jurgen Ziewe feels that this is a very important point to make, he wrote Vistas of Infinity with this point specifically in mind.
Definitely true, however one question remains... who gets to decide how long someone can remain in a state of "darkness", whatever that even means, before it becomes "unneccessary?"
I too am strong. I have overcome my own difficulties in life. So you are blind? Does that give you the right to be angry at words on a page? I am disabled. Is your anger caused by your own disability?
I don't actally care about the words on the page but even if I was angry at them I would have the right merely because I have the ability to be. I would certainly admit that the blindness makes me angry, however I focus that anger into more productive action. So it's hard for me to tell if it's really anger or not.
I don't even know what you mean when you state "The end justifies the means eh?"
If people are just playing their part, if it's all just a "learning experience" that is somehow "neccessary" by some external thing's definition, then you can justify absoplutely anything and call it a learning experience. Thus, the end of learning love or whatever justifies the means of torture that were used in getting there. It is an argument that has been used to justify many things historically, slavery, genocide, general prejudice, by stating that the perpetrators were doing it "for the good" of their victims.
And yes I am loving!!!! I do have empathy. Have you?
Assuming you mean empathy a in "the capability to feel someone elses feelings" then yes and that's why I will always attack bad logic. I've seen it used so many times in an oh so loving voice to blame victims for being victims that I no longer bother with the fake niceties of politeness and go right to the heart of the argument.
If you mean empathy as in "the ability to care about another person's feelings." which I believe is technically the definition of sympathy, then yes. Because no one
deserves to have things happen to them merely because they lacked the power to avoid it. I won't patronize people by even suggesting that there could be some external "good" reason for why they are suffering. I won't dehumanize them by suggesting there might be a possibility that they could be some cog in a greater machine chugging towards some ultimate universal purpose. I will instead acknowledge their personal feelings and
their personal reasons for those feelings.
If someone or something believes they are intrinsically superior to others, that they have a right or duty to bestow upon others "life lessons" simply because they have the power to, then as far as I'm concerend, such entities deserve to be stamped down and ground into the dirt the same way they do to others. Surely, if it's what they truly believe, they won't have a problem with taking their own medicine.
Nobody objectively
deserves or
needs to go through anything at all.
You are making the mistake of thinking that I don't think this life is very serious, because we're 'playing a part'. We are playing a part, a very serious part! That doesn't mean that I should just shrug off difficulties during this life, it does very definitely mean that I should make the best of this life, and not stay in the strangled darkness of our own making. I believe that 'suffering' is a blessing, a chance for growth, it is up to US, not God, not those around us, to make the best of things, however bad they might be. Yes, I 'believe' this, I'd even go so far as to say I 'know' it to be true from personal experience. Let's say it's MY truth. 'Good little determinist object' couldn't be further from what I think. So calm down and try to feel what I'm saying instead of making half arsed assumptions.
Most of this I actually agree with however nothing in here demonstrates that we are in fact playing a part for anything or that there is any seriousness about it. But let's assume for the sake of argument that we are.
If it's coming from something external then it can't be for our benefit. Only the benefit said outside thing believes would be good for us. Stuff like this is where my problem with love and light rhetoric always lies, it sounds so good, it sounds like it makes sense... until you get to the god or source part. Then its true face is revealed, a glorified master/slave relationship.
The very fact that you asked me to "feel" your argument demonstrates how little of one you have.
No, I make no apology if what I write doesn't seem logical, possibly it isn't. Reality doesn't demand logic, it might seem to you that it does. We have a difference of opinion -so what? And I don't even remember trying to answer any such 'direct questions'. I was only offering my own thoughts, if you don't like them, leave them! No need to get upset with me. In fact I was only trying to make my thought clear to Hypermagda, trying but obviously failing. Ok, I hear you both loud and clear.
I will not leave a belief system lay just because the belief holder's precious feelings might get hurt if I ask a few questions.
People actions are inexstricably tied to their worldviews. Beliefs must be challenged, ripped apart, put through the scrutiny of the free market of ideas. If they are given special consideration because someone's feelings might get hurt those beliefs can fester and mutate into things like jihadism and every other religion on the planet that has ever advocated genocide and world domination, censorship, etc. Effectively putting your own feelings above those of others. Complete narcissism.
Your feelings are irreleveant. My feelings are irrelevant. I not only expect people to question me as hard and as harshly as I question you and others, I outright
invite it. My worldview will be as close to reality as possible or it won't be there at all.
To get such an aggressive reply was not necessary or helpful. The 'stab your eyes out to give you ....' was ugly and dark. That alone would have prevented me from liking his post.
And yet you seem to take a very neutral stance to the very real events that did actually happen out in the real world that are very much worse than the hypothetical I described. "Ugly and dark" events that those people didn't get the option to just ignore as you did with my hypothetical. Practically apologizing for them by portraying them as people just playing their parts and learning things for "reasons." Yet, I'm the one being patronizing? You didn't even attempt to address my hypothetical for emotional reasons which completely damns your argument. I use such extreme examples for exactly this reason. To point out how utterly ridiculous and
insulting it would be to walk up to someone who's just gone through some terrible atrocity and go "Oh hey it's okay, this is all just a big learning experience. It's all so that you can learn to love because you're just part of this source that already knew how to love but boke itself apart to learn how to love again." Or whatever reason you'd like to slot in there.
And yet you want me to feign politeness for the sake of
your feelings regarding an
internet discussion? It would be at the expense of someone elses feelings regarding very real, tangible events and I'm not going to do that. You say you're not trivializing it but your arguments don't appear to match with that statement.
No douchebag or source? Well, I disagree.
Based on what? You've provided literally nothing to back up this belief, you can say that you "know" it but you could say that for anything. Just as a jihadist "knows" that killing a bunch of kids, raping a bunch of kids, generally killing or raping anyone they don't like is the right thing to do.
In the end you are left with a contradiction. If there is an external anything influencing/controlling/determining all of this as your "playing the part" god, and source arguments imply then life arguably doesn't even exist. Everything's on a track it can't deviate from. No learning can possibly take place in such a system.
If however there is no top down entity/purpose at play then these people are acting as individuals from their own individual experiences, values, and goals. and nothing else. Learning may occur but there is no grand spiritual reason or purpose behind it.
You appear to seek to combine these two diametrically opposed ideas into one. Resulting in an implicit belief that existence is a totalitarian indoctrination center where individual souls with free will are put through specific life events to "teach" them things by an obscenely powerful entity capable of dictating the limits of their reality. Reducing people to machine learning programs that are used as tools by some more powerful entity for its own purposes. And you appear to believe this would be a good thing.
There's a greek story that I remember that I might've posted on this forum before. I can't remember the exact name of the guy but it goes like this: There's a guy named Pygoras who claims to have a bed that will fit anyone. So people come from all around to try out this guys bed. Some people are too tall for the bed, so Pygoras cuts off their feet. Some people are too short, so Pygoras bind's their arms and legs, breaking them, stretching and maiming them to make them fit. This process continues for every person who tries his bed. The bed fits everyone because Pygoras changes the person to fit the bed.
External, objective life purposes twist people into broken versions of themselves. Manipulating them into torturous obedience out of the interplay of fear and reward. People will do or say anything to stop the torture. They will even twist their own beliefs until they think that they're not really being tortured. Always at their own expense and/or for the benefit of the manipulator. I will never stand by and allow such a thing to go uncontested. It doesn't matter how nice it sounds, or how good it feels, it doesn't make it true or neccessary.
People deserve the choice to be free, even though freedom can be messy. They deserve the choice to follow their own desires for their own sake unrestricted even though conflicts may be inevitable. People deserve the ability to care about their own lives simply because they have them, not be reduced to tools or toys for some god, source or anything else. Their existence may not have any meaning or specialness to reality. But they should at least have the capability to decide that their existence is special or meaningful to themselves. If such a capability does not exist, then I'll create it.
I don't "believe" any of what I said, I don't think there's a reason for any of it, I don't think it's good or would neccessarily result in anything good. I don't think it would have any tangible effect on reality at all, all my efforts would ultimately fade to nothing over time no matter what I acheived. I acknowledge it's nothing but my own personal desires that I follow for their own sake. I may not typically value any individual person's feelings beyond certain close friends but I do value the principle of those feelings. That's who and what I am. I want people to be able to be who and what they are, regardless of what it may be or result in. If there are conflicts, if people's desires oppose to such a degree that one decides the other can't exist, then power will determine who get's their way. Chances are those with the most accurate view of reality will be capable of attaining the most power and utilizing it the most efficiently.