Godsuckers are just warped egoists and hedonists

[Comrade-Z]

I am an egoist and a hedonist. That means I do what I do out of perceived self-interest--I think I will gain pleasure and avoid pain, whether in the short or long term, or both, by doing what I do.

This philosophy tends to disgust religious people who don't like the idea of "living life for oneself." They think that one must live one's life "in the service of god."

Now, why is it that they think this?

They have settled on this course of action because they think that if they don't, then eternal and infitinite pain will ensue in hell (or even on Earth, if one is to judge by the old testament). Alternatively, if they live a life in the service of god now, there will be a huge eternal "payoff" in heaven in terms of happiness, love, pleasure, etc.

Thus, religious people do what they do out of selfishness!

If they weren't acting out of selfishness, then it shouldn't matter one bit to them whether god exists or not and whether or not they follow his supposed commandments. Whether they would get punished by god or not would be inconsequential.

I also want to raise another question:

We are probably all familiar with the "cherry-picking" godsuckers--those godsuckers who don't interpret their holy books literally and choose to ignore the really embarrassing and brutal parts.

When you ask them, "how do you determine which parts to follow and which parts to ignore?", how do they respond? They usually say, "You just have to use your own judgment."

So, wait a second: they are using their own judgment to evaluate the bible? Then how are they approaching the bible any differently than any other piece of text?

With any other piece of text, you read it, and if it makes sense to you (if its reasoning is sound, if there is mutual support and coherence with other reasoning and evidence you have come across, etc.), then you accept what the text says.

If the "cherry-picking" godsuckers are willing to open their holy books up to their own subjective evaluation, how can they still get away with according it "special status?

There's a part in Richard Dawkin's "Root of All Evil" video where he is interviewing a "liberal" priest. The priest says, roughly, that he believes in the resurrection, but doesn't believe that homosexuality is bad. When asked why he believes in the resurrection, he would probably say, "because the Bible says so." But wait, you aren't accepting what the bible is saying elsewhere. What he must really mean is that he has evaluated the bible with his own subjective reasoning, and the resurrection makes sense to him, but the commandments against homosexuality don't. For all practical purposes, the bible could be a high school textbook--you are treating it the same way. Stop affording the bible special status!!!

"Liberal" theology is both rationally and theologically bankrupt!

This also gets to the fundamental nature of reasoning itself. Even when reading the bible literally, you are using your own subjective reasoning because: 1.) you have decided that this holy book makes more sense than other holy books, and 2.) your mind is linguistically and semantically determining what the words of the bible mean.

So if it still comes down to individual subjective judgment, then how do religious people get away with affording any holy book special status or saying that they are doing what they do because "my holy book said so." No, you are doing what you are doing because (this particular) "holy book" said so, and you agreed. What this holy book said made sense to your own subjective judgment. You are treating your holy book like a high school textbook. Act accordingly! Enough of this "The Bible is a holy book" crap!

In short, we evaluate everything we come across subjectively. You can't help it. That's how reality works. Subjective reasoning is the ultimate authority. To pretend that anything else is the ultimate authority, such as God, The State, etc. is simply incorrect.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


In short, we evaluate everything we come across subjectively. You can't help it. That's how reality works. Subjective reasoning is the ultimate authority. To pretend that anything else is the ultimate authority, such as God, The State, etc. is simply incorrect.

Looks like you are another subjectivist trying to make an objective point.

So, if you are right, you are wrong.

And if you are wrong you are wrong anyway.

Either way, that suggests we should ignore what you said.

[Comrade-Z]

Looks like you are another subjectivist trying to make an objective point.

I'm not denying that, for all practical purposes, objective reality exists. What I'm saying is that how we as individuals arrive at our conception of objective reality inevitably depends on our subjective appraisal, using what we subjectively think to be objective reason.


Either way, that suggests we should ignore what you said.

No, the rational thing to do would be to evaluate what I said using your own subjective reasoning and decide whether or not what I described is truly what objective reality is.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


What I'm saying is that how we as individuals arrive at our conception of objective reality inevitably depends on our subjective appraisal, using what we subjectively think to be objective reason.

But how can you know this of others, if all you know is what you know individually?

For all you know, you could be the only person in human history who arrives at knowledge in the way you say.

And, I'd like you to say what you mean by 'objective reality', since I think that any attempt by you to specify what this means will trap you in an attempt to provide an objective definition of it, and thus self-destruct again.

Alternatively, if you provide a subjective definition, then that will be indistiguishable from 'subjective reality' and you will have told us nothing.


No, the rational thing to do would be to evaluate what I said using your own subjective reasoning and decide whether or not what I described is truly what objective reality is.

I have difficulty with the notion 'subjective reasoning'; I suspect you will not be able to say what this is either -- not without the help of objective logic.

But you can prove me wrong, if you like --, er...except you can't (since that would undermine much of what you said -- all you can do is record a subjective disagreement with what you subjectively thought I said; proof/disproof is unavailable to you).

[Comrade-Z]

For all you know, you could be the only person in human history who arrives at knowledge in the way you say.

Yes, I suppose that's infintesmally possible, but so improbable so as to make it not really worth seriously considering. It seems to me that that's not the case, judging from the evidence I've gathered in my life.


I have difficulty with the notion 'subjective reasoning'; I suspect you will not be able to say what this is either -- not without the help of objective logic.

Hmmm, maybe "subjective reasoning" was the wrong way to describe what I'm trying to say. What I meant was "individual reasoning."

Would you dispute that individuals exist and that their thought processes operate independently? (Unless you have a sort of Borg network where individuals' consciousnesses are directly connected or something). That's what I mean.

I'm not really trying to argue the whole subjective/objective thing. What I'm trying to say is that, in reality, nobody absorbes knowledge completely dogmatically. If we did that, we would accept every single thing we were told in life, including mutually exclusive knowledge claims. What I'm saying is that even people who appear to be thinking dogmatically (such as religious people) are still falling back on their own reasoning in order to decide what to "dogmatically" accept and what not to. Thus, I am saying that it is dishonest of them to fall back on "I'm doing this because this holy book says so." If they were honest, they would say, "I'm doing what I do because this holy book presented these things, and I think it makes sense." In that sense, their own reasoning is still the ultimate judge of what is true and false in reality.