I believe in different levels of heaven/hell and purgatory. I don’t believe a good hearted atheist goes to the same place as say a terrorist. It doesn’t have to be so black and white.

No, it doesn't have to be. But that's one thing that always bemuses me about religious beliefs: everyone has their own. It's really the ultimate buffet. Take what you like. Leave the rest.

I have three religious siblings (out of 5) and they have vastly different takes on the whole christian thing. But they all agree that I won't go to hell, even though according to all that's mentioned in their owners manual I will certainly be consigned to eternal torture, pain, and suffering.

The one part that always gets me is that anyone can wipe the slate clean by accepting jesus. Theoretically, Hitler could be up there if he just got right with the lord before he blew his brains out.

For me, even if you prove that god exists I might have to then believe in him but I certainly wouldn't worship him. He's not worthy of my adoration. F him.

That’s funny the hitler comment cause I was volunteering at a homeless shelter and I asked “so Osama bin laden could say “I accept Jesus” before dying, however not before loads of terrorism and goto heaven?” They said yes. I disagree. There is no easy path to heaven. You cannot proclaim you love God and then waste your life away. Those people goto a rainy place lol.

I said a prayer for you. Maybe you’ll become agnostic, idk. I prayed for God to come into your life.

I would say that truth and self deception are relevant to this thread, so I don’t see this as a derail.

Let’s say that earlier in my life when I felt unfulfilled, my impulse would be to binge eat. After several cycles of this over the years, I realized that this was an insufficient response, so I took a step back and decided that I was going to take the problem more seriously by engaging worldview, philosophy, science, etc rather than just following my impulses. I conceptualize this new response to the problem of feeling unfulfilled as truth seeking.

In this hypothetical, let’s assume that the empirical data, based on rigorous scientific study, concludes that the best way to fulfill the desire for meaning is an intimate, long term relationship and having 2 children. So, I do that because I follow the truth and this is what is true.

Fast forward to the present and suddenly I begin to feel that exact same feeling of being unfulfilled and feel the desire for meaning arising. I recall my protocol: resist the short term impulses and seek out truth. Then, I remember what the truth calls for, backed by rigorous science, and realize that I am already living in the truth. As a result, I suppress the arising desire for meaning. And I repeat this pattern ad nauseam.

Which is more true: the unfulfilled desire for meaning or the propositional, empirical, thought patterns which are in response? Can a desire be more true than our truthful propositions? In the hypothetical, is my suppression strategy based on what is empirically true mistaken? If so, how can it be unless the desire for meaning is more true.

You PRAY for me.... and I'll THINK for you.

I don't buy into the idea that one thing can be "more true" than another (it's either true or it isn't), but only propositions have truth value. I'd normally think this was a nitpick but you've asked similar twice now.

"The desire for meaning" isn't a proposition. It's a noun phrase. It doesn't have a truth value and so I'm not sure what you're trying to get at with this question. Is it whether it's important?

Its enough for me to believe there may be a universal power, a god if you like.

Religion becomes unbelievable when it comes to the bible or the koran and the ridiculous claims they make.

I've never looked at it that way and I don't think that's it's a choice between the two, maybe both are true.

I think that we desire meaning in our lives, it's a very human impulse to seek a purpose, a reason(s) for existing.... but I don't think that there is any meaning, no purpose, and no specific reasons, we just are. That creates a conflict, it's absurd, and Camus suggested that we deal with that by embracing it, so that's what I do, it works for me, I'm content that is no meaning to my life. Who cares...

When it comes to 'truth', I'm a skeptic, I'm not sure we can ever know what's true, but in the meantime, we can do our best to avoid having trivially false beliefs.

In the hypothetical I gave either the desire for meaning is going to be suppressed in favor of propositional truth or the rationalist is going to have to open himself up to more complexity and expand the idea of truth. By saying that truth is associated only with propositions, you are implying that my strategy of suppressing my unfulfilled desire for meaning is correct. I would encourage you to reread the hypothetical and reconsider whether suppression is actually correct.

So by more true do you mean more important? I can re-read it all day but I don't know what you mean.

Truth is something that only applies to propositions as far as I understand it. It's like asking me if happiness is true. "Happiness" is a noun, it doesn't have a truth value. Happiness is very important if that's what you're getting at, maybe more important than some propositions truth, but it isn't itself "true".

I agree with Camus that we should embrace the absurd rather than hide from the inconvenience of it. I would say that the idea of being content with no ultimate meaning is a type of philosophical suicide to use Camus words.

Faced with the absurd, Camus said the only real dilemma is whether or not one should commit suicide. Is life worth living if we have to cope with the absurd? I determined that the honest answer to the question is ‘no’ and that answering yes is prioritizing something other than truth. I would say that Camus didn’t answer his own proposed question honestly.

Truth obligates that we answer ‘no’ to the question, but because of the seriousness of that answer, truth dictates that we immediately seek to undermine that path. We hold our affirmation to suicide in one hand and we seek to undermine it in the other. For as long as there is unexplored possibility in life, then we should continue to try undermine the truth of suicide. This is a higher level of truth, a higher level of honesty, than being content with suppressing the desire for meaning. In my experience.

Truth becomes more demanding and requires more of us. It turns into a fire and leads us into hell. We are to become more masculine and grow up, while at the same time recovering the child like curiosity necessary to continue on.

I'm struggling to understand what he's saying too.

Once one understands the value of truth, then there is nothing more important than truth. Whatever is more important than truth can only be a higher truth.

Okay, but "desire for meaning" isn't true so I still have no idea what you're asking me.

It is true. One of us is stuck. There is nothing more productive to say at this point.

You said it's not a proposition, but only propositions have truth values. Noun phrases don't. It's like saying "Full" is true. There's no propositional content there to give a truth value.

.

That doesn't help me. I'm trying to understand you. I understand what it means to favour truth over a desire but then you said truth is more important than anything else so I can't make sense of that.

All I want to know is what it even means to say a noun phrase like "the blue mermaid" is true.

What you are asking me for is impossible. You are standing in the order of the known and you are wanting to make the chaotic unknown known and ordered while not moving.

When we are in the domain of propositions and hyper rationality, our awareness is centered in our head. The desire for meaning arises from below in the body, and the default is to suppress it and stay in our head. What I am proposing is an act of rebellion against that resistance. It has to be done using the will.

If someone is enslaved by that resistance, the resistance to venturing into the chaotic unknown, then they are stuck. Rebellion comes first. Psychological movement comes first. We can’t think our way out of it. I’m pointing to something, not trying to rationally convince you since that is impossible.

It's just amazing how this brand of Deepak Chopra pseudo philosophical babble comes to a stand still when someone asks what it means.

Projecting your self hatred towards me is predictable. Same with dismissing through straw man associations. It’s better to become male, betray yourself, and stop suppressing the truth.

It's not self-hatred. I think I'm quite patient but when someone starts to condescend to me I don't bother.

I ask you something very simple as to what you mean and you say "It's impossible". Well if it's impossible for anyone to discern its meaning then you're wasting everyone's time by asking us to read it.

Now THAT is an impressive "word salad" designed to sound deeply insightful but I find it devoid of meaning. For example:

1) "When we are in the domain of propositions and hyper rationality, our awareness is centered in our head. " : TRANSLATION: When considering things in a rational and logical manner, we use our brains. Uh.... YEAH! Do you want me to use my feet?

2) "The desire for meaning arises from below in the body, and the default is to suppress it and stay in our head. " : I guess I was right! He wants us to think with our pancreas!

It's just pseudo scientific meta-physical nonsense (in the literal meaning of the word "nonsensical").

Trying to hide foolish ideas behind convoluted language is cowardly.

I remember someone saying (Chomsky I think) that a lot of the time people don't really want to be understood. What they do is come across complicated science or philosophy and it's hard to read and sounds confusing and rather than understand the content they think "Oh, that's what smart stuff sounds like, I'll talk like that".

The tell being that all I asked was what it means for "desire for meaning" to be true and we hit a wall. It's "impossible" to answer that question.

I'm all up for discussing the weirdest topics but this is where I lose it.

I explained that it’s impossible from where you are positioned. I already described how to change your position. You then will probably say something like, “Why would I change my position, or change where I am standing, unless I am convinced your position is true?” Then I tell you that, while you may pay lip service to truth, you are not actually motivated by truth to the necessary extent otherwise you wouldn’t be stuck where you are.

Again, we either suppress the desire for meaning or we rebel against enslavement to propositional truth. The desire for meaning and the complacency of propositional truth cannot coexist. Desire implies movement toward that which the desire aims at. We can’t simultaneously move and stand still. The highest truth is dynamic, not static.