Perhaps so. But that's not what Intricate Mystic has stated which was what my post was addressing. As well, are you so certain that the atheistic artists that IM is so quick to impugn, don't have any underlying messages they're also attempting to impart on the populace? Do you know for fact that in 2011 years from now, one or more of these artists won't be revered by millions or billions as pioneers of [insert theme]?Suffering and ugliness is present in this image and others like it. But, that is not only what is present. There is a reason why such images undeniably bring hope to millions.
It is all about the difference whether something is beautiful or whether you just find it beautiful.I for one am still waiting for the connection between atheists (solely by virtue of their atheism) and some seemingly incapability of grasping what is "beautiful" and "hopeful" and "positive"
I really don't understand what one has to do with the other.
It's not that atheists can't love truth and beauty. It's that they have no reason to love truth and beauty. It's just a preference.
It is all about the difference whether something is beautiful or whether you just find it beautiful.
http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44108&p=1489679&viewfull=1#post1489679Would you mind elaborating on this? I'm still not following
(Sorry if I'm being heinously Sensorish right now, but Ni and Ne are not at all my strong suits I'm afraid).
It is all about the difference whether something is beautiful or whether you just find it beautiful.
The difference to me tinker: Either you, personally, feel something is beautiful or good or something higher than you ordains it to be beautiful. The thing higher than you personally feels it to be beautiful or good, because there is no other basis than the arbitrary whims of the higher being. Basically, it adds another step but doesn't avoid the same conclusion. Either morality and beauty are the baseless assertations of a man or they are the baseless assertations of God.
Unless beauty and morality are above God, in which case there is an Uber-God, which also needs a higher source to make beauty and morality mean anything besides baseless subjective ideas, ad infinity.
To me, it's a way of making no difference seem like a difference.
The difference to me tinker: Either you, personally, feel something is beautiful or good or something higher than you ordains it to be beautiful. The thing higher than you personally feels it to be beautiful or good, because there is no other basis than the arbitrary whims of the higher being. Basically, it adds another step but doesn't avoid the same conclusion. Either morality and beauty are the baseless assertations of a man or they are the baseless assertations of God.
Unless beauty and morality are above God, in which case there is an Uber-God, which also needs a higher source to make beauty and morality mean anything besides baseless subjective ideas, ad infinity.
To me, it's a way of making no difference seem like a difference.
If God says "killing and skinning babies is now moral", then it is, by the grace of God, moral. Every aspect, from the mindset of the prepetrator to the baby's experience, can be the same, but it is now moral because God with his power makes it so. Now, maybe it can make morality and what it wants is now so, but where in this equation is God's morality not arbitrary morality?I agree with the conclusion but not the reasoning.
A god of this sort presumably has the power to make something absolute and non-arbitrary, unlike a person. No chain is required.
Case in point, honey coating reality. Which one of us is really trying to deny our humanity.
On an off note, I recommend that you read Anton LaVey's The Satanic Bible. That dude sure likes to embrace his own humanity and all the urges that comes along with it.
It appears that ugliness, suffering and hopeless artforms don't solely reside with atheists. Which came first, the cart or the horse? How often do you see this symbol of suffering and martyrdom depicted in theist art or pretty much stamped indelibly...everywhere?
If God says "killing and skinning babies is now moral", then it is, by the grace of God, moral. Every aspect, from the mindset of the prepetrator to the baby's experience, can be the same, but it is now moral because God with his power makes it so. Now, maybe it can make morality and what it wants is now so, but where in this equation is God's morality not arbitrary morality?
I think there are some Atheists who would be heart broken if everyone became Atheist. They would have no one to look down on and feel superior too! It would be tragic.
T
The sweeping judgments and dismissals are fast and furious in this thread.
What I see is some dude being tortured with millions of people celebrating his death as a martyr. To me martyrdom is as equally selfish as suicide since you don't have to live through the fallout of your death and see the pain in the eyes of people who loved you.This depicts suffering beyond belief but it is beautiful and full of hope. It is beautiful because Christ's death as a healthy man around the age of 30 could have been avoided, yet he chose to undergo unimaginable pain, suffering, humiliation, rejection, and loneliness so that we can be forgiven for our sins. It was the ultimate act of selflessness.... the antithesis of a "life focused on self-indulgence". It is full of hope because Christ died but rose from the dead. He was resurrected and triumphed over death for eternity. He is alive and present in the here-and-now of our lives if we open our hearts, minds, and souls to him.
Not going to debate about Buddhism. The concept remains the same. If depictions of some dude being tortured are beautiful due to the symbolic nature of their martyrdom then it would be logical and rational to believe the same of another martyr who's set himself on fire for his cause and beliefs.Jenaphor, Buddhism is not theistic. It's only slightly contradictory to be a theistic Buddhist, as the only anti-theistic doctrine is the encouragement of apatheism, that whether god exists or not doesn't matter (i.e. if you focus on who or what fired the poison arrow, or where it came from, you will die of the poison before getting your answer. Instead focus on curing the poison.)