What constitutes a good life?

stevejazzx

PDN wrote: »

Scofflaw, we missed you while you were away fighting on the Lisbon Crusade. Who else would bring the Moomins into a theological debate?

Any other similar analogies? I've always thought Robin was a bit like the Groke. He slides into the Christianity forum spreading fear and leaving an icy trail behind him - but deep down he just wants to be loved (OK, I know the Groke was female, but that's a minor detail).

and you?...fillyjonk? and surely robin is more like snork than groke...?

PDN

stevejazzx wrote: »

and you?...fillyjonk? and surely robin is more like snork than groke...?

My body shape, sadly, is remarkably similar to that of a Moomin. I am sure that some posters here would see me as Moomintroll - with the emphasis on the last syllable.

So you can think of me as Moomintroll leading my dedicated congregation of Hattifatteners.

aidan24326

Hattifatteners? Moomintrolls? What the flurk?

Scofflaw

PDN wrote: »

My body shape, sadly, is remarkably similar to that of a Moomin. I am sure that some posters here would see me as Moomintroll - with the emphasis on the last syllable.

So you can think of me as Moomintroll leading my dedicated congregation of Hattifatteners.

Certainly the whole Hattifatteners = theists equation works well for atheists - the incomprehensible rituals, the seriousness, the thunderstorms thing. That would make robindch rather more a barometer raiding Hemulen than a Groke.

I suspect most of us see ourselves as Snufkin, though.

cordially,
Scofflaw

AtomicHorror

Scofflaw wrote: »

Certainly the whole Hattifatteners = theists equation works well for atheists - the incomprehensible rituals, the seriousness, the thunderstorms thing. That would make robindch rather more a barometer raiding Hemulen than a Groke.

I suspect most of us see ourselves as Snufkin, though.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Perhaps I'm showing my relative youth, but I have only the vaguest memories of what you're talking about. Freakish memories, at that.

Dades

I've never felt comfortable with the Moomins.

There's something not right about a creature that doesn't drink, smoke, has several wives and stops you on the street with a knapsack full of bibles to tell you about Jesus.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

I've always thought Robin was a bit like the Groke. He slides into the Christianity forum spreading fear and leaving an icy trail behind him - but deep down he just wants to be loved

Awwww... I can't think of a nicer compliment to wake up to than a globe-trotting religious preacher saying publicly that he's frightened of what I write -- I hadn't realized that you and the other religious posters took me so seriously! I'm flattered!

But don't view reality as an "icy trail". As the winds of maturity naturally dissipate the billowing fog of religious verbiage, the world becomes an endlessly entertaining, and a very bracing place. You'd like it, but you'll have to work to get here

Having grown up outside multi-channel land, the Moomins are new to me, so I'll avoid comparing them with boardsies. But personally, I had you down as something rather like the Sam the Eagle -- a splendidly self-important muppet who rarely receives the respect he hopes for, but hugely huggable all the same.

<hugs-to-all>

Zillah

I also think PDN is a splendidly self-important muppet :pac:

Dades

Zillah, much as this is all in jest - consider yourself warned.

For being obvious more than anything else.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Awwww... I can't think of a nicer compliment to wake up to than a globe-trotting religious preacher saying publicly that he's frightened of what I write

You wish! The only human being who makes me frightened is my wife.

aidan24326 wrote:

Hattifatteners? Moomintrolls? What the flurk?

The Moomin books were written by a Finnish woman, Tove Jansson, in the 40s, 50s & 60s. They still seem to be a big deal in Finland - you can see lots of Moomin stuff in shops in Helsinki. They even have a Moomin World theme park.

The books were primarily for kids but actually went much deeper, dealing with themes like depression & mid-life crisis. As a kid I sensed they were more real and less predictable than the usual crap that adults seem to think children should read.

robindch wrote:

Having grown up outside multi-channel land, the Moomins are new to me

No, no, no! We are talking books not TV. The Japanese TV version was a pale sanitised imitation of the books (as is usually the case). Disney have been trying to buy the rights to the Moomins for years, but the Jansson family have mercifully resisted the temptation to sell their legacy for a bowl of stew.

Zillah wrote:

I also think PDN is a splendidly self-important muppet

+1

Zillah

PDN wrote: »

As a kid I sensed they were more real and less predictable than the usual crap that adults seem to think children should read.

I also felt this PDN, I also.

kelly1

Scofflaw wrote: »

A question which has much more clearly defined answers for theists, but no clearly defined answer for atheists - what constitutes a good life?

It depends on what you mean by "good". Are you talking about morality or do you mean good as in fine wine and dining, good shoes, nice car etc?

pH wrote: »

From whose perspective?

A very immoral character may judge himself to have had a good life (in that his needs/wants/desired were very well sated) but others may judge it not to have been (in that his good life meant they suffered).

So to be clear are you asking what constitutes a good life as judged by the person living it or by those observing it?

Very good question. From the human point of view, goodness is very subjective isn't it?

Flamed Diving

Be happy, try not to hurt/annoy others. Simple.

kelly1

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Be happy, try not to hurt/annoy others. Simple.

So what makes us happy?

Flamed Diving

kelly1 wrote: »

So what makes us happy?

Depends on who ya ask.

kelly1

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Depends on who ya ask.

Which implies the question has no answer. There has to be a more objective answer surely??

Flamed Diving

kelly1 wrote: »

Which implies the question has no answer. There has to be a more objective answer surely??

No, there isn't. Now just get on with enjoying your life.

kelly1

Flamed Diving wrote: »

No, there isn't. Now just get on with enjoying your life.

Wow, profound.

Flamed Diving

kelly1 wrote: »

Wow, profound.

Sometimes, the simplest explanation is the best one.

kelly1

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Sometimes, the simplest explanation is the best one.

True, but isn't it significant that there is something in us that asks questions about the meaning of life and looks beyond ourselves for something superior. I think ultimately we're all aware of our short-comings and we yearn for something perfect if not in ourselves then in a supreme being.

Enjoyment can't be the ultimate good. If anything it leaves us empty and wanting more, just like drugs. Pleasure ultimately doesn't satisfy our craving for happiness.

Flamed Diving

kelly1 wrote: »

True, but isn't it significant that there is something in us that asks questions about the meaning of life and looks beyond ourselves for something superior. I think ultimately we're all aware of our short-comings and we yearn for something perfect if not in ourselves then in a supreme being.

Enjoyment can't be the ultimate good. If anything it leaves us empty and wanting more, just like drugs. Pleasure ultimately doesn't satisfy our craving for happiness.

Does you religion not offer you any pleasure/happiness?

kelly1

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Does you religion not offer you any pleasure/happiness?

Yes it often brings happiness. But that's not why I practice religion. To love God only for the gifts He gives is selfish and isn't love at all. Our ultimate happiness lies in doing God's will. Our selfish desires only bring harm and sadness.

Flamed Diving

kelly1 wrote: »

Yes it often brings happiness. But that's not why I practice religion. To love God only for the gifts He gives is selfish and isn't love at all. Our ultimate happiness lies in doing God's will. Our selfish desires only bring harm and sadness.

Right, best of luck with that.

Dades

kelly1 wrote: »

So what makes us happy?

That's a completely different question to the OP, and another one that is completely subjective.

kelly1

Dades wrote: »

That's a completely different question to the OP, and another one that is completely subjective.

I know but I was asking Flamed to elaborate on his/her answer to the original question ie. where s/he said "Be happy...".

aidan24326

kelly1 wrote: »

So what makes us happy?

For you it seems to be living a life that you feel will please some imaginary(imo) being. But you know what? That's your choice and you're entitled to it. I and others here would disagree with you but if you're happy then good luck to you. That only shows the subjectivity of the question itself.

Scofflaw

aidan24326 wrote: »

So what makes us happy?

For you it seems to be living a life that you feel will please some imaginary(imo) being. But you know what? That's your choice and you're entitled to it. I and others here would disagree with you but if you're happy then good luck to you. That only shows the subjectivity of the question itself.

That's the theist advantage I outlined in the first post - kelly1 has a reasonably well-defined target to aim for, and if he hits that target, then by the judgement of Catholics (including himself) he has lived a good life. Not only that, but as far as Catholics are concerned, this is the only right way to live a good life.

For an atheist, I think the issue is the awareness that it's a matter of choice.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Rev Hellfire

Perhaps I'm missing something here, but how does a 'theist' have an advantage over an atheist/agnostic when it comes to having a 'good'/fulfilling life?

If anything it could be argued that they will squander this one in the hopes of securing a better one on the next round. And we all know how the futures markets can sometimes not work out.

Dades

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Perhaps I'm missing something here, but how does a 'theist' have an advantage over an atheist/agnostic when it comes to having a 'good'/fulfilling life?

I think Scoff was suggesting that they have an advantage in how they define a "good life". Perhaps in that sense it makes it easier to live it, as there's no ambiguity as to your purpose, though I'm not sure how much water that holds.

i.e. Noel has no problem decribing what constitutes a good life as it is simply one that follows the teachings of the church, whereas every non-believer here has pretty much agreed it is a subjective matter, albeit with some shared notions. But we still have to make out own minds up as to the legacy we're going to leave.

Scofflaw

Dades wrote: »

I think Scoff was suggesting that they have an advantage in how they define a "good life". Perhaps in that sense it makes it easier to live it, as there's no ambiguity as to your purpose, though I'm not sure how much water that holds.

i.e. Noel has no problem decribing what constitutes a good life as it is simply one that follows the teachings of the church, whereas every non-believer here has pretty much agreed it is a subjective matter, albeit with some shared notions. But we still have to make out own minds up as to the legacy we're going to leave.

Exactly - I am, unsurprisingly, working from the premise that there is no such thing as an objectively 'good' life. The theist cannot therefore be described as "wasting" their life, as long as they judge themselves to be leading a good life (in which they are supported by other theists) - indeed, the only person who can really describe a theist as wasting their life is another theist.

cordially,
Scofflaw