| Author |
|
Dean 
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
 Posted: October 04 2014 at 09:18 |
 SteveG wrote:
Philosopher=no good. Nietzche=philosopher. Hence: Nietzche=no good. Just using the science that you treasure so much.
|
 Logic isn't your forte is it.
|
|
What?
|
 |
SteveG
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20503
|
Posted: October 04 2014 at 09:23 |
^Common sense is yours?
|
|
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: October 04 2014 at 09:24 |
|
Common sense isn't that common. Affirming the consequence fallacy however, is all too common.
|
|
What?
|
|
SteveG
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20503
|
Posted: October 04 2014 at 09:28 |
As long as you feel logical. I'm happy for you. 
Edited by SteveG - October 04 2014 at 09:30
|
|
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: October 04 2014 at 09:38 |
|
|
|
What?
|
|
SteveG
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20503
|
Posted: October 04 2014 at 10:07 |
SteveG wrote:
Philosopher=no good. Nietzche=philosopher. Hence: Nietzche=no good. Just using the science that you treasure so much.
|
A=B as C=A. Conclusion: C=B.
|
|
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: October 04 2014 at 10:43 |
*sigh*
The equation is correct but the logic you displayed in drawing the conclusion: "So Nietzsche' view of of christianity being a controlling and counter intuitive influence on mankind is of no consequence what so ever. " ...is not that logical equation. Your logic in forming that conclusion from my answer to "are they all a waste of time to you?" is incorrect.
But as I said:
....whatever.
|
|
What?
|
|
timothy leary
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 29 2005
Location: Lilliwaup, Wa.
Status: Offline
Points: 5319
|
Posted: October 04 2014 at 10:59 |
|
That would be a great band name..........The Whatevers
|
|
SteveG
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20503
|
Posted: October 04 2014 at 15:06 |
Dean wrote:
*sigh*
The equation is correct but the logic you displayed in drawing the conclusion: "So Nietzsche' view of of christianity being a controlling and counter intuitive influence on mankind is of no consequence what so ever. " ...is not that logical equation. Your logic in forming that conclusion from my answer to "are they all a waste of time to you?" is incorrect.
But as I said:
....whatever. |
Perhaps this will help: B is also equal to C. 
|
|
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: October 04 2014 at 15:53 |
So...
since B=no good and C=Nietzche
then
no good=Nietzche
o-kay...
...whatever you say chief.
|
|
What?
|
|
timothy leary
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 29 2005
Location: Lilliwaup, Wa.
Status: Offline
Points: 5319
|
Posted: October 04 2014 at 16:00 |
|
great forum entertainment....another noob takes on Dean in a ridiculous debate
|
|
Dayvenkirq
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 25 2011
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 10970
|
Posted: October 04 2014 at 21:08 |
timothy leary wrote:
That would be a great band name..........The Whatevers |
|
|
wilmon91
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 15 2009
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 698
|
Posted: October 04 2014 at 23:48 |
Dean wrote:
You went to a bad school. |
I
went to several schools during 12 years, had many t teachers , some
good and some bad. What school was missing was encouraging pupils to
look at what they are reading about from a distance, and to be able to
analyze ,critize and evaluate it as a whole. In that kind of thinking
you can find an interest and purpose for the subject, instead of just
reading for the sake of reading. It doesn't mean that pupils should
oppose what they are learning, but rather have the ability to look at it
from a perspective. And that's generally not part of school, regardless
if you attend a good or bad one. Humanism is about the human
individual, but school doesn't nurture people's individual thinking
enough, it is just urging them to follow a procedure.You learn very
valuable information, but you can't know about a subjects value until
you reflect on the subject as a whole. I think that is a missing part in
all schools whether good or bad.
Dean wrote:
wilmon91 wrote:
Science upholds the illusion that we
know a lot, if not almost everything there is to know.In reality, we
can safely assume that our knowledge is extremely small compared to "All
Knowledge". In other words, to only focus on what we know (science),
and forget about the unknown, is unwise. |
Actually, being serious. That is not what science upholds.
If you think that is what science upholds then you do not understand science.
It
also seems apparent that you have "cherry picked" small bits out of
several of my posts without really understanding what I was saying in
those contexts. |
So people are not under the impression
that humans know a lot, through science? I would assume that most
scientists would agree on that we know more than we've ever known
before. That means that we're always at the forefront of human knowledge
through science, which creates the illusion that science is the only
thing we need to rely on. If we try to diagnose some sort of illness,
and come up with a diagnose that seems to match the symptoms, the
patient is relieved to have found a name for the condition. But science
may be pretty clueless about the condition and its causes. But we rely
on what we know, that is what we have at our disposal, So our knowledge
is always 100% (of what we know). The unknown exists - but is
irrelevant, because we don't know it. Science is a continuing
process of gathering new information. So acknowledging what we don't
know is important. Science consist of the facts we have gathered so far,
plus ongoing research. Atheists would discourage people from
forming personal ideas and beliefs about big unknown questions which
science doesn't have a shred of information about, and instead limit
their thinking to only the sum of what science have established and the
current ongoing questions and research. That way you turn your back to
the bigger portion of reality, which is unknown. The unknown consist of
questions without answers.
Dean wrote:
Then as we developed we gained more knowledge so this "theory" of how
the heavens and the earth was created was rendered obsolete. The problem
for monotheism is that all the important messages that the holy-men had
woven into the "theory" were now on shaky ground, and when that is the
case then the whole house of cards is not looking too stable... if god
didn't create the world in six days then why keep the sabbath holy? |
That
reasoning assumes a literal interpretation of religious and spiritual
teachings. But it is metaphorical and symbolic language. So religion can
never be deemed to be on shaky ground unless you understand the meaning
of it first.
Dean wrote:
If
you want to be offended by what I believe then by all means please be
offended, but make sure you fully understand what I believe and then
make doubly sure you are offended for the right reason. However,
my beliefs are pertinent only to me and do not affect what other people
believe. Your belief are unchanged by what I think. |
I'm
not offended, I was just evaluating post-theism the way it appears to
me. And I got another thought: If post-theism is an attempt to to define
a belief that is distanced to the question of god-belief, it is not
achieved by inventing "post-theism", since it is still defined wholly
out of the god-belief question. It's like saying "my belief is: I don't
believe that."
Dean wrote:
For me this is the basis for tolerance. If
everybody spent less time being offended by what other people believe
then we'd all get along a lot better. (unless you are a racist
scum-bag... then you can f.o.a.d.) |
Yes,
tolerance is nice. But it's natural to want to offer your beliefs to
other people if you think it's important. If you think the world needs
more tolerance, you can write about such values and make it available to
other people. So when people are presented with someone's written
ideas, it will meet with their own ideas, and will cause reactions.
It
gets more complicated when those ideas become more specific about how
people should live their lives, and how society should be run. Then it's
politics. I think there is a need to separate the beliefs from the
consequences of those beliefs as a proposed way of life.The latter thing
can lead into politics which can be more sensitive to conflicts and bad
human behaviour.
Dean wrote:
If you think that science should give life meaning then you really do not understand science.. |
I don't think it should, or could, and that's why science can't
function as an alternative to religious or existential or life
conceptual ideas. That's why we need both science and concepts about
life, its values and purpose.
Dean wrote:
Nothing can tell you the meaning of life. You are born, you live life trying very hard not to be a complete dick, and you die. |
"Meaning of life" may not be the most interesting question, but we can
easily point out certain things and say that "this is meaningful, wereas
this is meaningless". Science don't deal with that.
Dean wrote:
wilmon91 wrote:
I just googled a bit from the Bible here: |
Good for you. Don't preach to me, if you want to quote scripture go to the christian thread. |
It
was an example though...trying to make a point. I'm not a christian, I
don't think I've quoted scripture before. But that text is an example of
something entirely different than what you read about in science. So
you can't approach it scientifically. It's like poetry. It's not
something science can work with. Still, that passage can be viewed as a
bit of knowledge if you believe it is true. But it's not the kind of
observed facts that science presents. It's another form of knowledge.
Atheists ignore most of the content in religion. It's only about proving Gods existence for them.
Dean wrote:
Do we raise our children as christians by telling them that god may or may not exist and he may be the truth or he may be a lie? |
Hehe....
interesting. I think it is probably not good for parents to teach
their children to believe in God. They can take the children to church
and "expose" them to religious things. And the whole point doesn't have
to be about deciding "I believe it" or "I don't".
Dean wrote:
wilmon91 wrote:
Children
should be given a chance to make their own beliefs. Religious messages
shouldn't be kept from children, but shouldn't be forced on them either.
|
Which is how I raised my daughter, so for all the words you have typed here this is the one and only thing we agree on. |
Nice!
Dean wrote:
I can tolerate god believers, philosophers however... |
Very
radical, I don't know what bad experience you've must have had with
philosophy. However, I think that if you acknowledge that wisdom/insight
exist and is attainable, you also have to believe in philosophy.
Otherwise you are left with nihilism, I guess.
Edited by wilmon91 - October 04 2014 at 23:51
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: October 05 2014 at 05:18 |
wilmon91 wrote:
Dean wrote:
I can tolerate god believers, philosophers however... |
Very radical, I don't know what bad experience you've must have had with philosophy. However, I think that if you acknowledge that wisdom/insight exist and is attainable, you also have to believe in philosophy. Otherwise you are left with nihilism, I guess. |
Why do you assume that if I don't like something or have no interest in something it is because I have had a bad experience with it? Why do you also assume that wisdom/insight is only attainable through philosophers? Why do you even assume that philosophers can offer wisdom/insight at all?
We took ancient "herbal remedies" and tested them - all that worked we called "medicine" - all that did not we called "vegetable soup" and/or "pot-pourri".
We took ancient "astrology" and tested it - all that worked we called "astronomy" - all that did not we called "superstition" and/or "mythology"
We took ancient "alchemy" and tested it - all that worked we called "chemistry" - all that did not we called "magic" and/or "nonsense"
We took ancient "philosophy" and tested it - all that worked we called "science" - all that did not we called "pseudo-science" and/or erm... "philosophy"
Every philosophical thought has a counter philosophical thought that opposes and/or contradicts it. There are no wrong answers in philosophy, there are no right answers, there are only questions. Everybody has a philosophy, it is a convenient word to describe what and/or how we think about everything, philosophy is every think but it is not everything. Philosophy is not knowledge, it is the love of knowledge, similarly philosophy is not wisdom, it is the love of wisdom.
We do not require philosophers to tell us how or what to think.
(nihilism is a philosophical doctrine, not that it is important to know that, it is merely an observation)
wilmon91 wrote:
Dean wrote:
You went to a bad school. |
I went to several schools during 12 years, had many t teachers , some good and some bad. What school was missing was encouraging pupils to look at what they are reading about from a distance, and to be able to analyze ,critize and evaluate it as a whole. In that kind of thinking you can find an interest and purpose for the subject, instead of just reading for the sake of reading. It doesn't mean that pupils should oppose what they are learning, but rather have the ability to look at it from a perspective. And that's generally not part of school, regardless if you attend a good or bad one. Humanism is about the human individual, but school doesn't nurture people's individual thinking enough, it is just urging them to follow a procedure.You learn very valuable information, but you can't know about a subjects value until you reflect on the subject as a whole. I think that is a missing part in all schools whether good or bad. |
Okay, you went to several bad schools.
wilmon91 wrote:
So people are not under the impression that humans know a lot, through science? I would assume that most scientists would agree on that we know more than we've ever known before. That means that we're always at the forefront of human knowledge through science, which creates the illusion that science is the only thing we need to rely on. If we try to diagnose some sort of illness, and come up with a diagnose that seems to match the symptoms, the patient is relieved to have found a name for the condition. But science may be pretty clueless about the condition and its causes. But we rely on what we know, that is what we have at our disposal, So our knowledge is always 100% (of what we know). The unknown exists - but is irrelevant, because we don't know it.
Science is a continuing process of gathering new information. So acknowledging what we don't know is important. Science consist of the facts we have gathered so far, plus ongoing research. |
...and you still don't understand science.
wilmon91 wrote:
Atheists would discourage people from forming personal ideas and beliefs about big unknown questions which science doesn't have a shred of information about, and instead limit their thinking to only the sum of what science have established and the current ongoing questions and research. That way you turn your back to the bigger portion of reality, which is unknown. The unknown consist of questions without answers. |
...and you still don't know what atheists want.
wilmon91 wrote:
Dean wrote:
Then as we developed we gained more knowledge so this "theory" of how the heavens and the earth was created was rendered obsolete. The problem for monotheism is that all the important messages that the holy-men had woven into the "theory" were now on shaky ground, and when that is the case then the whole house of cards is not looking too stable... if god didn't create the world in six days then why keep the sabbath holy? |
That reasoning assumes a literal interpretation of religious and spiritual teachings. But it is metaphorical and symbolic language. So religion can never be deemed to be on shaky ground unless you understand the meaning of it first. |
The old testament was interpreted as literal for most of its history, in fact for all of that time it was history. Conversion to an allegorical text is a modern interpretation to account for all its "errors".
wilmon91 wrote:
Dean wrote:
If you want to be offended by what I believe then by all means please be offended, but make sure you fully understand what I believe and then make doubly sure you are offended for the right reason. However, my beliefs are pertinent only to me and do not affect what other people believe. Your belief are unchanged by what I think. |
I'm not offended, I was just evaluating post-theism the way it appears to me. |
Erm. You thought that post-theism regarded those who believe in god or spirituality as 'silly', 'stupid' and 'primitive'. If you use those offensive words then you are saying that post-theism is offensive. If post-theism does not offend you then don't use words like 'silly', 'stupid' and 'primitive'.
wilmon91 wrote:
And I got another thought: If post-theism is an attempt to to define a belief that is distanced to the question of god-belief, it is not achieved by inventing "post-theism", since it is still defined wholly out of the god-belief question. It's like saying "my belief is: I don't believe that." |
Nope. Post-theism is not a belief (system). Post-theism will not answer any of your spiritual needs, it will not prepare you for what happens after you die, it will not tell you how to live your life, it will not provide answers, it does not address doubt or uncertainty.
Because English is a modern language it is the only language that was "created" wholly in a christian context, this means that many words had theological meaning before they were used in a secular context. 'Absolute' is one such word, originally it meant "existing independently and not in relation to other things" before it was used in any secular context to mean "unlimited, without restriction, unconditional, complete", it adopted these later meanings through connotation. 'Absolute' is derived from the past participle of 'absolve' (in Latin of course) meaning "to set free". The theological and secular meanings of 'absolute' are not interchangeable. 'Belief' is another such word that was originally used in a theological context ("faith") before it adopted different meanings in the secular world ("acceptance") and again, those meanings are not interchangeable.
You can believe that god exists and you can believe in god, you can believe that the devil exists but that does not mean you believe in the devil. Same word 'believe' but two different connotations and thus two different meanings. It is very rare to believe god exists without believing in god so in a theological context the two meanings have merged into one, believing in god implies that you believe that god exists, if you believe in god then you do not question whether god exists, you accept it to be true.
I know my daughter exists, this is not a belief. When I was teaching her to ride a bicycle I believed she could do it - that was not an absolute truth, I did not know whether she could ride a bicycle or not (she may have had some hitherto undiagnosed physical or psychological trait that made balance or coordination impossible for example; my mother was disabled, she could not ride a bike), I did not accept that my daughter could do it but I had faith in her ability to master the skills of balance and coordination required to operate a bicycle. However she believed she could not and she doubted her ability, so to encourage her I showed my belief in her ability to ride a bike, that is: my belief in her. Later when she went to University those same doubts arose in her but by showing my belief in her she started to believe in herself.
Theism and religion is not the belief that god exists. This is a modern connotation. If you believe in god you do not doubt that god exists. Agnosticism is the doubt, first in the ability of god and then (through implication) in the existence of god; it is the "If god did not create the universe in six allegorical days then does god exist?" doubt. Atheism is the progression of that doubt to its ultimate conclusion - that god does not exist so you cannot believe in god. Atheism is not a religion, atheism is the belief that everything can be explained without god(s); it would be (perhaps) untrue to say that atheism states that everything can be explained but not completely inaccurate. Spiritual nontheism (buddhism, deism, etc.,) essentially maintains the belief in the spiritual nature of 'belief' without the existence of god (or gods), some forms of christianity are nontheisic and they are all nonthesic religions. Post-theism is non-spiritual nontheism and therefore is not a religion, post-theism does not state that everything can be explained, it is the observation that thus far, everything that has been explained did not require belief in god(s) to explain it so concludes that anything that can be explained will likewise not require belief in god(s) to explain them and therefore all those things that cannot be explained (such as what happens after we die) will also not require a belief in god(s).
wilmon91 wrote:
Dean wrote:
For me this is the basis for tolerance. If everybody spent less time being offended by what other people believe then we'd all get along a lot better. (unless you are a racist scum-bag... then you can f.o.a.d.) |
Yes, tolerance is nice. But it's natural to want to offer your beliefs to other people if you think it's important. If you think the world needs more tolerance, you can write about such values and make it available to other people. So when people are presented with someone's written ideas, it will meet with their own ideas, and will cause reactions. |
Nothing wrong with that, but it is not an example of tolerance.
wilmon91 wrote:
It gets more complicated when those ideas become more specific about how people should live their lives, and how society should be run. Then it's politics. I think there is a need to separate the beliefs from the consequences of those beliefs as a proposed way of life.The latter thing can lead into politics which can be more sensitive to conflicts and bad human behaviour. |
Politics is the diametric opposite of tolerance.
wilmon91 wrote:
Dean wrote:
If you think that science should give life meaning then you really do not understand science.. |
I don't think it should, or could, and that's why science can't function as an alternative to religious or existential or life conceptual ideas. That's why we need both science and concepts about life, its values and purpose. |
If you think that science is [seen as] an alternative to religion then you really really really do not understand science.
Science is not a religion, it is a tool.
wilmon91 wrote:
Dean wrote:
Nothing can tell you the meaning of life. You are born, you live life trying very hard not to be a complete dick, and you die. |
"Meaning of life" may not be the most interesting question, but we can easily point out certain things and say that "this is meaningful, wereas this is meaningless". Science don't deal with that. |
Now you're getting it. 
wilmon91 wrote:
Dean wrote:
wilmon91 wrote:
I just googled a bit from the Bible here: |
Good for you. Don't preach to me, if you want to quote scripture go to the christian thread. |
It was an example though...trying to make a point. I'm not a christian, I don't think I've quoted scripture before. But that text is an example of something entirely different than what you read about in science. So you can't approach it scientifically. It's like poetry. It's not something science can work with. Still, that passage can be viewed as a bit of knowledge if you believe it is true. But it's not the kind of observed facts that science presents. It's another form of knowledge. |
Science does not address spiritual needs. That is not its purpose.
wilmon91 wrote:
Atheists ignore most of the content in religion. It's only about proving Gods existence for them. |
No they don't and no it isn't. Dawkins et al do not speak for all atheists, much of what they spout sounds like dorking to me.
wilmon91 wrote:
Dean wrote:
Do we raise our children as christians by telling them that god may or may not exist and he may be the truth or he may be a lie? |
Hehe.... interesting. I think it is probably not good for parents to teach their children to believe in God. They can take the children to church and "expose" them to religious things. And the whole point doesn't have to be about deciding "I believe it" or "I don't". |
Christian parents raise their children as christians and belief in god is central to that. Their religion states that it is their duty to do that, for example in the catholic church this is a vow they make during the marriage service: "Will you accept children lovingly from God, and bring them up according to the law of Christ and his Church?"
Edited by Dean - October 05 2014 at 09:35
|
|
What?
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: October 05 2014 at 05:38 |
Dayvenkirq wrote:
timothy leary wrote:
That would be a great band name..........The Whatevers |
|
|
|
What?
|
|
dr wu23
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 22 2010
Location: Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 20477
|
Posted: October 05 2014 at 10:11 |
timothy leary wrote:
great forum entertainment....another noob takes on Dean in a ridiculous debate |
Of course it's ridiculous....everyone knows Dean is always right.
|
|
One does nothing yet nothing is left undone.
Haquin
|
|
wilmon91
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 15 2009
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 698
|
Posted: October 05 2014 at 10:20 |
Dean wrote:
Why do you assume that if I don't like something or have no
interest in something it is because I have had a bad experience with
it? |
Because it is so incredibly radical, you are not
attacking "bad philosophy", you are attacking philosophy itself. It's
the same as being opposed to our basic need to know things, and
actually, it's hard to advocate science if you oppose philosophy,
because science depends on a theory of knowledge among other things.
Dean wrote:
Why do you also assume that wisdom/insight is only attainable through philosophers? |
I had a hunch that you should mention that. But I didn't say that wisdom is attainable only through
philosophy. But it needs to be a part of it, because wisdom requires
knowledge, and knowledge must be gained using reason.
Dean wrote:
Why do you even assume that philosophers can offer wisdom/insight at all? |
You
don't have to be a philosopher to practise philosophical thinking. The
only thing needed is the starting point, the desire to know. As soon as
questions are formed, you are dealing with philosophy.
Dean wrote:
We
took ancient "philosophy" and tested it - all that worked we called
"science" - all that did not we "pseudo-science" and/or erm...
"philosophy"
Every philosophical thought has a
counter philosophical thought that opposes and/or contradicts it. There
are no wrong answers in philosophy, there are no right answers, there
are only questions. Everybody has a philosophy, it is a convenient word
to describe what and/or how we think about everything, philosophy is
every think but it is not everything. Philosophy is not knowledge, it is
the love of knowledge, similarly philosophy is not wisdom, it is the
love of wisdom. |
As soon as you learn something and can
put it in a context, which creates an understanding, either right or
wrong, there is a philosophy about it in your mind, whether you have
expressed it to yourself and not. So the actual practise of "philospohy"
is only taking our understabndings and examine them further. And also
examining what we take for granted, which are philosophical presumptions. Science
I think parted from philosophy around a time when there emerged a
demand for proving and agreeing on things, and metaphysics for example
wasn't compatible with that. Side by side with philosophy there were big
breakthroughs in science fields such as physics. So science was
progressibng more as a unit while philosophy only went more complex and
split up into different theories. In a pragmatic sense, philosophy
didn't "produce" things like plains and cars and machines. I think that
separation was very sad though. We got into an age of materialism, and
there was/is a lot of things to discover in that contect of course,
beneficial to humanity, but it's not the only important context of
knowledge.
Dean wrote:
The old testament was interpreted as literal for most of its history, in
fact for all of that time it was history. Conversion to an allegorical
text is a modern interpretation to account for all its "errors". |
I
doubt it, but I'm not interested in the way people understood the
scriptures as much as the text itself and how it is supposed to be
understood. Most religious people are misinterpreting things, many are
brought up into religious traditions and customs were you don't question
things too much, that's my impression. It's both a culture and a mental
safety to rely on, but the truth of it have a deeper purpose.
Dean wrote:
Erm. You thought that
post-theism regarded those who believe in god or spirituality as
'silly', 'stupid' and 'primitive'. If you use those offensive words then
you are saying that post-theism is offensive. |
Well
that's just the way they look after having been relegated to something
part of the past. Nobody needs to be offended by it if they just ignore
it , or don't take it seriously. And they don't have to , since it seems
just like an opinion. I don't think it has to be made in to a complete
"-ism" though.
Dean wrote:
It is very rare to believe god exists without believing in god. |
I
doubt that there is a clear difference here. If I say "I believe in god
but I'm not religious", then it's the same as saying that "I believe
god exists".
Dean wrote:
in a theological context the two meanings have merged into one, believing in god implies that you believe that god exists, if you believe in god then you do not question whether god exists, you accept it to be true. |
Accepting to be true doesn't mean "claiming to know". Many religious
believers can go through periods of "doubt", and their faith is a
continuing cultivation of their "belief", which is a conviction whose
strength can vary a lot, from weak to strong. If they "knew" they
wouldn't have to work on their faith.
Dean wrote:
I know my daughter exists, this is not a belief.. |
But you don't have a complete understanding of what it is to know.
Dean wrote:
The theological and secular meanings of 'absolute' are not interchangeable. |
It
seems to me though that you can apply the theological definition to any
context involving the early definition without any contradictions , but
probably not the other way around. I guess they wanted to eliminate
the words "exist" and "things" to be less specific and more general.
Dean wrote:
Theism and religion is not the belief that god exists. This is a modern connotation. If you believe in god you do not doubt that god exists. |
I
don't think that is a static thing. It's like temperature. Something
can be hot, warm, luke-warm, cool or cold. Belief in god can have the
same range of degrees in conviction. And doubt can always be part of it,
even if you deny it to yourself. It's psychological, so it's about how
the mind works, so we have conscious parts and subconscious parts.
Someone can say "I'm doing what is best for me", but somewhere in the
mind there is an amount of doubt to this claim.
Dean wrote:
Spiritual nontheism (buddhism, deism, etc.,)
essentially maintains the belief in the spiritual nature of 'belief'
without the existence of god (or gods), some forms of christianity are
nontheisic and they are all nonthesic religions. . |
These
-isms are just categories that divides belief systems based out of one
differing characteristic. That won't necessarily capture the main
difference, it may not capture any difference at all. Buddhism have the
"brahma" and the "atma" and other concepts. I don't think such
categorizations are shedding light on the religions themselves. You can
always categorize by looking at how a religion is practised. But
religious practise doesn't have to say anything about the truth in its
teachings. So the -isms are not a product of religion, and "religion" as
a word is not a product of religion either.
Dean wrote:
Post-theism is
non-spiritual nontheism and therefore is not a religion, post-theism
does not state that everything can be explained, it is the observation
that thus far, everything that has been explained did not require
belief in god(s) to explain it so concludes that anything that
can be explained will likewise not require belief in god(s) to explain
them and therefore all those things that cannot be explained (such as
what happens after we die) will also not require a belief in god(s).Post-theism is
non-spiritual nontheism and therefore is not a religion, post-theism
does not state that everything can be explained, it is the observation
that thus far, everything that has been explained did not require
belief in god(s) to explain it so concludes that anything that
can be explained will likewise not require belief in god(s) to explain
them and therefore all those things that cannot be explained (such as
what happens after we die) will also not require a belief in god(s). |
It
just seems like an invention out of a fixation on "god". What has been
explained (through science) doesn't explain why we want to explain
things.It explains almost nothing about human consciousness which is the
foundation of our existence. Just because everything that science
established didn't require a god, doesn't mean that science will cover
all the needs of our thoughts. Stuff like ideals, values, goodness,
purposes. Of course, establishing facts with proof doesn't require gods -
that's the premise of modern science. To prove things, we can only use
what we have access to - and we don't have access to God. It seems like a
circular argument.
Dean wrote:
Politics is the diametric opposite of tolerance. |
But if you believe in society as a social construction, don't you have to accept politics??
Dean wrote:
If you think that science is an alternative to religion then you really really really do not understand science. |
I
am not the one who says that, but most atheists are, by setting up a
polemic relationship between religion and science, as if you choose one
thing or the other. I don't sympathize with that, and it was the first
thing I said in this thread.
Dean wrote:
Science does not address spiritual needs. That is not its purpose.. |
Exactly.
So it is insufficient for people - they need to believe in what they
value. And just to live life and cherishing it doesn't necessarily
require understanding, but if you value what you cherish, you believe in
those values. If a society represses the possibilities of such values,
the need rises to define and express those values and why they are
important. That is an investigation into what is meaningful, which may
lead to a "doctrine" or teaching, or philosophy, or poetry. Or politics ,
when it's developed into a social concept.
Dean wrote:
wilmon91 wrote:
Atheists ignore most of the content in religion. It's only about proving Gods existence for them. |
No they don't and no it isn't. Dawkins et al do not speak for all atheist, much of what they spout sounds like dorking to me.. |
Okay, nice that you disassociate yourself from those kind of guys though.
Dean wrote:
[, for example in the catholic church this is a vow they make during the marriage service: "Will you accept children lovingly from God, and bring them up according to the law of Christ and his Church?". |
Yes but maybe you don't have to make it so definite, but you could answer "Yes -( to the best of my beliefs)".
Edited by wilmon91 - October 05 2014 at 10:26
|
|
SteveG
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20503
|
Posted: October 05 2014 at 14:25 |
Dean wrote:
So...
since B=no good and C=Nietzche
then
no good=Nietzche
o-kay...
...whatever you say chief. |
That example was just for fun. Examine this proposition: Man A claims he is a Post Theist and insinuates that he has no regard or respect for any philosophers or their various schools of thought. Man B brings up famous philosopher named Friedrich Nietzche that is one of the forerunners of Post Theistic thought and claims that "God is Dead" because gods or god is no longer needed for human development, and more over, declared that Christianity is counter intuitive to human behavior and thought in various books such as The Gay Science, Beyond Good and Evil, and Thus Spoke Zarathustra; all of which would have backed up Man A's position. Man B feels that Man A changes the subject in order not to acknowledge similar beliefs of said philosopher and the possibility that Man B may present others philosophers with sympathetic views as well. Man B makes inane joke using mathematical equation in order to disengage the discussion and let Man A go in peace. But Man A will not let the diverting joke go. Man B just sighs.
Edited by SteveG - October 05 2014 at 14:41
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: October 05 2014 at 16:43 |
|
Man A yawns.
|
|
What?
|
|
Dayvenkirq
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 25 2011
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 10970
|
Posted: October 05 2014 at 17:06 |
|
What are we accomplishing here? Discussing logic intelligently and diplomatically or just mudslinging each other?
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
"Are you a humanist?" topic closed (to the edge)
Topic Options
