"Are you a humanist?" topic closed (to the edge)
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Topics not related to music
Forum Name: General discussions
Forum Description: Discuss any topic at all that is not music-related
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=99841
Printed Date: April 29 2024 at 06:48
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: "Are you a humanist?" topic closed (to the edge)
Posted By: Darious
Subject: "Are you a humanist?" topic closed (to the edge)
Date Posted: September 27 2014 at 03:22
|
Which is something I don't entirely understand, really. I just wanted to contribute to this topic, support my fellow prog admirers, who are not worshipping gods, but I cannot, because it is now "closed". And all that despite growing humanist community worldwide in general and a progressive decline in supernatural beliefs! Yes, there are some troubles in and around those Arab worlds at the moment, and we currently witness a lot of non-sensical killings in the name of one of them gods, but America and its allies are trying to sort this out. Yesterday I read about woman's beheading in Oklahoma due to some christian-muslim argument - when will this finally end? Now, if I may kindly ask, and as an annexe to the closed topic - which of you support which of the following two options: A: The topic was closed through the act of god. B: The topic was conveniently closed by one of us, to prevent further contributions to it, so it won't "bump up" and disturb believing hearts. So, are you a humanist or not? Check below for the answers and you might find out that you are, actually, a humanist. Although you might never knew it! If you went for an A: People who believe this are believers, or sort of "goddists" (they believe in god(s)) Your faith is rather strong, in god you trust! If you went for a B: People who support this idea could generally be pigeon-holed as non-believers, or atheists (according to christians), or infidels (according to muslims), or humanists (they believe in humans, aren't they?) In humans therefore is your trust. You're very likely a humanist. So what? Nothing, just saying. BTW, does anyone know what happened to mystic fred, who originally started the topic? He's not around since June 2013 and his contributions to the forum were quite valuable
------------- Writing about truth is a little bit like getting your dick out in public and hoping no one laughs (Steve Hogarth) |
Replies:
Posted By: infocat
Date Posted: September 27 2014 at 12:20
God probably smited him.  I don't care for the term humanist. But I do not believe in supernatural beings. ------------- -- Frank Swarbrick Belief is not Truth. |
Posted By: Triceratopsoil
Date Posted: September 27 2014 at 12:53
| im a people too |
Posted By: Vompatti
Date Posted: September 27 2014 at 13:15
| tl;dr: no |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 27 2014 at 13:55
There is no god, only science. The science is that all topics lock automatically if they are inactive for a period of time. There is a perfectly reasonable explanation for this policy but being human and not a machine means that I have forgotten what that reason is. Therefore, the scientific answer, the only answer, and the actual answer is: C: The topic closed automatically after a period of inactivity. The last post in the thread was 20 October 2009 at 20:01 GMT, since this was 155,865,600 seconds or 4 years 11 months 8 days ago it locked automatically.  ------------- What? |
Darious wrote:Posted By: Argonaught
Date Posted: September 27 2014 at 14:08
Our inability to comprehend and explain certain phenomena with our existing vocabulary and knowledge is neither absolute, nor necessarily permanent. Such phenomena may appear supernatural at one time, but it doesn't make them unnatural or unreal. Only 120 years ago, if you tried to explain to a learned scientist the idea of the implosion-type nuke, he'd tell you that .. - It's impossible to "make" a non-existing element plutonium from uranium. - It's impossible to wipe out a few square miles of terrain by compressing an orange-size ball of plutonium (even if it existed) with high explosives And that would be only 50 years before the Trinity test. |
Posted By: Darious
Date Posted: September 28 2014 at 07:51
Agreed, although before science as it is today, god and religion were early "science". For an ancient man to find an immediate answer for burning questions, the likes of why the sky is blue, why there are lightnings, there was always a simple answer - god created it like this. Religion also helps with issues like afterlife and bereavement. I therefore think that creating god and religion by a man was a part of human's evolution to make life easier. I went today for an inaugural Sunday Assembly in my area (Bournemouth, UK) and it was fabulous. Lots of entertaining and inspiring stuff. And all that without worshipping "the great architect of the universe" and his relatives. Local christians and muslims call those assemblies an "atheist church", but it's not only for atheists, but for everyone, not only those looking for an alternative. I know such assemblies are taking place in London since a while now, and they proved to be quite successful, but it was the first time down in Bournemouth. Now I will need to find some music for them as a background theme. Lady Fantasy, you think..? ------------- Writing about truth is a little bit like getting your dick out in public and hoping no one laughs (Steve Hogarth) |
Posted By: dr wu23
Date Posted: September 28 2014 at 09:20
|
I'm agnostic and attended a Unitarian Church for many years where humanism was a central tenet for many who attended. I do believe in most humanistic ideas but I keep an open mind about the possibility that science might not be able to explain all aspects of reality. That doesn't mean I promote 'supernatural' explanations or Theistic ones but I simply don't know the answers to everything.
background for anyone who needs an update on humanism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism" rel="nofollow - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism ------------- One does nothing yet nothing is left undone. Haquin |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: September 28 2014 at 10:37
|
^This A+ ------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State. |
Posted By: Darious
Date Posted: September 28 2014 at 14:51
I'm more optimistic in this matter. Providing the conflict between religions won't mess up too much in the world and won't drag us down back to medieval ages, the science will keep on developing and progressing. There will in consequence be less and less questions left without answers, even if there arise even more new questions on the way. To be honest, the fact that we don't know answers to everything today doesn't necessarily mean this might also be the case in future
------------- Writing about truth is a little bit like getting your dick out in public and hoping no one laughs (Steve Hogarth) |
Posted By: dr wu23
Date Posted: September 28 2014 at 22:06
 ------------- One does nothing yet nothing is left undone. Haquin |
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: September 28 2014 at 22:19
|
I don't know. I think whatever I've heard about "humanism" sounds a lot to me like fluffed-up atheism. I guess it doesn't help that the language is so murky and misrepresented. I am a non-believer in all things divine. I have I guess what you could call "faith" that scientific progress will lead us to a better life. I believe all sorts of people can and frequently do good things, and I think it is a good idea to work for a better world. You tell me what that makes me. ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: Argonaught
Date Posted: September 28 2014 at 22:25
This is the only thing a mortal can honestly state about themselves. Would you agree, though, that declaring there is no God because i don't believe in such things would be as intellectually arrogant as insisting that there is God, purely because I choose to believe it? |
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: September 29 2014 at 00:39
That's pretty much my position, so long as the science is coming from a good place. Science in the wrong hands and with the wrong motivations could be the death of us all. ------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy! |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 29 2014 at 03:32
Nope. The only reason any human is aware of the concept of god(s) is because another human told them that. That's it. No other reason. In this 250,000 year old game of Chinese Whispers we are all supposed to believe that at the beginning of this chain of a human telling another human telling another human telling another human telling another human telling another human telling another human telling another human ...telling another human about the existence of magical beings that no one can see or touch are actual magical beings that no one can see or touch. All the evidence suggests that it's humans all the way down. Now we "know" that a lot of these magical beings that no one can see or touch did not really exist, in our enlightened age we "know" that Ra, Horus, Isis, Apollo, Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, Demeter, Athena, Hestia, Artemis, Ares, Aphrodite, Hephaestus, Hermes, Feronia, Minerva, Novensides, Pales, Salus, Fortuna, Fons, Fides, Ops, Flora, Vediovis, Saturn, Sol, Luna, Vulcan, Summanus, Larunda, Terminus, Quirinus, Vortumnus, Lares, Diana, Lucina, Perseophone, Baccus, Airmed, Belenus, Borvo, Brighid, Grannus, Baldaeg, Erce, Gēat, Helith, Wuldor, Thor, Freya, Odin/Wodin, Loki, Eostur, Pan, Ceres, Kali, Sedna, Quetzalcoatl, Tlaloc, Xolotl, Xipe-Totec and Hotu Matu were all "mythological" and that they were created by humans. It is not intellectual arrogance to insist that these gods do not exist and that they never existed. We don't doubt their existence or non-existence, we are not agnostic about them, we did not stop believing nor did we rejected them, we out-grew them and we rendered them obsolete. We no longer needed to believe that the sun was carried across the sky by a god or that the wind was created by another god, as an explanation for those natural phenomenon a god was obsolete. We now "know" that all the humans telling other humans telling other humans telling other humans telling other humans... telling other humans about the existence of Horus, Isis and Ra were not telling the truth, they were not being dishonest because they truly believed those gods existed, even if at some point in the dark uncharted ancient history of Egypt the human at the beginning of the chain must have woken up one morning and decided that the magical power that makes the sun rise every day shall be "Ra".... and has the head of a falcon (so he probably should have decided not to eat cheese before going to bed too). He wasn't a liar or the deliberate fabricator of a myth, he honestly believed that was true, and he told other Egyptians and in the absence of a better explanation, they believed him. Most christians no longer believe that the Devil/Lucifer/Satan exists as a demonic creature (or creatures) and that hell is an actual place. Most followers of the Abrahamic religions no longer believe that the "historical" events described in the first few books of bible actually happened - for example they believe that the Garden of Eden and the Deluge are allegorical rather than factual. They do not believe that the two most epic and spectacular events staged by their god actually happened... this is like accepting that David Blaine cannot really levitate but really can push a cigarette through a solid coin (while admitting he's quite good at card tricks). So, not every christian is a fundamentalist and those that are not are not agnostic. So why is doubt the only honesty? It is honesty to believe in a god if that is what you believe. It is honesty not to believe in a god if that is what you believe. Neither position is born out of arrogance, intellectual or otherwise. I am not a theist, a deist, a pantheist, an agnostic nor an atheist: I am a nontheist, moreover, I am a post-theist. I believe we are approaching the stage in human development and understanding of our environment where we no longer need to believe that all the things we do not understand or cannot explain require a god to explain them. We may never be able to find an explanation for everything, in fact I postulate that it is impossible for us to explain everything. I do not so much reject gods and other magical entities as the explanation for those unexplained things as believe that they are fast becoming obsolete as an explanation. That is honesty, not arrogance. ------------- What? |
Posted By: Darious
Date Posted: September 29 2014 at 06:37
That's one of them things that are 100% sure. Even when science is developing at franticly faster and faster pace. But we will sort of "survive" through our children, and they will witness all them miracles for us :)
------------- Writing about truth is a little bit like getting your dick out in public and hoping no one laughs (Steve Hogarth) |
Posted By: Darious
Date Posted: September 29 2014 at 06:42
I won't my friend, but they would happily classify/pigeon-hole you as a potential "multiculturalist". Unfortunately, according to the current German chancellor, who gave multiculturalism a lot of chance and time, "multiculturalism doesn't work". I think Britons also realised this, they are just not bold enough, like Germans are, to admit it. ------------- Writing about truth is a little bit like getting your dick out in public and hoping no one laughs (Steve Hogarth) |
Posted By: Darious
Date Posted: September 29 2014 at 06:49
Oh man, wow. I think you have just nailed it!
------------- Writing about truth is a little bit like getting your dick out in public and hoping no one laughs (Steve Hogarth) |
Posted By: dr wu23
Date Posted: September 29 2014 at 10:24
Not sure I would say it's arrogant as a rule, though I have met some atheists who are.
There's no way for us to know conclusively if there is anything 'other' so that's why I think for now , for me, agnosticism is the only tenable position. ------------- One does nothing yet nothing is left undone. Haquin |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: September 29 2014 at 11:05
|
I cannot call myself a humanist if I dislike many human beings so much. I'm a Idon'tquestionthesethingsanymoreist ------------- 
|
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: September 29 2014 at 11:38
It was not important that the soldier actually knew that the enemy was inside his perimeter, he only had to believe it so and opened fire. This type of belief system for survival, I believe, carries over into religious and other beliefs. Because we simply cannot survive without the first type. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 29 2014 at 13:10
I tend to agree, though probably would not have put it quite that like that. The soldier is following a belief, but not as you said: Survival is a state of not being dead - he has learnt that if he does not challenge the noise in the dark then he could die, he has also learnt that if he shoots without offering a verbal challenge he could kill a compatriot who had stepped into the bushes to take a leak, and, after a court-marshal, he could also still die. If he shoots an enemy he lives, if he shoots a rabbit he lives, if he shoots at nothing he lives but if he shoots a friend he faces the firing squad and if he does not shoot he could die. He does not need to believe that the noise in the dark was a foe, he just has to be confident that it is not a friend. Confidence is a probability, it is a probability with a minimum chance of being wrong. What he has enacted is not a belief but a strategy and what he is doing is minimising his chances of being killed by using that strategy. Chance is risk, and risk is not good for survival. A successful strategy is the belief that following a procedure offers the lowest risk of death. There are many things we need to believe, some things we don't need to believe and a number of things we believe we need to believe in order to survive. Being creatures of habit we have learnt that if we do something in a certain way we will more likely survive than if we did it a different way. What we have problems with is telling is which bits of those strategies are necessary and which bits are not. We cannot risk leaving out the bits that may not be necessary just in case there is a chance we are mistaken. Risk and chance are not good for survival so we follow the strategy to the letter. What we have then is a belief that all the parts of the strategy are necessary, even if some of them are not. Belief in the parts that are necessary ensures survival, believing that the parts that are not actually necessary are also required to ensure survival is superstition. Superstition affects luck, and luck is chance. Our need to survive has programmed us (or been pre-programmed in us) to believe that superstition will minimise risk. This is the bit that I suspect (née believe) carries over into religion. We can survive without them, but we cannot risk the chance that we cannot. ------------- What? |
Posted By: Catcher10
Date Posted: September 29 2014 at 13:44
|
I'm Catholic, believe in God, go to church and eat the bread and drink the wine. I really do not care too much what others believe in or not...none of my business. I also believe if I camp in the dense forest I will be attacked by Bigfoot, hence I don't camp a lot...outside of my backyard that is.. -------------   
|
Posted By: CosmicVibration
Date Posted: September 29 2014 at 13:49
|
Seems to me that the basic concept of humanism is to balance human intellect with human emotion. Intellect through reason and experimentation and emotions through love, compassion and fairness towards all. This is a sound philosophy and was perpetrated by some of the wisest men to walk our planet. In due time I think science one day may fully explain the mechanics of the universe. But we have an exceedingly long journey ahead of us. If one compares that which is known to that which is unknown we can deduce that we really don’t understand anything. Can we truly grasp everything before this universe expires? Will we figure out how to traverse universes and keep expanding our knowledge even after this one elapses? |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: September 29 2014 at 15:08
|
While my natural inclination is toward agnostism, I lack the power to either prove or disprove the existence of God. I simply don't know, so I have a real tolerance for those that do as long as they are not militant toward me. The same goes for Atheists that claim knowledge of no god, an oxy moronic statement if there ever was one. My motivation for this post is because the idea of being a humanist, if not always, is somewhat linked to religious belief and it's codes of moral behavior, as if the two can never be seperated. I'm starting to wonder if that is indeed true.
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 30 2014 at 04:07
|
I like "I don't know" ... I'm not an agnostic but I think "I do not know" are the coolest, smartest and most powerful four words ever uttered by a human being. The phrase "I don't know" is what defines us and it is what made us, it is curiosity and the desire for knowledge. The initial answer to every question ever asked was "I don't know" and that kicked off enquiry, thinking, learning, experimentation, exploration, discovery and development. "I don't know" is not an answer, it is the beginning of the search for an answer. 4 million years ago when the first ape fell out of a tree and walked across the African savannah on two legs one of the first thoughts that crossed his mind was possibly "I don't know how or why I did that" and his descendants have been asking "I don't know..." questions ever since. "I don't know" is not the end, it is not the 'oh let's give up and not think about it', it is not "let's not question these things any more" ... it is the beginning of everything: every question and every think. I don't know that gods do not exist, I don't know if they do. But I am not an agnostic. Theists know they cannot prove that gods exist or they would have done by now, and atheists know they cannot prove gods don't exist or they would have done by now. Mankind has been religious for at least 250,000 years, ritual burials from the earliest human archaeology strongly suggest that early man asked these "I don't know..." questions and posited gods as the answer for those things he could not explain, like what happens when we die. That is time enough to know with a high degree of certainty that we cannot answer that one "I don't know" question. No one is trying to prove the existence of non-existence of gods, but theists act as if there are gods and atheists act as if there were no gods... yet agnostics do not act as if there may or may not be gods. They sometimes act as if there were gods and sometimes act as if there were not, this duality is not a result of "I don't know" nor is it a consequence; it is in many ways a contradiction (a real oxymoron and not just a pun) and in other ways it is being selective. In the Atheist and Agnostic thread I called it "hedging your bets", and that relates back to my previous post - it is an attempt to minimising risk, the risk of being wrong - it is like wearing your lucky socks, not walking under ladders, or crossing your fingers when you know they are just superstition, you'll do it anyway just in case they work. I have no desire or interest in proving or disproving the existence of gods because doing that doesn't answer any of the other "I don't know" questions. Knowing that gods exist or not only answers a single "I don't know", the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and everything & every think would remain '42'... which is the theological and philosophical equivalent of "because I said so". We can search for (and even possibly find) the answers to every other "I don't know..." question without questioning the existence or non-existence of gods, these other questions do not challenge the existence or non-existence of gods, and their (possible) answers will never prove nor disprove the existence of gods What if we had no word for god and no concept of gods? Like the apocryphal stories of how the kangaroo, llama and Yucatán peninsular got their names, what if the name of every god in every language in every culture around the world was a miss-translation of the the phrase "I don't know"? ------------- What? |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: September 30 2014 at 10:50
|
^Thanks for the support. It is indeed difficult for many people to utter those four simple words in this ' it's either black or white' society we live in. Civilization has only existed for 5000 years, perhaps in another 5000 those four words will be easer to say. But I wouldn't bet on it.
------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State. |
Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: September 30 2014 at 10:56
|
Big fan of 'I don't know'. Often the wisest thing to admit to, mostly because it urges one to learn. ------------- “The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.” - Douglas Adams |
Posted By: Catcher10
Date Posted: September 30 2014 at 11:37
Yup....I like that too. Although I believe in God that does not mean I know there is a God, I will not know till I die if my belief will be validated. We do what we do in the hopes if there is a God I will be with him/her, that is all. But yes...I do not know. -------------
|
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: September 30 2014 at 11:41
|
^Agree Catch. Obviously, this is where faith comes in. As I' ve said, I'm cool with that.
------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State. |
Posted By: dr wu23
Date Posted: September 30 2014 at 22:34
To put in a little humor; one of my favorite guerilla ontologists RAWilson once said,"If you think you know what's going on,you are probably full of sh*te."
 ------------- One does nothing yet nothing is left undone. Haquin |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: October 01 2014 at 01:15
You do like trotting out that homily whenever anyone questions agnosticism don't you. Wilson's version of general agnostics didn't require agnosticism about god. Looks like more bet hedging to me. He also said "There are gods; but there is no God; and all gods become devils eventually." Philosophers are full of it. ------------- What? |
Posted By: Argonaught
Date Posted: October 01 2014 at 08:39
I see what you mean, and I can certainly relate to it, but my question was about intellectual honesty, not about the role of "belief" (faith? trust? set of convictions?) in one's life. |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: October 01 2014 at 09:33
|
^As I noted in a earlier post A, Intellectual honesty will almost always be related to some code of moral behavor so relegion will always creep into this type of question/discussion. Sorry, but it comes with the territory.
------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State. |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: October 01 2014 at 11:42
|
I don't know, I guess I am a big fan of I don't know. I guess agnostic is the best fit. I was once religious, but I have moved on and taken to heart that which is good from xtianity. ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
Posted By: Gully Foyle
Date Posted: October 01 2014 at 12:48
are you also then agnostic on santa claus, the easter bunny, and a full original Genesis reunion? Can't disprove them either, but they are not real.
|
Posted By: CosmicVibration
Date Posted: October 01 2014 at 13:11
I’m sure there are philosophers that are “full of it.” But one must be careful not to assume they understand what the thinker is thinking. The spoken or written word is actually a very poor communicator. Even when trying to communicate simple ideas in plain English there is often miscommunication. Add to that deep and involved concepts shrouded by obscure language and you have a riddle wrapped in an enigma tucked inside a paradox box. I never heard of mr. Wilson but I think I get the gist of what he’s trying to convey. But do I really? I don’t know… |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: October 01 2014 at 16:04
I have heard of Robert Anton Wilson, I have also read some of what he has written, albeit a long time ago. Robert Anton Wilson was a writer of fiction by profession, he was also (according to Wikipedia) a psychologist, essayist, editor, playwright, poet, futurist, civil libertarian and self-described agnostic mystic. Communicating ideas to others what what he did for a living. There is very little that can be misconstrued, misunderstood or misinterpreted by either the phrase "There are gods; but there is no God; and all gods become devils eventually." or by "If you think you know what the hell is going on, you're probably full of sh*t.". Getting the gist of what he is conveying simply requires reading the words he wrote. Conversely I do not get the gist of what you are conveying in "a riddle wrapped in an enigma tucked inside a paradox box" nor what relevance it has. ------------- What? |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: October 01 2014 at 16:14
|
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: October 01 2014 at 16:23
It's similar to someone saying that they are a recovering alcoholic. They may be recovering, but they're still an alcoholic. |
Posted By: Gully Foyle
Date Posted: October 01 2014 at 19:31
actually thats kind of my point...santa claus is a story people made up, just like zeus, thor, vishnu, quetzalquoatl, allah, jehovah, etc. there seems little difference between zeus and 'god', but people concede one is made up while another isnt. shepherds unsure of why lightning occurs made up some reasons. textual analysis of pre-biblical works show that most of the old and new testaments, and the koran, is just a rehash of earlier stories, much like the rest of human fiction
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: October 01 2014 at 20:00
 That's not what Post Theism means. Also I cannot bet upon a heg but I can hedge a bet. However, Post Theism does neither since it is nontheistic: Being nontheistic means not having or involving belief in gods or a god and there are indeed nontheistic religions such as buddhism and hinduism that do not involve a belief in gods, however I am also nonreligious and non-spiritual. I do not believe in gods, devils, angels, daemons, heaven, hell, djin, genies, the soul, the after-life, ghosts, fairies, elves, pixies, the undead, werewolves, zombies, bigfoot, Nessie, the tooth fairy, father christmas, the easter bunny, ufos, destiny, luck, astrology, the supernatural or superstition. I also do not believe politicians, philosophers, Uri Geller, that aliens have visited earth or that Pop/Rock lyricists have anything important to say. "Post-theism is a variant of nontheism that proposes to have not so much rejected theism as rendered it obsolete, that God belongs to a stage of human development now past." (wikipedia) My view of this is as follows: In the past we needed theism to explain those things we could not explain so we invented gods. Now we can explain many of those things that were once unexplained without the need for an invent god-answer, and for all those we still cannot explain we can simply answer with "I don't know". This side-steps the issue of whether gods exist or not because it makes the question irrelevant, theism and atheism are obsolete concepts. We don't need them any more. We did not get morality from religion. We knew right and wrong before we created religions: only five of the ten commandments are about morality and then they are listed almost as an afterthought and when you consider the full list of mosaic law (Leviticus, Numbers & Deuteronomy) only those five (and may be one or two more but only if you consider adultery and homosexuality to be immoral) are about morality, most of them are how to be a good follower of the religion (ritual), the rest are how to be a good citizen (social). The moral content of the Abrahamic religions is actually very small, and essentially they boil down to "don't be a dick". I do not call myself an Atheist because Post Theism is also Post Atheism. To me atheists seem far too preoccupied with the non-existence of gods to the point of being anti-theist and anti-religion. I am not anti-religion, each to is own I say. We cannot unlearn what we have learnt. We can forget it but we cannot unlearn it. We cannot expunge knowledge of a religion that we were indoctrinated in. I was raised a christian, I was told that the god of Abraham existed and I believed what I was told, no proof was given I was just told it was the truth, and to emphasise that it was put in capital letters... The Truth. When you are five years old you don't argue with capital letters, you don't question The Truth. I am now 58 years old and I reserve the right to question the truth and religion has lost the right to use capital letters, I will never again capitalise god, or the name of any religion unless it is at the beginning of a sentence (we must preserve good grammar at least). So yes, I will always be a recovering christian, and sure if I accidentally hit my thumb with a hammer I'll no doubt utter a stream of religious profanity mixed with a fair dose of Anglo-Saxon pagan expletives, but I will never again be a christian and that is not betting on my hedge. ------------- What? |
Posted By: infocat
Date Posted: October 02 2014 at 00:58
Dean, I think you just converted me to "post-theism".  ------------- -- Frank Swarbrick Belief is not Truth. |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: October 02 2014 at 09:28
I do know the clinical meaning of Post Theism and it is that rings of the recovering alcoholic. I.E. there once was a God.As I stated, but maybe was not clear, I don't consider you to be a heg better but the term Post Theist stll sounds that way. Any hoo, it's ll much ado about nothing. ------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: October 02 2014 at 09:34
|
Since you are aware that Post Theist doesn't mean "there once was a god" then what's your point? ------------- What? |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: October 02 2014 at 09:52
------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: October 02 2014 at 10:01
heg betting is to bet hedging as bed wetting is to wet bedding. Does that help?  ------------- What? |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: October 02 2014 at 10:02
|
^ Well done.
------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State. |
Posted By: CosmicVibration
Date Posted: October 03 2014 at 09:28
Are you sure very little can be misconstrued? With so many definitions and aspects of god how do you know which characterizations Mr. Wilson was referring to? God beyond creation or within creation? God as a singularity or any of the numerous fragments? God as mother, father or beloved friend? Maybe god as pure energy or pure consciousness? It’s quite possible that the reference to “there is no God,” Wilson was declaring that the god as defined by the various religions of the world simply does not exist. Or he could be probing even deeper and alluding to that God is beyond human cognizance; beyond time, space and imagination. “The Tao (God) that can be defined or explained in words is not the true Tao (God).” – Loa Tzu The other references, “there are gods” and “all gods become devils eventually”, would require some extensive background information. I’m not even sure where to even begin. I see great depth in Mr. Wilson’s statement. But an explanation of the entity called god and some of the varies aspects of god is required. Then a clarification of the devil or maya / delusion is necessary. This is a large undertaking and an entire book would probably be carved out. I’ll just say this; it’s somewhat inaccurate to think that God created the universe. It’s more accurate to say that an infinitesimal part of His infinite being became the universe. |
Posted By: wilmon91
Date Posted: October 03 2014 at 15:56
|
Religiousness is not incompatible with humanism as far as I know. I'm against "secular humanism" though. For me it's always strange to ask if something exists before you have defined what it is. God is "X". Of course anyone can believe in X. Billions of discussions could have become more fruitful if they had started from the beginning, asking what we are talking about.Usually the whole problem consists in that people divide whe whole matter in two viewpoints, either this or that. In reality, there are an endless amount of possible viewpoints. The most stubborn atheists (Dawkins) argue by putting everyhting (bad) that's happened in the name of religion into one and the same basket, and that will represent "religion". Stupid , and not very scientific either.
Maybe you think about "secular humanism". I think "Humanism" is broader and is about human rights, common sense, and the belief in the human individual, basically. |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: October 03 2014 at 16:05
|
^I understand your frustration, for lack of a better term, but Humanism is the flip side of religion. Humanism came about as a reaction to the supernatural having influence on human behavior and thought. As I stated in a previous post, it's hard for people not to bring up religion, deities or what have you in this discussion. ------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State. |
Posted By: wilmon91
Date Posted: October 03 2014 at 16:09
Hi! Only science? There is science, and there is the unknown. 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. In school, your curiosity is killed by conveying the feeling that everything have been explored and all areas of the world are mapped, and we are always at the point were we know more than we've ever known before. So all you do in school is going through a process of memorizing the stuff in the books. You get the wrong idea about what you are reading about...because everything is a mystery, and you only deal with one aspect, or version, of what you are reading about. Even learning to read and write is something very peculiar, and not just a "process" which needs to be done. Only after I had finished high school did I become interested in just about everyhting. I had a broader way of looking at things. In school you didn't look upon the different fields in an inquiring way. Except from maybe the first lesson, when they ask about the subject itself, "what is history?". Good question, and very important. But it's only happens briefly, and then you get on with the book, page after page. Elementary questions are important even if they can't give full answers. But that is reality - we don't know much about it, and that's why school should be exciting. One of the foundations of the human nature is our desire to understand our reality. Science is a method. But it's not a substitute to our ability to reflect upon reality as a whole. Science also doesn't deal much with psychology and ethics. Fields of science give us information in these fields. To get understanding and wisdom, you have to see how everyhting works together. Nothing is separated, it's science need to categorize things for its method to work. It doesn't mean that you should look upon nature as many different science fields, with their own separate "rules". Science is the method to observe and measure things. It's not gonna tell us anything about purpose and meaningfulness and inner nature. Science don't tell us what is happening. It only registers the physical traces that is left. But we can have some idea what's going on - just by living, experiencing, feeling and thinking. Science is a product of the human individual. So I suppose the true humanist should put the human being in the center, not science. Only atheists wants us to believe that science is incompatible with religiousness.
I'm not familiar with that term, but to me it seems like an elitistic rejection to the whole matter by not even granting the opinion that "there is no god", but rather saying "the whole discussion is silly". God-believers appear pretty stupid then, appearing like having primitive "outdated" views. Seems like a pretty cynical belief... Then there should be "Post-Nontheism" on the other side, believeing that atheism is just a product of this age. A stage in human development until everyone will know of God's existence.
I
don't think God provides a lot of explanations. The religious teachings
(not just "God") could make life seem more meaningful, and create an
inclination towards good values (or just values). No "explanations" by science tell that life is meaningful.
I don't think anyone would say that religion "invented" morality. But many religions have a focus on right and wrong and to be true in your convictions and feelings. The bible speaks about love and compassion - were do you find that in science? I just googled a bit from the Bible here: " If I give everything I own to the poor and even go to the stake to be burned as a martyr, but I don’t love, I’ve gotten nowhere." "Love never gives up. Love cares more for others than for self. Love doesn’t want what it doesn’t have. Love doesn’t strut, Doesn’t have a swelled head, Doesn’t force itself on others, Isn’t always “me first,” Doesn’t fly off the handle, Doesn’t keep score of the sins of others, Doesn’t revel when others grovel, Takes pleasure in the flowering of truth, Puts up with anything, Trusts God always, Always looks for the best, Never looks back, But keeps going to the end." "Love never dies. Inspired speech will be over some day; praying in tongues will end; understanding will reach its limit. We know only a portion of the truth, and what we say about God is always incomplete. But when the Complete arrives, our incompletes will be canceled." I liked that last paragraph, it relates to what we were taking about concerning what we know. ANd there is not too much about God in those lines. Does that seem like fundamentalistic "do as I say and follow the religion"? It's a teaching, and it focuses on the human being.
Maybe you have good reason to reject all of what you were told, because maybe you were treated to a specific religious interpretation, incorporated into a certain way of upbringing. 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. But if you were to approach christian teachings a second time, it wouldn't be a return to the childhood teachings, but it would have to be starting fresh with your own personal approach. For me, I can't practise a belief in God, or have that sort of a "relationship" were you communicate with God. I'm more of an eclectic philosopher, and open to transcendental concepts. I'm willing to accept the existence of God, but I also have some idea of what it is, or could be. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: October 03 2014 at 21:23
 My first post was a joking/humorous response to the OP. Darious gave us two options as to why the previous humanist thread had been closed: A. By act of god. B. By a human. I, being an ex-Admin, knew why the previous thread had been locked - it was locked automatically by the forum software, ... in other words it was not god that locked the thread, but science (i.e., the forum software), hence my "joke" - there is no god, only science. But meanwhile... 
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.
You went to a bad school. We're always being told that schooling here in England is bad, but I'm glad we were never taught that rubbish.
You went to a bad school. That (unfortunately) is how kids with good memories pass exams, that is not how I ever passed an exam... I have a dreadful memory, I have to understand something in order to remember it, if I don't understand something I ask. Learning starts with having the courage to say "I don't know" and "I don't understand".
You went to a bad school.
You went to a bad school.
Okay, you don't understand science, you went to a bad school and you don't know what atheists want. A hat-trick. What next?
That is your interpretation of the words, I do not recall ever using the phrase "the whole discussion is silly" or using the word "outdated". I've read through the brief Wikipedia entry and that does not use the words "outdated", "silly" or "stupid" at all, not even close. Years ago we thought the Sun was carried across the sky by a god in a fiery chariot. This was not primitive thinking nor was it silly. Just as we do today, back then we applied the knowledge we knew to what we did not know. We knew chariots, we knew fire and we "knew" the crystal sphere that enclosed the earth - it was logical and sensible then to see the Sun as fire being pulled over that celestial sphere by the only vehicle we knew, and since no human could do that then the driver had to be a god. As we developed we gained more knowledge, so this "theory" of the Sun god was rendered obsolete. In pantheism this is not a problem: lose one god and there's still plenty more. I did not render this Sun god obsolete and post-theism didn't render this Sun god obsolete, Ptolemy did. Years ago we thought the heavens and the earth was created in six days by a monotheistic god. This was not primitive thinking, nor was it silly. How the story came about is not relevant, what was important were the messages the story contains: about how we as humans stand in relation to all the other animals, how women are regarded and how and when we should work and worship. 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? If the sabbath is not holy then how many more of the ten commandments are also untrue?.. you can see where this leads... I did not render god obsolete in the story of how the heavens and earth were created and post-theism did not render god obsolete in the story of how the heavens and earth were created - evolution rendered creation obsolete, and unfortunately, god was the lead role in that story. 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. 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.)
Not withstanding your incorrect understanding of Post-theism, from a previous post:
and since I'm quoting myself, this is from the same post:
Science is not a religion. Science is not a philosophy. If you think that science should give life meaning then you really do not understand science. 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.
Science is not a religion. Science is not a philosophy. If you think that science should teach you right and wrong then you really really do not understand science.
Good for you. Don't preach to me, if you want to quote scripture go to the christian thread.
... and maybe I wasn't. You certainly cannot tell anything about my upbringing from the 45 words I wrote. Is there a christian who was not told that god exists and that he is The Truth? 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?
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.
Try: "if you were to approach christian teachings a third time" - I've done the born again thing already thanks, so no, I will not be requiring a third attempt, but thanks for the unsolicited free advice.
I can tolerate god believers, philosophers however...
------------- What? |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: October 04 2014 at 08:23
^Perhaps philosophers just went to a bad school.
------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: October 04 2014 at 08:24
philosophers are a bad school... or rather several bad schools ------------- What? |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: October 04 2014 at 08:33
|
I'm not beholden to philosophers either, but some like Nietzsche did have some good points or arguments. Do you agree or are they all a waste of time to you?
------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: October 04 2014 at 08:47
I would put philosophers in the same leaking hot air balloon as astrologers and alchemists without a parachute between them and have them falling towards a runaway train. ------------- What? |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: October 04 2014 at 08:53
|
^So Nietzsche' view of of christianity being a controlling and counter intuitive influence on mankind is of no consequence what so ever. That's interresting.
------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: October 04 2014 at 09:05
|
How do you arrive at that statement from what I wrote? ------------- What? |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: October 04 2014 at 09:13
|
Philosopher=no good. Nietzche=philosopher. Hence: Nietzche=no good. Just using the science that you treasure so much.
------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: October 04 2014 at 09:18
Logic isn't your forte is it.------------- What? |
Posted By: SteveG
Date 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. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: October 04 2014 at 09:24
|
Common sense isn't that common. Affirming the consequence fallacy however, is all too common. ------------- What? |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: October 04 2014 at 09:28
|
As long as you feel logical. I'm happy for you.
------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: October 04 2014 at 09:38
|
*sigh* whatever. ------------- What? |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: October 04 2014 at 10:07
------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State. |
Posted By: Dean
Date 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? |
Posted By: timothy leary
Date Posted: October 04 2014 at 10:59
| That would be a great band name..........The Whatevers |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: October 04 2014 at 15:06
 ------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: October 04 2014 at 15:53
|
So... since B=no good and C=Nietzche then o-kay... ...whatever you say chief. ------------- What? |
Posted By: timothy leary
Date Posted: October 04 2014 at 16:00
| great forum entertainment....another noob takes on Dean in a ridiculous debate |
Posted By: Dayvenkirq
Date Posted: October 04 2014 at 21:08
|
Posted By: wilmon91
Date Posted: October 04 2014 at 23:48
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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".
Nice!
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. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: October 05 2014 at 05:18
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?
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)
Okay, you went to several bad schools.
...and you still don't understand science.
...and you still don't know what atheists want.
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".
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'.
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).
Nothing wrong with that, but it is not an example of tolerance.
Politics is the diametric opposite of tolerance.
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.
Now you're getting it. 
Science does not address spiritual needs. That is not its purpose.
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.
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?" ------------- What? |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: October 05 2014 at 05:38
http://www.facebook.com/thewhatevers " rel="nofollow - www.facebook.com/thewhatevers ------------- What? |
Posted By: dr wu23
Date Posted: October 05 2014 at 10:11
Of course it's ridiculous....everyone knows Dean is always right.
 ------------- One does nothing yet nothing is left undone. Haquin |
Posted By: wilmon91
Date Posted: October 05 2014 at 10:20
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
But you don't have a complete understanding of what it is to know.
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.
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.
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.
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.
But if you believe in society as a social construction, don't you have to accept politics??
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.
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.
Okay, nice that you disassociate yourself from those kind of guys though.
Yes but maybe you don't have to make it so definite, but you could answer "Yes -( to the best of my beliefs)". |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: October 05 2014 at 14:25
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. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: October 05 2014 at 16:43
|
Man A yawns. ------------- What? |
Posted By: Dayvenkirq
Date Posted: October 05 2014 at 17:06
| What are we accomplishing here? Discussing logic intelligently and diplomatically or just mudslinging each other? |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: October 05 2014 at 17:55
|
mudslinging. ------------- What? |
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: October 05 2014 at 18:21
We don't get a lot of talk of that in the States. I think there's a lot of history of multiculturalism here versus in Britain. There was a bit of anti-Islamic hysteria after 9/11, but that's mellowed. Then again, we don't have many of Sharia law advocates. I think there can be a lot of good in getting many differing viewpoints and cultures together, but there has to be a common recognition of humanistic (hey, there's that word) values. That's tough to come by when a populace doesn't enjoy thinking about anything at all. ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: October 05 2014 at 20:10
You jumped to a conclusion from an assumption. Assumptions are not good. Assumptions are all too often wrong. In science you state your assumptions before stating your conclusions. What you try to avoid when doing that is drawing your conclusions directly from your assumptions. I said: "I can tolerate god believers, philosophers however..." There is nothing radical about dismissing the entire body of philosophers. Practically every philosopher in history has done that. Note that I said 'philosophers' and not 'philosophy' ... my inferred negativity was towards philosophers, those idle time-wasting navel gazers whose profession is philosophy as an academic discipline, not towards philosophy itself. My "beef" is with philosophers (and thus the academic discipline of philosophy), not with philosophy in general. At best you could assume I am okay with philosophy (with a small 'p') but not okay with Philosophy (with a big 'P'). We favour a particular philosopher or school of philosophy because we agree with what they say, seldom do we change our way of thinking to align ourselves with a philosophy of a philosopher or school of philosophy. Some think Fred Nietzsche or Manni Kant were cool dudes because they agree with some of what those dead guys wrote, as if having it stated in a formal doctrine by some academic navel gazer affirms their view of the world. Hitler thought Nietzsche ideas of the übermensch were pretty cool while purposely ignoring his opposition to anti-semitism and nationalism. Nietzsche's philosophy was not the philosophy of the Third Reich nor could it be said that theübermensch was directly responsible for the Hitler's idea of the master-race. All that was Hitler's ideas and philosophies put into practice. Nietzsche the Philosopher was ineffectual. He wrote some stuff that Hitler agreed with and he wrote other stuff that Hitler did not agree with. Please also note that I try very hard to be very careful with my choice of words.... for example:
All philosophers do is put into words things we already knew. They do not create wisdom from knowledge using reason.
Correct. I said everybody has a philosophy. I also said you don't need a philosopher to tell you what or how to think. I am not stupid, I do know that we cannot escape philosophical thought, I am also blatantly aware that every word I type on the subject of philosophy is philosophy, the simple act of discussing the value of philosophy is philosophising. This is unavoidable. I don't need a philosopher to tell me that.
I try to avoid assumption and presumption. To paraphrase the Bard: the laddie doth presume too much, methinks.
The only thing philosophy produces is philosophers and the only thing philosophers produce is philosophy. What benefit is there to humanity in philosophy? If all the philosophers in the world magically disappeared overnight how long would it take before anyone noticed?
Good for you but that is not what we are discussing. If you were born 400 years ago you would not be permitted to interpret the scripture any differently from how you were told to interpret it, and that would be literally and not allegorically. Until Gutenberg printed the first copy of the bible non-theologians were not permitted to read the bible in case they misinterpreted it. Before scripture (literally 'writing') religion was an oral tradition with stories and their meaning being passed on verbatim (literally: 'word for word'). Once they were written down the meaning was continued as an oral tradition and central to that was the verbatim passing on of meaning. Judaism has a long history of passing long and complex texts orally and is very strict about passing on those texts word for word in an unbroken chain through the generations. There is no evidence to suggest that the meaning of the scripture was anything other than literal. How the scripture were supposed to be understood is how they were understood.
It's not how "they" look at it. It is how "you" saw it. You used those offensive words. Are there rules for what can and cannot be an -ism?
There is a massive difference. If you say you believe in god then by inference you must believe that god exists. This is not commutative. You cannot say you believe in god but he does not exist but you can say god exists but you don't believe in him. The word believe has two meanings (faith and accept) and the sentence uses both meanings.
I never said or implied "claiming to know" - acceptance is not knowing. Richard Dawking does not know that god does not exist. He argues that atheism arises from a lack of evidence and evidence can always change a thinking person's mind. He classifies himself as a de facto athiest: "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there." You could say from that he has accepted god does not exist. He knows that one piece of evidence will blow his acceptance that god does not exist clean out of the water. That is how "science" works.
Irrelevant. I know she exists.
You are over-thinking the problem. You can either explain something or you cannot. There is nothing circular in this, nor does it beg the question. Q:How do you prove that god exists? A: By having evidence of god's existence. Q:How do you prove that god does not exist? A: You cannot. Not having evidence of god's existence is not proof of god's non-existence. It only takes one piece of data for that proof to be blown clean out of the water, therefore it is not a proof. Anyone who attempts to use science to prove that god does not exist or believes that science will one day prove that god does not exist does not understand science. However, some things that do not exist can be proved to not exist. For example I can prove that there is not an island in the middle of my fish pond because I could (if need be) produce photographic evidence to show my fish pond without an island in the middle. The island does not exist and that can be proved. I cannot prove there has never been an island in the middle of my fish pond even though I know one has never existed (because I made the fish pond). Nor can I claim that there will never be an island in the middle of my fish pond even though I can state that I do not want one, and I do not need one so it is very unlikely that I will ever make one. I specifically said that science is not a religion and science does not cover spiritual needs, do I really have to state all the blatantly obvious things that are not the concern of science one at a time? I did not say that science would explain all that is explainable, I said the explanations would not require belief in god. Things that are unexplainable cannot be explained by science or a belief in god. For example if you do not believe in god then the god-belief explanation of the afterlife is meaningless, therefore it is not an explanation. Areas that are not the concern of science will never be explained by science. Understanding why we want to explain things isn't that difficult. We don't like uncertainty. We don't like not knowing. Those things can kill us, they are not good for survival. We survive by understanding our environment. The more we understand the better our chance of survival. You can see this behaviour in other animals - introduce an animal into a new environment and they hide, once they are confident that there is no immediate danger they will explore, as their knowledge of the new environment grows their confidence grows. This is dealing with uncertainty by acquiring knowledge. We call this curiosity. Curiosity leads to understanding, the more we understand of our environment the more we can control it, if we can control it the our chances of survival are increased. This understanding and control of our environment allowed us to change our environment. This led to the inventive nature of mankind, using our curiosity and understanding we invented tools to make the control of our environment easier, the better our understanding of how these tools worked allowed us to invent better tools. This curiosity and invention is not something you can just switch off, once you've understood how plants grow you can collect seed and use them to make the plants grow where you want them instead of where you find them, once you've understood what makes plants grow you can feed them with manure and water them and grow better crops, but then you start to wonder why plants grow, and where do plants come from and what are they for. These questions are no longer pertinent to survival, they are a consequence of the natural curiosity trait that we need for survival.
Not relevant.
Actually that is not what most atheists say or do or whatever. This whole science vs. religion bulls*it came about because some fundamentalist christians oppose evolution being taught in schools in America. That's it. No other reason. Religion does not oppose science in any other topic. Atheists, agnostics and most theists do not support this fundamentalist view-point. The overriding majority of christian accept the theory of evolution. Fundamentalist christians decided that the way to defeat evolution (which to their non-scientific way of thinking, was just a theory after all) was to discredit it. Unfortunately the "science" they used to achieve that was not very good and was easily refuted. So they invented another theory called Intelligent Design which they hoped would be taught in schools as an alternative to evolution. Unfortunately ID was not science nor was it what science calls a Theory so it was rejected since it was not a viable scientific alternative. Militant atheists took this as an attack on science by the christian fundamentalists and saw it as a rallying call to fight back. They took a metaphorical magnifying class and went over the christian fundamentalists religion in minute detail, picking holes and finding fault in all the inaccuracies, inconsistencies and perceived "wrongs" in the scriptures and the philosophy of religion. The only problem with that was the religion of the fundamentalist christians was the same religion as all the other christians. So now the militant atheists counter-attack was an attack on all christians, and then all religions. Now these militant atheists had become fundamentalists themselves. So it's a dumb argument between fundamentalists. Not even the militant atheists (Dawking et al) regard science as an alternative to religions, they do not create a "science or religion" choice.The choices available are:
No one is proposing
or
...any option that excludes Science is simply untenable. Science is not incompatible with religion. Religion is not incompatible with science.
I take it you are not, nor have ever been, a catholic. ------------- What? |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: October 06 2014 at 09:08
------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State. |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: October 06 2014 at 09:12
------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: October 06 2014 at 09:21
*sigh* and *yawn* and *offs* On seeing a bear trap, even an idiot like me would not be so rash as to purposely step in it. However, as you insist on calling me out I will address your specific issue when I have time, at present I am working, so be a good chap and sod off. ------------- What? |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: October 06 2014 at 09:21
"Call it peace or call it reason, Call love or call it treason' But I Ain't Marching Anymore! " -Phil Ochs And with that I sign off, forever wondering how someone can work in a state of narcolepsy. Oh, I forgot, the archiving of your words is supposed to instill a feeling of immortality in you that the rejection of a god or an after life cannot. It will not, so cut your loses now and move on while you still have time. In case you didn't notice, the clock ticks loudest for someone like you. |
Posted By: TODDLER
Date Posted: October 06 2014 at 09:34
| I don't believe in supernatural beings ...because I was dragged through the mud by a cult who believed in supernatural beings and ...not to knock anyone who does believe in it, but all I was shown proved to be humans dressed in black cloaks following some man-made belief system that they claim could raise the dead. By old books and also adapting modern ones or modern translations...like a book on demonology for example. I don't believe in the supernatural too much because the history of human nature reveals that we are bored. And when we become bored, we often like to feel special. And if we can feel special, we can solve our problems by substituting them for the unknown. The unknown that hasn't ever shown any physical proof. The only proof I see...are people dressing up and worshipping the devil because they've got so many psychological problems , they have to act delusional by trusting their lives to a ritual in a book. |
Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: October 06 2014 at 09:41
|
I am a human....don't know about the ist. I guess I like them ok as long as they don't breathe near me or wear ties. ------------- “The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.” - Douglas Adams |
Posted By: Dayvenkirq
Date Posted: October 06 2014 at 11:56
Ah, you troll. |
Posted By: Argonaught
Date Posted: October 06 2014 at 12:03
How do you define a supernatural being? Would this definition be broad and loose enough to include hypothetical beings that may turn out to be too different, or simply too remote for us to directly acknowledge/interact with/comprehend? It's only in Star Trek that the alien folks walk upright on two legs, wear clothes and speak fairly intelligible ESL. Before Leeuwenhoek, humans would have considered bacteria supernatural beings. Two hundred years ago a hologram would have been called an apparition Can we fully explain what inspiration, prophetic dreams and intuition are?
|
Posted By: wilmon91
Date Posted: October 06 2014 at 16:49
There
can be a fine line between a philosopher and a normal person thinking.
Or a person versus a musician. Why is it okay to practise something, but
it's wrong doing it full time and calling it a profession.
But the word was invented in 18th or 19th century or so, and if we compare the ancient philosophy with 19th century philosophy it's very different. Still, I think that if you have a book which you would call "bad", if you can focus on the questions that are asked you may still grant that those question are worth asking. If the philosopher fails in answering, it's still nothing wrong with tackling those questions in my opionion. Ironically a lot of 19th century philospohers (from england mostly) seems focused in having an edge towards philosophy and wanting to diminish it's ability to make certain claims. I think it was Berkeley who said that he is incapable of thinking abstractly - it isn't possible. We have to be talking about specific things, never things in general. So his pursuit of common sense led him to a wild metaphysical theory that meant that things that are not observed doesn't exist...until it is observed, or something... I mean it's interesting, that if you believe in common sense, and still when you deal with certain questions that you must propose an answer to, you have to make a claim that seems fantastic, no matter what answer you choose. So there's all kinds of concepts but there are many foundational questions that cannot be denied.
Anyway, we're off topic!
We have to assume we're talking about "good philosophy", just as anythings worth have to be judged based on the best examples. Insightful thinking creates a better world with more open minds and less ignorance. The philosophy goes into
the minds of people. If you take away all of philosophy it is like
rewriting history and we would have more primitive people. It's like
removing a seed that became a tree, it's not possible.
You don't want to remove all writers, just philosophers. A lot of books are bad because the writers have not broaden their mind with philosophical reflections enough. Would you rather read a fiction book whose underlying message is "carpe diem", or would you rather read some Emmanuel Kant? A really good writer is uasually familiar with philosophical questions and have reflected upon life in different perspectives. In ordinary life there are philosophies and underlying morales and messages everywhere were there are humans. If you get a new job, maybe you don't like the vibe at work. Those who run the company have their attitudes , mentalities and values that influences the employees at that place. With philosophy you can get to the bottom of what people stand for. And if you want to visualize a perfect society you have to use philosophy.
We're not talkiing about politics and how people in power have abused and taken advantage of religion as a tool to control and opress people.
But the meaning of that is hard to see.
When it is limited to become only a definition of one sentence, it seems a little silly to me.
Things you can't explain may constitue a large part of reality. We have our five senses. Why should we limit our thinking to our physical limits? The claim is that the facts of science didn't require a god. But the method of science involves working with our sensory perceptions, so everything we explain are limited to isolated things in the material realm, that can be observed and measured. Of course that doesn't require a God. A cat doesn't require a god either when it explores the forest. If you ask "is there an invisible world?", an atheist would respond "We can't see it so there is no reason to believe it exists". So what we can't perceive shouldn't be believed to exist. That is bad reasoning.
No but you described post-theism, which seems to be a mental limitation to only encompass what science have found. The special thing about humans is that we can have an idea of what we haven't found yet. Believing in what we haven't yet found is rational, not believing in what we haven't found is irrational. The next thing is to form ideas of these unknown things. The idea of God is of something all-encompassing. So no matter the multitude of realities and things, there is something that connects everything according to this thought. Believing in modern science is believing in a meagre amount of knowledge. In 500 years the situation will be different. You can believe in the progress of science but you don't need to limit your thinking to it.
Easy to agree with. The primary purpose of a god-belief I don't think is to explain things though. The inexplainable/inscrutable is something you are supposed to reach by inner experience and intuiting.
Not unless it evolves and changes over time.
So we can understand that our own mission is to survive. I don't think that's the reason though... Animals are good at ensuring safety to the best of their ability by knowing their environments. The desire to know by humans is something that far exceeds basic survival instinct. We also have an artistic desire. That could also be explained by survival instinct. If you make attractive things you become more attractive yourself. That would also be an oversimplification. Mankind as a species have evolved in a remarkable way compared to other animals. I think the reason is related to the desire to know things. But survival instinct is not what sets us apart from other species.
This is the same as "Science" only.
Yes religious people rely on science too, but that's less relevant because it's their religiousness which is opposed, so they are encouraged to abandon their religiousness into fully trusting science.Usually when someone criticises religiousness there are arguments of scientific views as a more sound way to understand the world. Not always maybe, but it's the most usual type of debate that I have seen...
You should only think that part within brackets though, not say it loudly, hehe.. No, never been part of a religion. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: October 06 2014 at 18:51
Is this sarcasm? There is not difference between a philosopher thinking and any higher life-form thinking. There is a world of difference between a musician and a non-musician,
Give me one question that a philosopher has answered.
Philosophers are full of questions,
Then what is the point? (rhetorical, please don't answer it)
We separated philosophy from the useful sciences a long time ago, you cannot keep harping back to the dead Greek guys whenever you need to prove how useful philosophers are. That ship has Philosophy explains nothing,
No s*it Sherlock.
There is good philosophy? (joke, please don't answer it) I cannot take away philosophy. Have you read anything I have posted here? I have no beef with philosophy, only philosophers (and perhaps Philosophy the academic discipline)
All things are possible. Did you know you cannot grow a modern edible banana from seed.
Correct. We are talking about how the bible was interpreted in the past.
Not relevant. The point is that belief in the existence of something does not mean you believe in that thing. Or to rephrase that: acceptance in the existence of something does not mean you have faith in that thing,
There you go with the offensive word again. It does not answer the question. Are there rules for what can and cannot be an -ism?
We have more than five senses. You can either explain something or you cannot.
But that is your reasoning put into the words an imaginary hypothetical atheist, and thus it is a strawman argument.
I get the feeling that you're not listening any more. I don't believe in science. Science is not a belief-system. Science is a tool not a religion.
Intuit-ing? That's just guessing without thinking isn't it? 
Then that would not be science.
I don't think we are separate from other animals. Different - yes, special - no. Survival instinct make us the same as other species - that is our commonality - but it is also what makes us different. We are all animals. If you stop and think about the human body it is probably the single most useless body in the animal kingdom.You're going to have to think hard to think of a body that is worse at doing all or any of the things necessary for survival. We have no fur so need to clothe ourselves to keep warm, in most of the environments we habit we cannot survive without first making shelter and fire yet our bodies are not equipped to do any of that. We cannot live off most of the plants that grow on earth and have no natural ability to tell those we can feed on and those that will kill us. We are not equipped with teeth or claws to kill and butcher an animal yet we are naturally omnivorous. We lack the speed and power to catch and kill a prey yet we are predatory and we cannot out-run or out fight those predators that could kill us but we have no natural predators. Much of the food we can eat needs to be prepared before we can chew and/or swallow and/or digest it, and that often involves cooking, which in turn involves fire, yet we our bodies are not equipped with anything that enable us to do any of that. We cannot survive on instinct and intuition. We survive by learning. Learning is not unique to humans, plenty of animals learn from their parent, but we are the only one who has to be taught everything we need to survive. Yet we have evolved to be like this. Naturally and without help from a supernatural entity. And that's pretty impressive. We survive because we can reason and learn. This is possible because we have evolved a brain that allows this to happen. Our survival tool is our brain, not our fur or our claws or our teeth. Once you have a brain that is large enough to enable a feeble-bodied predator such as homo sapiens to survive then that brain will be large enough to do other things when we are not using it for survival. I do not think there is any wondrous magic in our ability to think beyond survival. It certainly does not warrant an -ology.
There's no fooling you is there. Of course it is the same, that's kinda the point, that's kinda everything we've been discussing since page whatever it was (3?)
Atheism is not anti-religion therefore does not oppose religiousness. There are of course atheists like Dawkins who are also anti-religion, but they are a minority. A vocal minority, but a minority. Anyone who imposes their belief on others is reprehensible.
I have nothing to say here, just wanted to correct the quoting.
------------- What? |
Posted By: TODDLER
Date Posted: October 06 2014 at 22:34
Demons for example. Demons were written about in the works of medieval theologians. To me, someone who attempts to raise the dead or rule over a legion of demons is quite delusional. There taking what other's wrote about in history and incorporating that into their life. There's something that lacks glory in that along with being insane. Could you get your friends to believe in something supernatural? Could you convince them that another world exists and that they could help you get to that world? When people perform rituals, they often turn off the electricity of awareness. They don't question themselves. I don't believe in ghosts, demons, or rituals. I believe it has more to do with programming. Once your mind is programmed by a cult or cult leader, then you might begin to see those spirits of the dead or the so called demons with special names within special ranks of legions. It's fantasy and a majority of people who follow this left hand path...are bored with life and can't stand the average life experience with it's loose ends and issues to fix. I can accept a situation where a person is interested in the underworld, keeps to themselves, casts spells..maybe?, but is not on a mission to substitute their life for it. |
Posted By: Kati
Date Posted: October 06 2014 at 23:10
|
Please define the meaning of Humanist?
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: October 07 2014 at 01:15
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism" rel="nofollow - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism ------------- What? |
Posted By: Darious
Date Posted: October 07 2014 at 02:30
I can try! Following the search engine suggestion - "a humanist emphasizes the value of living beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinking and evidence over established doctrine or faith". Humanists believe that "what you give to community is likely what you get back from the community, either during our lives or the lives of our children" in opposition to the religious folks, who mostly believe that "how good you were in this world equals to how good you'll be treated in your after-life world". Humanists' morals might therefore be purer, as they don't have "private gains" (in after-life paradises) element involved. Humanists are not performing good deeds because their gods expect them to do so, but they do them because they are genuinely good folks. Many humanists are blood donors, vegetarians and/or volunteers and they are here for a fairer world ------------- Writing about truth is a little bit like getting your dick out in public and hoping no one laughs (Steve Hogarth) |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: October 07 2014 at 05:10
Before you reply to the previous post (assuming that you might). I would like to expand on this and place your "seed" quote (that I unfairly clipped it out for the sake of a couple of throw-away comments) back into its original context where it belongs. To continue the tree/plant analogy (not to discredit it, that would be pointless and it's not how analogies work). A tree grows from a seed (that is the analogy you made and the only inference that can rightfully be drawn from it, it is a good analogy) and you are correct: it is impossible to get that original seed back - the seed became the tree. However, (new analogy, not an extrapolation of the original analogy): trees produce seeds from which other trees can grow, and looking at it like that then the tree does not grow from the seed, the seed is the tree, but all grown-up. If you remove the tree it will not make new seeds. Also (new analogy again) a seed does not become a different kind of tree from the tree that produced it [mutation and hybridisation - which produce different varieties of tree but not new species of tree (but let's not get into speciation)]. The "banana" quip is a different form of tree propagation that does not produce seeds to make new bananas. [I know a banana tree is not a tree but a herb, but for the purposes of analogy it is the same as a tree since they are both plants]. Plants have other ways of propagating and so do ideas, I don't need to go to a seed-merchant to get seeds to make new trees. I can collect the seeds myself from a tree, plant them and they will grow. I have grown a sycamore tree from a seed I collected from a sycamore tree so I know this is possible. [hence: all things are possible] So with thinking I can think for myself without going to a philosopher to get some 'thinks'. I can grow new ideas without Philosophy [capital "'P"]. I can gain insight by collecting observation from the world around me without an insight-merchant. Removing Philosophy does not curtail human development, Philosophy does not create insight or ideas, that process would continue whether Philosophy existed or not. We can still propagate an idea without using philosophers and their philosophies and we can still call that process 'philosophy' if you wish. What if philosophy is not analogous to a seed. The seed then is an idea that develops into an application to which philosophy is merely the observation of that process. We can remove philosophy from that and the process is not affected, ideas are still created and they still develop. In that sense/view philosophy did not drive mankind's development, it merely observed it. Science is observation and explanation. Science does not make physics, biology and chemistry happen, it merely observes the processes and describes them. Similarly Music Theory does not make music happen, it merely observes the mechanisms that make music and describes them. And so it is with philosophy. ------------- What? |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: October 07 2014 at 05:50
Words are ephemeral, as is this medium that carries them. They could disappear tomorrow and never be seen again. I type to communicate with no regard to a clock or any value (intrinsic or instrumental) that they may have. If I am forgotten when I die then so be it, it does not affect me. If you do not like my words then pass them by, they will soon be gone, just as your snipes and jibes will be. You can belittle me and my opinions all you like and I will try not to rise to the bait or reply in kind, but I am not immune. My daughter is my only contribution to 'immortality' but that is not the reason, nor is it any guarantee. She is my daughter and that is all I can say. peace out. ------------- What? |
Posted By: Icarium
Date Posted: October 07 2014 at 06:20
-------------  
|