Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Atheistic dismissiveness?

Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
October 12, 2010, 06:39:35 AM
If you have a problem with the current classification of science, then simply replace any post that contains that use with the phrase Naturalist Method of Empirical Falsifiability, or something similar.

No. I do not tolerate the misuse of language. YOU may replace it with Whatever you like.

Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
October 12, 2010, 06:49:15 AM
Quote
God is the limit approached when all of existence is considered as a single entity.

You mean that God is the Infinite?

I like this one:

Quote
Etymology of the Word "God"

The root-meaning of the name (from Gothic root gheu; Sanskrit hub or emu, "to invoke or to sacrifice to") is either "the one invoked" or "the one sacrificed to."

Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
October 12, 2010, 07:08:45 AM
Spectrum, Atheism is the absolute denial of existence of God as being a supernatural, omniscient, omnipotent being, creator of all, etc.  If there's any doubt in the mind of a so-called Atheist (i.e. "we can't know"), that's not Atheism, but, rather, Agnosticism.

Agnosticicsm means "without knowledge", and therefore means that one would claim to not know anything regarding any deities.  I often hear agnostics say "you can't dispprove christian god/allah;etc.".  Well guess what?  You can't dissprove the tooth fairy either.  I don't think agnosticism goes far enough, and no your definition of atheist is a misonception based on connotations.  I'm going by the actual dennoations and their respective anthropology.  I'm never going to run with the agnostic crowd and act like I don't know shit.  I know for sure that -for example- the abrahamic gods are fabricated beings.  Many agnostics I've heard -and rightly so, based on the definition- say you cannot know that.  I don't understand why it's all that complicated.  You don't have to believe in anything, and that's what atheism is.  You're tagging along other qualities that don't exist.  Arguing definitions is pointless though; the point is that the creator of all bit is just make-believe.  It's simply anthropromorphizing the beginning of the universe due to humanity's lack of a decent perception.  We, as a race, like to make up stuff to merely fill in the blanks.

Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
October 12, 2010, 07:12:36 AM
You can't dissprove the tooth fairy either.  

I've never before heard this analogy used, ever!

--

Agnostics are pussies. Take the fucking plunge.

Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
October 12, 2010, 09:38:02 AM
the creator of all bit is just make-believe

Nice contradiction with your earlier statements.  Furthermore, I'd very much like to see your empirical proof for this claim.

Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
October 12, 2010, 09:55:37 AM
If you have a problem with the current classification of science, then simply replace any post that contains that use with the phrase Naturalist Method of Empirical Falsifiability, or something similar.

No. I do not tolerate the misuse of language. YOU may replace it with Whatever you like.

The definition of science:
Quote from: Oxford English Dictionary
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment : the world of science and technology.
• a particular area of this : veterinary science | the agricultural sciences.
• a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject : the science of criminology.
archaic knowledge of any kind.
How is the use of this term by others not in alignment with its definition?  Excuse me if I trust the Oxford English Dictionary as a greater authority on language and its use than you.

Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
October 12, 2010, 09:59:50 AM

Meta-meta-meta-meta-genie Gods aside, Cargest what personally do you believe?

Consciousness is God.

Quote
But then if we can't detect it, it probably doesn't interact with us enough to leave a pattern or be a "God" in the sense we know them as.

Two things about this: firstly, consider the programmer behind the program; secondly, consider that the term "God", while generally used in the Christian sense, nowadays, is actually a very loose term.  As far as I understand it, "God" need not even be "sentient", so long as it is "living".

While I find your opinion interesting, ultimately it seems like a lot of contrivances to justify a root generic "higher power" type belief.


"Consciousness is god"

I'm just not deep enough for all that.

Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
October 12, 2010, 10:01:25 AM
God is the limit approached when all of existence is considered as a single entity.
That's an interesting definition, but it would at minimum suggest that God is essentially unknowable to humans, as our brains are not even capable of imagining things on the scale of a galaxy let alone the entire physical world and anything else that may encompass existence.  I'm also not sure what you would do with such a definition.  That is, you have a coherent definition, but what is the purpose of having it?  Where do you go from there?

Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
October 12, 2010, 10:18:07 AM

Meta-meta-meta-meta-genie Gods aside, Cargest what personally do you believe?

Consciousness is God.

Quote
But then if we can't detect it, it probably doesn't interact with us enough to leave a pattern or be a "God" in the sense we know them as.

Two things about this: firstly, consider the programmer behind the program; secondly, consider that the term "God", while generally used in the Christian sense, nowadays, is actually a very loose term.  As far as I understand it, "God" need not even be "sentient", so long as it is "living".

While I find your opinion interesting, ultimately it seems like a lot of contrivances to justify a root generic "higher power" type belief.


"Consciousness is god"

I'm just not deep enough for all that.

Consciousness operates as the overarching system which governs all other systems, including this physical reality, other physical realities, non physical realities, non real realiities, or whatever.  Everything which can exist does exist, somewhere (probably not in the physical space of this reality, though).

If you were to ask me about the God of this reality which we inhabit, I would have to say that reality itself is God.  Brahman.

Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
October 12, 2010, 10:23:52 AM
God is the limit approached when all of existence is considered as a single entity.
That's an interesting definition, but it would at minimum suggest that God is essentially unknowable to humans, as our brains are not even capable of imagining things on the scale of a galaxy let alone the entire physical world and anything else that may encompass existence.  I'm also not sure what you would do with such a definition.  That is, you have a coherent definition, but what is the purpose of having it?  Where do you go from there?

You mean to say that the nature of (pure) God transcends human understanding? How preposterous!

What it implies: the study of God means to try to discover ways of describing reality as a whole under a small number of principles, and thus approach a more coherent understanding of God. Such a study is to referred to as Theology or Theosophy, depending on whether the study is regarded as knowledge increasing or wisdom increasing.

Philosophically, it would imply, I think, that if we can find a single principle which underlies all existence (e.g. the Buddhist's emptiness) then we will have found God.

It should also be the case that it is good to become more God-like (i.e. more holistic in your considerations, perhaps in an objective rather than subjective sense). We may add to our definition of God a qualitative element, but I feel that by doing this that we have left the notion of Pure God, and are now considering a Platonic or Jewish notion of God. It certainly wouldn't be a Hessian God.

Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
October 12, 2010, 10:29:04 AM
Consciousness operates as the overarching system which governs all other systems, including this physical reality, other physical realities, non physical realities, non real realiities, or whatever.  Everything which can exist does exist, somewhere (probably not in the physical space of this reality, though).

If you were to ask me about the God of this reality which we inhabit, I would have to say that reality itself is God.  Brahman.

Is consciousness a necessary component of reality, or is it merely a sufficient one?

What do you mean by reality? Do you roughly mean "those parts of existence which we can be affected by"?

Thanks, "¿Lol, okay?"

Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
October 12, 2010, 10:32:53 AM
How is the use of this term by others not in alignment with its definition?  Excuse me if I trust the Oxford English Dictionary as a greater authority on language and its use than you.
Quote
archaic knowledge of any kind.

This, and Plato's distinction between opinion & knowledge, is my answer. I perfectly understand that you place your trust in authority, but a contemporary English dictionary has its limits. When people speak of "science", what they ought to mean is knowledge pure and simple, without any epithet, but specifically not trial and error, of which the best result can only be opinion, never knowledge. I know your opinion on this matter, as we have discussed it already; we do not need to fight another battle in this thread. My intention was for Wolfgang to understand that what is called the "theory of evolution" is an often heterogeneous conglomerate of opinions, but it is not science ITPSOTW ;-)

Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
October 12, 2010, 10:36:10 AM
If God is the entirety of existence viewed as a single element (I prefer element to entity, as entity has certain implications I'd rather not deal with), then it would certainly transcend the human capacity of understanding.  Our ability to comprehend reality is severely limited by several factors.  Therefore, the idea that we could know the entirety of existence is what is preposterous.

Also, you make the claim that it is better to be more God-like without explaining why that is the case.

Quote from: nous
but it is not science ITPSOTW ;-)
He wasn't using the philosophical sense of the word, so your objection is irrelevant.

Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
October 12, 2010, 10:39:44 AM
Your objection is irrelevant. I said: in the proper sense of the word. Did you actually read my last answer? It explains why that should be the standard, default, normal sense.

Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
October 12, 2010, 10:46:20 AM
If God is the entirety of existence viewed as a single element (I prefer element to entity, as entity has certain implications I'd rather not deal with), then it would certainly transcend the human capacity of understanding.  Our ability to comprehend reality is severely limited by several factors.  Therefore, the idea that we could know the entirety of existence is what is preposterous.

Of course. Only the single element itself knows what it is, and any awareness requires the formation of duality, which is a contradiction to the notion of God.

Quote
Also, you make the claim that it is better to be more God-like without explaining why that is the case.

Perhaps it isn't. I meant should in the sense of I expect it to. Perhaps this is contradictory with the previous definition, perhaps it is a better one. I'm not sure.