Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Atheism

Re: Atheism
January 09, 2009, 11:12:09 PM
Could you please point me towards the passages in Hume's writings where he confuses necessity and causality? What do you even mean by 'necessity'? Hume most certainly did not confuse causality with logical necessity, and I can't see how causality isn't related to nomological necessity.

"Our idea, therefore, of necessity and causation arises entirely from the uniformity observable in the operations of nature, where similar objects are constantly conjoined together, and the mind is determined by custom to infer the one from the appearance of the other. These two circumstances form the whole of that necessity, which we ascribe to matter. Beyond the constant conjunction of similar objects, and the consequent inference from one to the other, we have no notion of any necessity or connexion." Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding > Section VIII

I'm sorry, but I simply fail to see how Hume is confusing causation and necessity in the above passage. He is clearly denying that there is sufficient reason to posit a necessary connection between causes and effects. He merely postulates that causation is normally taken to be a form of necessity. He identifies causation as the constant conjunction of events, which is such an attenuated notion of necessity as to clearly not be an adequate account of necessity on any intuitive reading of 'necessity'. I am quite sure that fact was abundantly clear to Hume.

Re: Atheism
January 12, 2009, 10:09:51 PM
The most troublesome part about modern atheists is that they so closely resemble the sort of slave revolt that intellectual atheism is supposed to rise against. It's one thing to criticize a childish conception of god;  trying to get rid of religion is a compltely different matter. Just as with christians, i have know some very noble atheists in my time, as well as some very stupid and weak ones. I so often find myself wishing that the weak and stupid atheists would just go back to christianity, as it would probably be best for all parties involved. And it's not so much a matter of intelligence as it is of personal integrity, as there are many above-average or high-iq atheists who are still in need of some rulebook to follow. Atheism is a big responsibility, and many people simply arent cut-out for it.

For good examples of atheism at its sillier moments, consult youtube.

Re: Atheism
January 19, 2014, 04:53:57 AM

Re: Atheism
January 19, 2014, 05:03:53 AM
the new ‹bermensch


http://i.imgur.com/EYAw98p.jpg

http://oi44.tinypic.com/2lkpp9x.jpg

If there had been a blond, blue-eyed, healthy and strong looking male put under the text, would you have posted this?

Is THIS the new Ubermench?



Or maybe this?



Then again...



But surely not someone who has actually penetrated into the mystery of the cosmos, No.


Re: Atheism
January 19, 2014, 05:33:29 AM
''If there had been a blond, blue-eyed, healthy and strong looking male put under the text, would you have posted this?''


It would have been less tempting, but I think yes. It would have still come out a little bit arrogant for my liking.

Re: Atheism
January 19, 2014, 05:35:35 AM
The first (the text) is indeed patronising and snide. The second is OK.

Re: Atheism
January 20, 2014, 12:52:51 AM
the new ‹bermensch


http://i.imgur.com/EYAw98p.jpg

http://oi44.tinypic.com/2lkpp9x.jpg

If there had been a blond, blue-eyed, healthy and strong looking male put under the text, would you have posted this?

Is THIS the new Ubermench?



Or maybe this?



Then again...



But surely not someone who has actually penetrated into the mystery of the cosmos, No.



This reads like a post from The Thulean Perspective.  :D

Re: Atheism
January 20, 2014, 06:35:52 AM
Is THIS the new Ubermench?
Considering the degree to which this (generalized) man can now exert influence over world affairs, I would say, non-sarcastically, yes.

The Jewish question was pretty funny, though.

Re: Atheism
January 20, 2014, 06:47:37 PM
Knowledge enlightens. Intelligence is "merely" a possible vehicle and occasional hindrance to that.

Re: Atheism
January 20, 2014, 07:30:43 PM
Atheism is rebellion against the unknown.  The atheist only believes in human perceptions, observations and knowledge.  However, reality exists beyond what the mind can perceive.  The unknown is very much a part of reality and an aspect of reality - it is simply not known.  Knowledge does not change reality, it only changes how man relates to reality. 

The atheist mistakenly assumes that if something is not known or cannot be known theoretically, it is not worthy of belief.  Once again, a belief in only what the individual or collection of individuals think, know, perceive, or feel.  The unknown is not the same as unreal.

If God and religion are based on belief and not knowledge, then this does not at all mean it is untrue or illogical.  Unknown is not the same as untrue, something can very well be true without being justified by knowledge, to be unjustified by knowledge is not at all to say that something is false.

The premise is simple:  the unknown is not a lesser aspect or lesser part of reality, if anything it is primary.  For every one thing that is known, there are ten things that are unknown.  What you don't know could fill a library.

Re: Atheism
January 20, 2014, 08:24:02 PM
Atheism is boring. It accepts the same ethics and cosmology as its parent theistic faith.

Re: Atheism
January 20, 2014, 09:46:38 PM
Quote
The unknown is very much a part of reality and an aspect of reality - it is simply not known.


How can any part of reality be said to be "known" or "unknown" independent of anything that might "know" or "not know" it?

Quote
The atheist mistakenly assumes that if something is not known or cannot be known theoretically, it is not worthy of belief.

This is not as accurate as it could be. Theory without observational evidence is not grounds for belief. If observational evidence is present, then it is safe to consider it valid.

Quote
Once again, a belief in only what the individual or collection of individuals think, know, perceive, or feel.

Do you know of any religion which did not arise and be communicated through what individuals think, know, perceive, or feel?

Quote
something can very well be true without being justified by knowledge

It can also be false.  :)

Re: Atheism
January 20, 2014, 09:49:35 PM
Atheism is boring. It accepts the same ethics and cosmology as its parent theistic faith.

Ethics; perhaps, (if the Richard Dawkins type is the model under discussion) but cosmology? The difference between stating the universe was created by Jewgod some thousands of years ago in 6 days seems far removed from a billions of years process that arose from random quantum fluctuations.

Re: Atheism
January 20, 2014, 10:06:28 PM
Atheism is boring. It accepts the same ethics and cosmology as its parent theistic faith.

Ethics; perhaps, (if the Richard Dawkins type is the model under discussion) but cosmology? The difference between stating the universe was created by Jewgod some thousands of years ago in 6 days seems far removed from a billions of years process that arose from random quantum fluctuations.

The belief in natural law is a carryover from the belief in divine law. We are still stuck in the mode of looking for some first causes of a linear progression of events. As far as contemporary western atheism is concerned. Hell, we are still looking for a beginning and an end.

Re: Atheism
January 21, 2014, 02:48:17 AM
The atheist mistakenly assumes that if something is not known or cannot be known theoretically, it is not worthy of belief.  Once again, a belief in only what the individual or collection of individuals think, know, perceive, or feel.  The unknown is not the same as unreal.

I largely agree with your post. I particularly agree with the general point that belief ('faith') is an essential part of being human. It is a source of energy. Despite welcoming the collapse of Xtianity, Nietzsche, for instance, wrote of the utility of belief for driving human mind to higher endeavors.

However, keep in mind that Atheists, on an underlying level, have their own faith and their own mission. They are driven by belief. You cannot 'know' (in sense of having a 100 per cent certain true belief) that the supernatural does not exist. You are simply driven, if an atheist, by the conviction that physicalism captures the stuff the cosmos.

This is not to say that most of the objective evidence does not point towards a physicalist ontology... but just that it does so probabilistically, and not with 100 per cent certainty.

The premise is simple:  the unknown is not a lesser aspect or lesser part of reality, if anything it is primary.  For every one thing that is known, there are ten things that are unknown.  What you don't know could fill a library.

Yes, the unknown is like an open ocean to an explorer, or a christian village to a Viking.

However, do not conflate the unknown with the known-probably-not-to-exist.

It is one thing, from the point of view of knowledge, to not be 'captured by human minds' because you are yet to be reached - another not to be 'captured by human minds' because you don't exist.

Something that is beyond your grasp you cannot put in a basket, alternatively you can't put what doesn't exist in your basket either.