Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Atheism

Re: Atheism
January 21, 2014, 02:54:02 AM
Atheism is boring. It accepts the same ethics and cosmology as its parent theistic faith.

Agree with your assertion about secular ethics, for the most part (first premises: individualism, equality).

But cosmology?!

 ???

Theists thought the sun revolved around the earth.

If you think modern cosmology is boring, i suggest you read a Paul Davies book, or something.

If you think the amazing, and multi-layered view of reality of science is boring, then i suggest your read some philosophy of science. Learn how physics gives rise to chemistry, how chemistry gives rise to biology, how biology gives rise to pyschology, how psychology gives rise to economics and culture - and you have an amazing mosaic of knowledge that simply dwarfs christian ontology in its scope, unification and ultimately its success (at least pragmatic success - religion can still have psychological, 'subjective' success when measured by standards like transcendence, or alternatively fulfillment, or maybe even happiness - but then again I could believe everyone is equal and be 'happy' about this)


Re: Atheism
January 21, 2014, 03:40:22 AM
what is unreal? Does a thought  have a form of reality? Is it real and unreal at the same time?

Re: Atheism
January 21, 2014, 04:22:48 AM
Atheism is boring. It accepts the same ethics and cosmology as its parent theistic faith.

Agree with your assertion about secular ethics, for the most part (first premises: individualism, equality).

But cosmology?!

 ???

Theists thought the sun revolved around the earth.

If you think modern cosmology is boring, i suggest you read a Paul Davies book, or something.

If you think the amazing, and multi-layered view of reality of science is boring, then i suggest your read some philosophy of science. Learn how physics gives rise to chemistry, how chemistry gives rise to biology, how biology gives rise to pyschology, how psychology gives rise to economics and culture - and you have an amazing mosaic of knowledge that simply dwarfs christian ontology in its scope, unification and ultimately its success (at least pragmatic success - religion can still have psychological, 'subjective' success when measured by standards like transcendence, or alternatively fulfillment, or maybe even happiness - but then again I could believe everyone is equal and be 'happy' about this)

You know, I was talking about what's underneath the hood.

Re: Atheism
January 21, 2014, 05:53:50 AM
I don't follow...

(As a side note, I wasn't meaning to imply I know all of the connections between the different layers of reality studied by different sciences - just that its implications are in many ways far more profound than Theistic ontological study.)

Re: Atheism
January 21, 2014, 03:20:35 PM
what is unreal? Does a thought  have a form of reality? Is it real and unreal at the same time?

A thought does take form in reality. For a thought to occur, a precise series of energy trades take place, and they do so using physical matter as a conduit.

Re: Atheism
January 21, 2014, 04:10:16 PM
I don't follow...

(As a side note, I wasn't meaning to imply I know all of the connections between the different layers of reality studied by different sciences - just that its implications are in many ways far more profound than Theistic ontological study.)

It's the pursuit of natural laws, deterministic causality and the like that is a carry over from Christian ontology. Sure, the quantum world appears to be nondeterministic in areas, but there's a small problem, we aren't observing nature when left to operate on its own.

While the death of God has us running around frantically trying to justify the meta-Christian ethical system, this event also has us frantically trying to find an explanation of the mechanical cosmos without the involvement of a creator

Re: Atheism
January 21, 2014, 07:23:37 PM
what is unreal? Does a thought  have a form of reality? Is it real and unreal at the same time?

A thought does take form in reality. For a thought to occur, a precise series of energy trades take place, and they do so using physical matter as a conduit.

No-thing is unreal. Thoughts are real. The content or object of thought may be inaccurate and that's as far as it goes.

Re: Atheism
January 22, 2014, 04:10:32 AM
I don't follow...

(As a side note, I wasn't meaning to imply I know all of the connections between the different layers of reality studied by different sciences - just that its implications are in many ways far more profound than Theistic ontological study.)

It's the pursuit of natural laws, deterministic causality and the like that is a carry over from Christian ontology. Sure, the quantum world appears to be nondeterministic in areas, but there's a small problem, we aren't observing nature when left to operate on its own.

While the death of God has us running around frantically trying to justify the meta-Christian ethical system, this event also has us frantically trying to find an explanation of the mechanical cosmos without the involvement of a creator

What is your damn point? "Frantically trying to find explanations...". Yeah, and I frantically run around looking for water when I'm thirsty. You know why? Because it works. It quenches my thirst.

Try looking for an explanation of some natural phenomena by appealing to 'vital spirits' or something. See how far that gets you. 'Frantically' trying to find explanations indeed... You make it sound as though a commitment to naturalism is desperate, marginal, and defensive.

Why should we not look to find an explanation of the cosmos, as a whole, that does not involve a creator? Nearly every event within the cosmos, that used to depend on explanation in terms of a creator, is being explained better by mechanistic processes. We might look for a 'first cause' in the form of an agent for moral, artistic, emotional, political, or other reasons. But when we're looking for a cause for the purposes of serious ontological study (in this case of the totality of things) we need to approach issues with an eye to what-the-fuck-has-proven-itself-to-work.

Why even suppose that the natural world, or the world of causal events, itself, requires a first cause? Kant believed that causation is something our understanding constructs ('makes up') in order to make sense of the flux of perceptions. It does not exist in the world beyond sense impressions. He believed that the search for God, or a first cause, is simply a by-product of this category of the understanding turning back in on itself and 'desperately' (perhaps you are right after all) applying its logic to the world of sense impressions itself - when its proper function is to process events within the world of sense impression (and not that world itself).

A society needs more than just hierarchy, transcendence, and art (file each under 'culture'). It needs technology (esp if we are to get out of our current environmental problems, or reach space). It needs defense. It needs industry - lest it be crushed by some new mega-power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China#Demographics). And for these endeavors, a commitment to naturalism is the only contender.

Are you saying stop with this methodology when we reach the universe itself? Why? Certainly not because it doesn't have a good track record (re: questions of ontology). As I said above, I think it has an exemplary track record. For cultural reasons then (related to preserving the 'noble by-products of religion')? I am saddened that culture and science are antagonistic. This cannot remain so. Something needs to be done, lest the defenders of higher culture become increasingly relegated into the 'too hard to deal with with their strange metaphysical views' basket. Some new philosopher kings need to fashion some spirit out of the hodgepodge of 'atheism'.

And also, what is your point about origins? So what if it arose from Christianity. Wherever it arose from, the methodology of naturalism is producing vigorous insights into the cosmos that surpass any other methodology, and, if you are right about its origins, it has even bitten off the hand that originally fed it, for better or for worse.

Re: Atheism
January 22, 2014, 07:41:59 AM






Re: Atheism
January 22, 2014, 02:25:17 PM
The second picture....the neckbeard is so vast we don't even see where it ends! He must be a wizard.

Re: Atheism
January 22, 2014, 03:09:07 PM
Two can play the ad-hoc pictures game. Let's bring an actual Ubermench into the ring to represent the 'atheists' - not the embarrassing specimens hitherto exhibited.


Re: Atheism
January 22, 2014, 03:51:37 PM
What is your damn point? "Frantically trying to find explanations...". Yeah, and I frantically run around looking for water when I'm thirsty. You know why? Because it works. It quenches my thirst.

I made my point most clearly.

Quote
Try looking for an explanation of some natural phenomena by appealing to 'vital spirits' or something. See how far that gets you. 'Frantically' trying to find explanations indeed... You make it sound as though a commitment to naturalism is desperate, marginal, and defensive.

Nice strawman. I say frantically, which was probably a poor word choice in hindsight, because of the level of dedication given to the justification of Christian ethics and Christian ontology through non-theological inquiry.

Quote
Why should we not look to find an explanation of the cosmos, as a whole, that does not involve a creator? Nearly every event within the cosmos, that used to depend on explanation in terms of a creator, is being explained better by mechanistic processes. We might look for a 'first cause' in the form of an agent for moral, artistic, emotional, political, or other reasons. But when we're looking for a cause for the purposes of serious ontological study (in this case of the totality of things) we need to approach issues with an eye to what-the-fuck-has-proven-itself-to-work.

I implied nothing of the sort. I am describing a simple observation: atheist movements never shed the core ethical and ontological views of their parent faith. I'm not going to touch the rest of that as it is unrelated, entirely, to my intent and belief.

Quote
Why even suppose that the natural world, or the world of causal events, itself, requires a first cause? Kant believed that causation is something our understanding constructs ('makes up') in order to make sense of the flux of perceptions. It does not exist in the world beyond sense impressions. He believed that the search for God, or a first cause, is simply a by-product of this category of the understanding turning back in on itself and 'desperately' (perhaps you are right after all) applying its logic to the world of sense impressions itself - when its proper function is to process events within the world of sense impression (and not that world itself).

I believe we presuppose first causes due again to western intellectual heritage and the fundamental schism between man god and nature. Thus the pursuit of looking at and looking for parts. Parts, causes. The smallest parts and the first causes.

Quote
A society needs more than just hierarchy, transcendence, and art (file each under 'culture'). It needs technology (esp if we are to get out of our current environmental problems, or reach space). It needs defense. It needs industry - lest it be crushed by some new mega-power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China#Demographics). And for these endeavors, a commitment to naturalism is the only contender.

This is all a big red herring and another straw man. I think tradition, as per Evola Guenon and the like is bullshit. I enjoy their work and I believe there's merit in it when the conditions are right, but by and large it's a meta-historical projection of extreme bias.

What's interesting however is that you've basically outlined for me the extent to which you've subscribed to the ideology of our day. The idea that man isn't a true component of this planet, his destiny is among the stars. Man has dominion over the earth and industry is his arm. Technology must progress vaguely and infinitely. So on and so forth. This is all very much rooted in Christianity. The universe and nature is imperfect so man must transcend it after death in glorious paradise beyond life. On and on.

Quote
Are you saying stop with this methodology when we reach the universe itself? Why? Certainly not because it doesn't have a good track record (re: questions of ontology). As I said above, I think it has an exemplary track record. For cultural reasons then (related to preserving the 'noble by-products of religion')? I am saddened that culture and science are antagonistic. This cannot remain so. Something needs to be done, lest the defenders of higher culture become increasingly relegated into the 'too hard to deal with with their strange metaphysical views' basket. Some new philosopher kings need to fashion some spirit out of the hodgepodge of 'atheism'.

I'm not saying we should jettison empiricism and give up inquiry into the workings of the cosmos. I'm point out the similaritis between important cultural ideologies, specifically between theistic narratives and the rationalist narratives that supercede them (temporarily).

The "accomplishments" are relative. You hold it in high regard largely because the narrative you've proven yourself to subscribe to says so. Many others would look upon the disaster that mans pursuit of dominon has had on himself and his world and conclude that a moon landing, while a great feat, was not worth it.

There are many examples of societies which do not partake in industry and they are adapted and successful all the same. While they might not have the autonomy, stimulation and convenience we have, they adapted successful models that accomplish whatever their cultures think is important.

Quote
And also, what is your point about origins? So what if it arose from Christianity. Wherever it arose from, the methodology of naturalism is producing vigorous insights into the cosmos that surpass any other methodology, and, if you are right about its origins, it has even bitten off the hand that originally fed it, for better or for worse.

I've made my point sufficiently by now. Keep in mind the bit about poking nature, observing its reaction and declaring that observation to be the operation of nature under uninterrupted operating conditions.

Re: Atheism
January 22, 2014, 04:40:55 PM
Quote
we aren't observing nature when left to operate on its own

How is possible to remove the observer from what is being observed?

Are roses red?

Quote
While the death of God has us running around frantically trying to justify the meta-Christian ethical system, this event also has us frantically trying to find an explanation of the mechanical cosmos without the involvement of a creator

This is what you're saying:

1. Christianity collapsed. "Atheism" [as if it's a single ideology] has turned to secular humanism in order to perpetuate a continuation of the same ethical system. This part seems accurate.

2. Christianity has been collapsed due to scientific discoveries which render its ontology untenable. Because of this, science is attempting to explain the mysteries of the universe without God. Therefore science is based on Christian ontology.

How can they simultaneously "share ontological views" and yet be in a situation where one has negated the other?

Re: Atheism
January 22, 2014, 04:55:42 PM
Look at the hub lub over the interpretation of quantum mechanics because light exhibits qualities of a wave and a particle. It shouldn't be they say. Wah wah wah. Not to mention the collapse of the wave function when introducing a classical observer. It's sort of like trying to derive a theory about the behavior of bears through the constant introduction of stimulus and control by the observers.

1. I understand there to be multiple brands of atheism today and historically. Lest we get off point, at least we are in agreement here.

2. That is what the narrative says sure. Science causing people to turn away from religion could be it. Or, it's part of a greater pattern that occurs through human civilizations that follow the arc of literacy. Remember, this current brand of atheism is only the most recent rationalist movement.

I don't believe one has truly negated the other in any meaningful sense. If you compare say a monistic view with a creationist view the former isn't exactly an independently running mechanism that was "built" by divine hands like the latter suggests. Hence, the trap of the God of Gaps strategy. It's an easy trap to fall into because the ontology is so compatible (setting aside direct lineage for a moment). Remember, the Christian ontology suggests that everything operates on divine law. When was the last time you heard it suggested that laws might not exist and that nature has tendencies and contingencies rather than a definite set of operating procedures that the human intellect need only to Pierce the veil and understand?

Re: Atheism
January 22, 2014, 05:42:15 PM
Two can play the ad-hoc pictures game. Let's bring an actual Ubermench into the ring to represent the 'atheists'

lol for fucks sake.

Its a request, not a suggestion, a very humble one at that, but pleeeeease can we let this thread die? You dont come in after a trainwreck to rape the survivors, its just not... nice.