Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Atheism

Re: Atheism
January 27, 2014, 03:18:32 PM
But it's mostly likely the true account. So whether we like it or not, we have to come up with interpretations of it that go above and beyond shopping, immediate gratification, and lowest common denominator culture.

I guess that the main difference between a few other folk around here and me is that they see this being achieved by conserving beliefs about reality that I cannot see working in a practical sense. Theistic, traditionalist, pagan, quasi-mystic beliefs are too antagonistic to other beliefs we now hold as a society. They will reply that, for their part, 'ascending' cultural practices, divorced from traditional beliefs about reality are just not functional, and would be like trying to grow a tree after chopping off its roots.

I don't really care to deal with polemicists. I said earlier that I'm not interested in arguing who holds the correct view. My stated observation had nothing to do with "correctness" of any particular view.

Quote
I think something similar to your remarks that followed. Something as normative-free as possible. Scope of, usefulness of, and depth/complexity of...

Thought so.

Re: Atheism
January 29, 2014, 08:24:39 AM
My concern with correctness is not just for its own sake, which is what I was trying to get at in my last post. It's for the sake of realism (in a practical sense). Atheism coheres with so many other beliefs (related to the creation of technology, exploration, and science) that I think it is here to stay. Correctness? Let's talk about reality, or presence, then. Atheism is present.

How do we deal with it, improve upon it, make it, yes... sacred?

This is probably why I'm drawn more towards listening to death metal these days, and not black metal. There is a real sense of making physicalism/nihilism meaningful there... while black metal is more mythical and traditionalist.

Eastern religions might have made more progress in making a form of monistic a-theism sacred, in a sense.


Re: Atheism
January 29, 2014, 04:45:53 PM
Haha well where you and I depart is on that sense of realism. Realism in the context of the conversation to myself is an understanding that human civilizations, given the necessary conditions, will follow through "periods" on the way up and on the way down. The outward forms will change but the underlying patterns are there.

I think it's pretty obvious that the core ideology of modern atheism, Progress, no longer fits reality. Not that it every truly did, but the vision itself bore practical fruit in the pursuit. Atheism of the present sort, clings tightly on the suppositions of Progress. I think it does have a large effect on your thinking just by how this conversation has gone.

I throw heavily into question the greater ontology/cosmology that modern science has wrought simply due to the unshaken foundations I mentioned earlier that have their origins in Christendumb. Again a lot of that has to do with my understanding of the patterns of thought throughout recorded history.

I don't think we are really going to find much of a consensus here. Which isn't really an issue.

Re: Atheism
January 30, 2014, 01:53:06 AM
I find people interesting, and their beliefs interesting. If we don't agree at least we can understand why we don't, which is more than most substantial debates in polite society achieve.

I think it's pretty obvious that the core ideology of modern atheism, Progress, no longer fits reality.

If you would like to keep the conservation going (as I personally would rather discuss cool, big picture stuff like this than other topics), you are going to have to explain this to me.

Atheism, I would have thought, is simply the belief that the God of theism (a supernatural agent/person) does not exist. It might also include the belief that reality is better explained via physicalism. The evangelical endeavors of the 'new-atheist' movement is its own thing. 'Progress' is vague ideological trapping that gets associated with atheism - due to proximity rather than the conceptual meaning of 'atheism'.

Both of these beliefs (a-theism, physicalism) are better born out by the success of science/naturalistic philosophy than their opposites (supernaturalism/dualism)... so how does atheism no longer fit with reality? I would have though theism no longer fits reality, from the perspective of true beliefs.

I throw heavily into question the greater ontology/cosmology that modern science has wrought simply due to the unshaken foundations I mentioned earlier that have their origins in Christendumb. Again a lot of that has to do with my understanding of the patterns of thought throughout recorded history.

Are you saying that physics is wrong because the origins of science is in finding laws of nature (which is attached to Christianity, in some vague sense)?!

And how, on earth, can it be sensible to question the ontology of modern science? As i tried to point out before, we aren't using computers, stereos, telescopes, airoplanes, medicine, etc because physical/chemical/biological 'laws' (or regularities of greater enough stability/range) in nature aren't there! We're using them all because they are!

let me know if I've misinterpreted your comments.

Re: Atheism
February 17, 2014, 03:25:00 PM
There is a distinction, Imposition, between the categorical definition of Atheism and the ideologies of Ages of Rationalism that are categorically atheist.

When the Greeks coined the term to describe a particular lack of belief in Gods, they were heavily invested in the study of metaphysics. The ideology of Progress, aside from easily defined, and its evangelists are actual manifestations of real human behavior that actually occurs which textbook definitions try to describe. I really think this is the gap between us.

I said Progress no longer fits reality. Big distinction.

You misunderstood my comments on science so I can't really address any more of what you wrote.

Re: Atheism
February 18, 2014, 01:14:24 AM
There is a distinction, Imposition, between the categorical definition of Atheism and the ideologies of Ages of Rationalism that are categorically atheist.

Agreed!


I said Progress no longer fits reality. Big distinction.

You misunderstood my comments on science so I can't really address any more of what you wrote.

Is the idea something like this: progress doesn't fit reality because progress is leading to environmental destruction? Is the difference this: i was talking about the accuracy of scientific statements and their ability to refer to things in the world, where you were talking about the consequences of science - down the track?

Re: Atheism
February 18, 2014, 03:09:30 AM
It's more along the lines that Progress posited infinite economic, technological and moral progress. Sure the science was never there to support it given the finite nature of things. But the vision itself put boots on the moon among other great feats, driving innovations in communication and so on. I'd say its like any mythology: not literally true but significant views that form the core goals of society.

There's a lot of bad, ugly, destructive things that came of it but those are all very well covered round these parts. The dream never panned itself out completely as most never do.

With regards to science, I think that's really a separate issue. Granted I believe it is held hostage by the suppositions of this mythology as well as the influence of Descartes on all modern thinking. That's a llarge conversation within itself and honestly one I'll need to brush up on.

Re: Atheism
February 18, 2014, 02:26:50 PM
Atheists believe in science, thay don't care for anything but science. They don't care for nothing before science prove, atheists are ignorants.

Re: Atheism
February 18, 2014, 06:21:20 PM
Kill atheists and then ask them how does it feel to burn in hell you pathetic egoist and humanist.

Re: Atheism
February 19, 2014, 12:23:48 AM
Atheists believe in science, thay don't care for anything but science. They don't care for nothing before science prove, atheists are ignorants.

Kill atheists and then ask them how does it feel to burn in hell you pathetic egoist and humanist.

I think you two were aiming for the 'Birdbrain' thread?

Re: Atheism
February 19, 2014, 12:25:27 AM
Maybe the whole point of the Birdbrain thread has just been stunningly illustrated?
Hahahahahaaaaaaaa :)

Re: Atheism
February 19, 2014, 12:29:04 AM
Quite. As you wrote in that thread:

a prime example of what can happen when a perfectly capable brain is left to deal with automatic processing

 ;)

Re: Atheism
February 19, 2014, 09:18:55 PM
Atheists believe in science, thay don't care for anything but science. They don't care for nothing before science prove, atheists are ignorants.

Kill atheists and then ask them how does it feel to burn in hell you pathetic egoist and humanist.

I think you two were aiming for the 'Birdbrain' thread?

I think science is egoist and humanist.

Re: Atheism
February 19, 2014, 09:19:59 PM
So do I. Which is a shame, because science has so much potential.

Re: Atheism
February 19, 2014, 11:29:03 PM
Please read my posts in the hubris of science thread, KingdomGone. Then tell me whether science is operating via the EGO, or rather hand-wavy posts like yours - which offer no reasons, no deep considerations, no sacrifice, and nothing but what seems like a crude mental reflex or spasm in response to a stimuli you don't like.

In what way is science 'egoist'. Please read my aforementioned posts before responding, otherwise we will engage in yet another mud-slinging match.