|
Aswad -> RE: Is Atheism a religion? (9/14/2009 7:30:12 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lostkitten3
I am saying whatever research you have done on the definition of Scientific Method, is not applicable to actual research.
I was not talking about research. It took a pretty long time before it became accepted that doctors had been killing pregnant women by not adopting proper hygiene. That was because people were obsessed with theories, while there was a falsifiable, standing and tested hypothesis to the effect that proper hygiene would lower death rates down to a level comparable to that of being in the care of a nurse or midwife (who didn't dissect corpses before moving on to patients). Science in the sense you are practicing it won out over scientific method.
quote:
I strongly disagree that people are gods.
Then you probably have a particular definition of "god" in mind.
quote:
That stopped in Egypt quite a while ago. Even the Pope, who is supposed to be God's right hand man, who is revered for his "knowledge and wisdom" is very clearly NOT a god.
Oh, really? I realize the pope has fallen in status lately, but people still prostrate themselves before him and kiss his feet in a manner that not so long ago was called worship when done in other contexts. Guess next thing you'll be buying that the Catholic church doesn't actually worship Mary, either, but merely "venerates" her (the terms are somewhat circular in Catholic practice, if you try to link them to anything outside it).
quote:
The Greeks and Romans believed their leaders were ordained by gods, chosen by gods, and that gods would procreate with humans and make a halfblood, but no human IS a god, at least has been for many years.
Again depending on the definition of the term.
quote:
Angelina Jolie is a husband stealing child collector who is beautiful because of a lot of plastic surgery, personal trainers, personal chefs, personal assistants and Nannies. I feel empathy for anyone who sees her as a goddess.
You must be a very empathic person. I couldn't bring myself to care whether or not that many strangers lived or died, let alone what their gods might be. That aside, while off topic, I would very much like to (in another thread) see some coherent argumentation to the effect that a husband can be stolen, like some inanimate object or property. Collecting children, I'm fine with. She can provide for them. She's apparently taking steps to limit their jadedness in growing up, while attending to the safety issues inherent in having a high profile parent. And, she's not stuffing them to keep them in some formaldehyde jar somewhere. In short, the kids could do worse. Don't see how she has a hair on Hera, if you'll pardon the pun. And, yes, most mythological women of any status seem to have attendants. A lot of non-mythological ones, too. Fringe benefit?
quote:
In fact the mystification of Hollywood is based on the premise these people are somehow better than we are, or more perfect, but it is all a smokescreen, as the Beatles taught us during their breakup.
Of course. And this is reflected in mythology, too. It is part of what allows us to identify with the human-like gods. Hera was jealous. Yahweh was vindictive. Inanna was bloodthirsty and lusty, if a quick refresher is correct. And the Æsir (as one example) were claimed in the Gesta Danorum to be mortal men who had charmed people into worshipping them as gods by virtue of some inner presence. Besides, even if it was never explicitly mentioned in the bible, Jesus went to the toilet to take a crap every now and then.
The modern notion of equality is a soothing lie, but a lie nonetheless.
But, yeah, the job description of a Hollywood star is to be perceived as a star. Perception matters. We can deny it, but not escape it. If you're beautiful, your chances of being convicted of a crime drop dramatically. If you're a woman, and asking for custody of a child, the father can pretty much forget about it. If you're black, you're more likely to be pulled over. If you're wearing a modest dress, people are less likely to think you a slut. If you wear a business suit with a tie, people take you more seriously in a meeting. All perception, most of it false, but highly relevant nonetheless.
Vicarious thrills are no less popular than envy, and an idol often invokes one of the two.
quote:
In fact, the one person that diefied the Beatles (not the girls who loved their love songs and wanted to fuck them) is CHarles Manson. I don't think he is a good example of choosing who to worship as a god.
A somewhat Chthonic one, at least. I don't see how it would be worse than Enyo or Marzanna, though.
quote:
Many men thought Marilyn Monroe was a goddess but as she said "They would go to bed with Marilyn Monroe and wake up with Norma Jean" meaning their myth was ruined by the reality of her fallibility.
Obviously.
But you are discounting an important point: for a very large number of people, expectations are a very large part of an experience. If you have the background you mentioned, then I am fairly certain you have a good idea of just how far choice bias can go, for instance. And the first time one has sex- at least, provided the hymen is not intact- is often experienced as better, due to the expectation that it will be "special." When people pick their nose, others in their environment reflexively avert their eyes in a subconscious manner a large part of the time, which is due to a cultural imperative that allows us to ignore flaws. Similarly, when in a state of PEA-induced puppy love, people disregard even the most obvious flaws in the object of their desire.
It is not unreasonable to think that, if she had acted the part, whoever went to bed with Marilyn Monroe with the expectation that the experience would be that of bedding a goddess, would experience exactly what they had expected to experience. In fact, this sort of adjustment of perception is precisely one of the main arguments used by atheists to deny the validity of religious experiences. Can't eat your cake and have it, too.
quote:
The tabloids are quick to point out faults, real or made up, of Hollywood moviestars.
Of course. Yet, they haven't pointed out mine lately. Imagine that...
quote:
No current religion holds people as gods.
A citation would be nice. Jiddu Krishnamurti was heralded as the reincarnation of a buddha, though he insisted he was not. The Dalai Lama is an instance of the avatar type of god, viewed as the reincarnation of his predecessor, which is a pretty current example, unless you are writing me from the future...
quote:
That is your interpretation...seemingly given to you by your cock more than your faith or love of god. Wanting to fuck people and fantasizing about them is not the same as worshiping a god. An all powerful omnipotent father figure randomly deciding who lives and who dies, not based on goodness or kindness.
Your roots are showing. I hopefully don't need to point out the need to examine yourself for bias.
As for my interpretation, it is pretty simple. Observation and Occam's Razor. People actually lived with these religions. Without needing a university degree to grasp them. And that tells me the concept behind them is not so complicated or abstract as to be incomprehensible without years of study. Without introducing a lot of superfluous fluff, we can simply consider whether a real basis for religious figures and a difference in paradigm will account for the facts, and it does.
Bear in mind that the notion of consciousness didn't arise until the 14th century, and was not in evidence in the earliest writings of mankind. It is not a far stretch to assume that they had a different relationship to abstract ideas that we now take for granted to the extent that we no longer need metaphors and analogies to deal with them. And we are just now starting to examine the notion of thoughts and ideas from a different perspective in the field of memetics, which so far is in its early stages. To posit Ma'at as the memetic analogue of a multicellular organism is a bit pop-sci, but it's not all that far out if you accept the basic premise. And to posit that Horus is a role with certain characteristics, just like the US president has a role and is expected to display certain characteristics, is not all that far out, either. You don't need to appeal to anything supernatural in order for this view to make sense, although you could, and some will. The notion of "supernatural" makes little sense to me, though, as the evidence I see, is that these people had a unified view of the world around them, and would not have made such an artificial distinction in the abstract.
Ascribing this to my cock is an unimaginative and crude ad hominem which falls on its ass right away, whereupon I violate it with as much lube as civility calls for. I don't see where you think it will advance your argument in any way. Addressing admitted biases on my part might serve that purpose as rhetoric, or in prompting me to reevaluate some part of my position.
Pronouncing that this is all coming out of my cock is just flamebait that doesn't even look tasty.
quote:
Faith in an imaginary god is in my opinion, childish. You have great reasons for why you do, I am sure. But Scientific Method is not one of them.
Stop conflating entities. It is fallacious.
I mentioned scientific method because you claimed conclusive proof was available, which it is not. QED.
quote:
Believing in mythical creatures, well, I do believe anything is possible, and most imaginary creatures are based on some fact. The interesting thing is Jung's theory that all people have similar imaginary mythical creatures in their heads, that represent certain emotions, that are typically seen in dream interpretation, worldwide.
Seems we agree on something.
And if you do believe anything is possible, and are familiar with Jung, then let me posit that synchronicity might actually be effected by a memetic analogue of a multicellular organism, much like lifting a cup involves triggering a ton of cells in our bodies via a cascade of different mechanisms involving a number of different cells and scaffolding (the skeleton and ligaments, needed to actually have the generated force do anything useful).
In a purely scientific sense, there is no Lostkitten. Instead, there is a collection of fundamental wave functions and all that. However, from a human perspective, we can indeed say there is a Lostkitten, without any ambiguity. That is an abstraction. It is no less valid an abstraction to say that there is a god, as an abstraction over a series of memetic type organisms, and we as humans would have no more direct access to the whole of that entity than would the cells of a Lostkitten have access to the Lostkitten itself. As mental masturbation, one could play with the idea of the abstraction being the reality and the physical substrate actually being the representation of what is real, reminiscent of Plato's cave, but let's not come all over this thread.
If you want to take the more reasonable assumption one step further, you could posit prayer as being memetically equivalent to a vesicle, although the popular Christian form of prayer would make little sense going by that analogy. The notion of "God helps those who helps themselves," however, would make as much sense by that analogy as any maxim makes sense about whatever it addresses (i.e. as a simplification of what is addressed down to an idea that evokes the core of truth).
That is also a view that corrects one of the most criticised problems about Christianity with the (incorrect, as evidenced by research into the genealogy of religions and deities, but that's beside the point) father figure model. Instead of the passive and submissive (why would a supposed creator god want slaves and then- with the power to create people- choose to create such crappy slaves as us?) lends itself more to empowerment and self-reliance, which is arguably positive: any help from the divine is a bonus, but ultimately, you're responsible for your own actions and need to take action to get what you want out of life.
That is, I think, what any good father would want for his children.
Jung would have a field day with me...
Health,
al-Aswad.
|
|
|
|
