RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


PeonForHer -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/21/2012 8:02:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

Ah - thanks. I think I got stuck on the image of my mouth being a rifle barrel, or something.

It also applies to him of course. Heh. But in the other matter of equating humanism with secular humanism, I find it troubling that he finds a basis for his view in the definition of humanism he quoted, namely (emphasis added):
    Humanism is an approach in study, philosophy, world view or practice that focuses on human values and concerns, attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters.
If that primacy of the human over the divine is what constitutes atheism in his view, then we are on a very dangerous path here.

Specifically, if he proposes that the correct position is to give primacy to our notions of the divine or supernatural above mere "human matters," then we are placing our foot on a path with a very long history of bloody mayhem. Whether or not mayhem actually results can be argued to depend on the particular motivating notion of the divine or supernatural, but there is little safety to be found in such details. Once you've accepted the principle, concerns about human matters are rendered secondary and when push comes to shove are effectively irrelevant.

There is, of course, a religious solution to the problem. But given his view of humanism as atheism, I don't see him going there.

K.




Thanks for the thoughtful response, K. I'm sure that I'll soon be in a position to return like for like.




tweakabelle -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/21/2012 9:12:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: BenevolentM

The important thing is I took pity on all of you. God is appreciate of such things. I did say that God likes me. Maybe it is not something one can typically put on a resume, but it helps.

This is a tough audience.

K.


It could be time for a sign to silence the doubters .... does any one have a miracle* handy for BM?

* Obviously miracle here doesn't include the miracle of BM's own enlightenment, which is precisely that which has failed to persuade the cynics, thus far .....




BenevolentM -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/22/2012 8:41:39 AM)

It seems reasonable to say that the founding fathers of atheism were face blind. The results they got seemed reasonable which made it confusing and they managed to confuse the rest of the population as well since the disorder is a spectrum disorder. Nietzsche predicted the death of God at least in the minds of the people. Perhaps the belief in God could not survive the rise of fossil fuels and availability of cheap energy. There is a strong correlation between prosperity and disbelief in God. There is a determined systematic effort to suppress the capacity for abstract reasoning in man, a dumbing down of people. Why would a correlation exist between prosperity and disbelief in God? The reason seems clear. Prosperity enhances your capacity to see the world in concrete terms. This makes the atheist conjecture seem reasonable. This would also help explain why it makes indigenous peoples seem spiritual when they are in fact generally speaking semi-atheists. Their lack of sophistication results in a blurred world view which includes elements of both atheism and monotheism. Our sophistication on the other hand results in a bipolar model of the world. The only thing that was ever demonstrated was that paganism is false. This is the reason why paganism was harshly suppressed. People one day realized that it was bullshit. Like it or not, atheism and monotheism are still on the table. It is a contest between the two. Atheism has the upper hand at the present time, but will atheism survive the fall of fossil fuels? The technical achievements of the present era might help keep the atheist conjecture afloat, but with continued debacles such as the Global Financial Crisis this is unclear. Atheism lacks self-control. It relishes in this and touts this as a virtue.




xssve -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/22/2012 9:05:25 AM)

Possibly, but as the religious element likes to point out, 98% of people believe in god, or some such. It's true we're a little too sophisticated to blindly turn to animism and polytheism, which is not "false" as you say, but of extreme utility to man in nature: nature is god to man in nature, and the nature of nature is diversity and multiplicity.

In this sense, "paganism" is the forerunner of science: instead of a sun god, we have thermodynamics, and eventually, nuclear physics: instead of astrology, we have astronomy: instead of a sea god, we have hydraulics and flow dynamics: instead of a rain god, we have meteorology: instead of an earth mother, we have agriculture, soil science, biology and organic chemistry: instead of luck and shamans to drive out evil spirits, we have pharmacology, medicine, nutrition, etc., etc.

Paganism is science: while monotheists were performing elaborate rituals and sacrificing virgins to try and keep volcanoes from erupting, pagans were wonder why the hell the volcano keeps erupting, watching, and taking notes.

It's not monotheism vs. atheism, it's science vs. superstition - monotheists are the new pagans, the old pagans are the new scientists.

Monotheism is basically daddy worship, they keep sayin': "just you wait till daddy get's home!".

Monotheism is a form of infanitlism, it's denial: the world is a complex place and while it provides for our needs, it's ultimately impersonal, and indifferent to our fate; the volcano erupts when the volcano is goddamn well ready to erupt, when the Crocodile's hungry, it's gonna eat whatever's standing closest - unlike daddy, who loves us and takes care of us - it's a much more comforting belief.

So who's your daddy?




BenevolentM -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/22/2012 9:22:34 AM)

How do you explain to a student who is face blind that faces exist and their express denial is disruptive without making an appeal to the stick? The problem is clearly one of efficiency. You cannot give all your time to just one disruptive student. You have to generally speaking say believe or else.




BenevolentM -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/22/2012 9:48:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: xssve

it's science vs. superstition.


This is easy to address though you are likely in a state of denial, but atheism relies heavily on superstition. Atheism makes a very big assumption, namely metaphysical objects do not exist. That is in practice a very, very big assumption. One of the metaphysical objects is the law of excluded middle which you just employed. Belief in God relies heavily on the law of excluded middle. No one has been successful at proving that the law of excluded middle is invalid. In fact the empirical evidence strongly suggests that it is valid. The physics models rely heavily on the law of excluded middle. In order to overturn the law of excluded middle you must overturn physics.




GotSteel -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/22/2012 9:57:13 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BenevolentM
It seems reasonable to say that the founding fathers of atheism were face blind.


Really [8|]

Who were the founding fathers of atheism?

What is the actual name of the medical condition you think the the founding fathers of atheism suffered from?

How do you consider it reasonable to diagnose a medical condition of which you are so ignorant as to not even know it's name?

For that matter, why have you been completely unable to answer even the most basic questions which you've been asked?




BenevolentM -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/22/2012 9:58:17 AM)

Concerning post 304. xssve, your posts in general are delightfully detailed. From the stand point of argument one must often proceed in stages. In this case from the general to the specific. One must first establish whether monotheism is valid or plausible before one can approach whether its taboos and rituals are valid.




BenevolentM -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/22/2012 10:05:20 AM)

In other words, the logical and evidential foundation for atheism is weak.




GotSteel -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/22/2012 10:11:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BenevolentM
This is easy to address though you are likely in a state of denial, but atheism relies heavily on superstition. Atheism makes a very big assumption, namely metaphysical objects do not exist.

Nope, wrong again.




BenevolentM -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/22/2012 10:17:19 AM)

The atheist conjecture is science will triumph as the be all and end all, but that day has not come and may never come. This is an article of faith. All the empirical evidence as it presently stands upholds the notion that metaphysical objects exist. They cannot be fully expelled. What the future holds is conjecture. I alluded to this in Hypocrisy and the Law, post 33.




BenevolentM -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/22/2012 10:33:27 AM)

So the judiciary concluded that since we cannot rule one way or the other we will say that everyone has the right to make up their own mind, but what I am arguing is that it is not as simple as that because reality cannot be put on ignore. Acceptance of atheism produces a divide by zero problem which implies that atheism must be discriminated against until there is better evidence that atheism is valid.




GotSteel -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/22/2012 10:43:56 AM)

Considering how often you've been factually wrong just in this thread and that your arguments haven't even been internally consistent I think that it would be a good idea to talk about how you determine what is true or likely true.

Let's use enlightenment as an example. How can you tell if someone in this case yourself is actually enlightened? How does one determine whether the symptoms being displayed are the result of achieving enlightenment or suffering from a psychotic disorder?




BenevolentM -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/22/2012 11:39:48 AM)

In post 308 I wrote "From the stand point of argument one must often proceed in stages. In this case from the general to the specific." The argument must proceed from the general to the specific since the universe of discourse involves objects that are abstract. The scientific method expressly trys to minimize the number of abstract objects precisely because it argues from the specific to the general. It is the difference between top down verses bottom up reasoning. Here top down reasoning is appropriate. Bottom up reasoning is inappropriate.

The argument many are attempting to advance are rhetorical; they are not logical.




BenevolentM -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/22/2012 12:22:13 PM)

Most people do not understand the problem space very well. Denial of God is far more difficult than many realize if you put the matter under a microscope and by microscope I mean actually attempting to reason it out. If you think atheism is obvious, it is because you are not especially well educated as shocking as that may seem. You were trained to do a job, not solve the bigger problems, but since many live in a democracy the lack of education, that is job directed education, is problematic. It lulls people into a delusion where the delusion is that the foundation of atheism is actually strong when it is in fact weak.




BenevolentM -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/22/2012 1:08:18 PM)

What has been shown is that empiricism, not radical empiricism, has merit. This is far from a declaration that God does not exist.

Atheists are like Creationists who feel that mankind was born yesterday.




BenevolentM -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/22/2012 1:16:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BenevolentM

Atheists are like Creationists who feel that mankind was born yesterday.


To get sarcastic on everyone's asses, what am I saying here? I'm saying is it is atheists who are claiming to be the enlightened ones. It is just unspoken. Again, word magic. It ain't true unless we admit to it.




BenevolentM -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/22/2012 1:27:18 PM)

When I say that I am enlightened, I say this because I am honest. When atheists deny it, what does that make them?




Zonie63 -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/22/2012 1:31:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BenevolentM

Nietzsche predicted the death of God at least in the minds of the people. Perhaps the belief in God could not survive the rise of fossil fuels and availability of cheap energy. There is a strong correlation between prosperity and disbelief in God. There is a determined systematic effort to suppress the capacity for abstract reasoning in man, a dumbing down of people. Why would a correlation exist between prosperity and disbelief in God? The reason seems clear. Prosperity enhances your capacity to see the world in concrete terms. This makes the atheist conjecture seem reasonable.


I think one of the reasons there was a reaction against religion is because religion, historically, has been far too restrictive and tyrannical in its approach. It's natural for people to resist that. People don't like to be restricted, told what to do, or how to live. In fact, the word "religion" itself comes from a root meaning "to bind" or "restrict."

People might have had to put up with it while they were serfs or virtual prisoners in their own country, but once the age of exploration had begun, there were different, other places they could go - outside of the tiny jurisdiction of their particular church. They may not reject religion entirely, although they might try a new religion or a variation not acceptable to the tyrannical religious authorities. That's why many people (including my own ancestors) left Europe to come to America, for the sake of religious freedom.

It had nothing to do with the discovery of fossil fuels, but it had everything to do with religions actively driving away its own adherents. For similar reasons, nobody likes serfdom or feudalism anymore. People have a tendency to revolt against those things. Any religion which has to use force to keep its adherents is obviously going against the will of their own "God," since religion acknowledges the existence of freewill.

If "God" isn't going to take away my freewill, where does any human being get off overriding the will of "God"? No human being has the right to be "God's" representative on Earth either, nor does anyone have the right to exact punishments on "God's" behalf. In matters of religion and spirituality, no human being has the right to tell me what's what. No human being has any more spiritual authority than any other human being. No one is "enlightened," either.

We should assume that anything that any human being says about "God" is, at best, a guess (if not an intentional lie) , so the reaction against religion is simply a matter of common sense. (How is it possible for any human being to know the unknowable?)

Even if one believes in a Creator or some spiritual force in the universe, then people might also focus on that, rejecting Scriptures or any other words of human beings who are obviously unworthy and unqualified to represent an all-powerful supernatural deity. People can clearly see this, and, as a result, they say "Fuck you" to religion or any other form of unjustified restrictions on their lives.

It shouldn't be that difficult to figure out, even for an "enlightened" religionist.

Another thing that should be mentioned is that religion doesn't really do anything for us anymore. Perhaps in centuries past, it might have been useful as an organizing influence in society, but not so much anymore.

At best, religion can serve as a Sunday social club and a quasi-charitable institution, but that's about the limit of their usefulness to society at large.

There's also no reward for worshiping "God," only a perceived absence of punishment which is not the same thing as a reward. I did not ask for this life, so I feel no moral obligation to show gratitude or worship of a "God" for giving me something I never asked for. If and when He/She/It ever does give me something I ask for (or something that provides a miraculous benefit to my life), then I might reconsider this position and my possible obligations to "God." Likewise, there are no "covenants" which apply to me personally, since "God" has never spoken to me, nor have we ever sat down and negotiated a contract.

If there's no benefit from joining a religion or worshiping "God," then people won't do it. An empty, hollow, and vague promise of an idyllic "Afterlife" is hardly a strong enough incentive.





BenevolentM -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/22/2012 1:36:51 PM)

The accusation I just leveled is serious because when you accuse the religious of hypocrisy you are accusing them of nothing. The religious do not believe in a consistent theory of everything, but when you accuse an atheist of hypocrisy it means something. It means something because atheism believes in a consistent theory of everything. A charge of hypocrisy is a serious one for an atheist, but the door does not swing both ways. But my accusation/charge is not merely one of hypocrisy, but intellectual dishonesty.




Page: <<   < prev  14 15 [16] 17 18   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875