|
OwlFancier posted:I would be astonished if it is at all relatable to theology. Co-author of Principia Mathematica, pretty big in theology. Look you bastards, is there anything you are willing to be for? By that I mean: is there anything you live your life for, or would give your life for? Oh nothing rises to the level of belief, blah, blah, blah, bullshit. Do you live for your family? Would you die for a (or your) child? What do you risk spending the life you have on? It's not a matter of oh I either know or do not know this or that be true. It's what will I risk myself for? I don't think anybody can really choose nothing.
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 06:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 11:16 |
|
|
Well sure, atheism isn't for anything, so it not being a positive choice means you shouldn't use it as a kind of primary identifier, merely like a kind of property. I'm personally for humanity, my greatest regret is that I'll have to marry one person instead of everyone. So I guess that's, uh, humanist? Ignoring the other philosophical assumptions of humanism-the-enlightenment-philosophy. Though not really sure what that has to do with discussions about metaphysics, seems more like ethics to me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 06:57
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Though not really sure what that has to do with discussions about metaphysics, seems more like ethics to me. It's an ontological question. What do you exist for? rudatron posted:so it not being a positive choice means you shouldn't use it as a kind of primary identifier, merely like a kind of property. merely a property, merely a what it is? Merely a description of what the people to who use it to identify as should be thought of?
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 07:39
|
|
|
Well 'exists for' assumes a teleology exists and is well-defined, and that's not necessarily the case. Absent that, it's an ethics discussion. Moreover, a 'property' is a descriptive label, but that's not the same as a (primary) identifier. Identifiers are used to group things together, and you can of course relate that to properties, but each relation itself will embed a subjective valuation. So whether you identifier 'apples' as primarily 'green' or 'food' depends on which you value as the more useful taxonomy, in the context you're working in. So in this discussion, you'd identify as either atheist or theist, but in normal social interactions, 'atheist' tells you jack poo poo about that person really believes, as you correctly point out. Like, okay, here's a thought I want you to entertain: purpose is not necessary for motion, that includes both people and objects. rudatron fucked around with this message at 08:03 on Feb 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 07:50
|
|
|
You can reduce a god down to some nebulous and esoteric thing that exists without observable, let alone testable characteristics but I question why anyone would bother. If you believe in that god it doesn't matter because that god doesn't have any books instructing its followers to do anything. The Abrahamic god, however, is stuck in books laden with descriptions of events that didn't happen and people that didn't exist along with a bunch of rules that are incompatible with being a decent person in the 21st century. Luckily, people are happy to ignore the nastier bits in favor of a diluted half-assed approach so they can exist with other people. Unfortunately a lot of people spend money to inflict their lovely beliefs on other people and poison society in the name of their regressive make-believe. The Earth wasn't created 6000 years ago. There wasn't a talking snake in a garden or a magic apple. There was no great flood and no ark to float in it. The Jews were not enslaved in Egypt (a related group may have been at some point) Jesus is, at best, an amalgam of a bunch of holy men and prophets. The Abrahamic god doesn't exist and that's good because it's a loving dick. The gods of other religions aren't relevant enough in my day to day life for me to care but they're also pretend. Boohoo, atheists on the internet are mean.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 08:07
|
|
|
We need to bring back the bad rear end gods who lived on top of mountains or like on an everliving tree or some poo poo who brutally smite people who talk poo poo about them and are expert pickup artists
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 08:18
|
|
|
Well no, genesis isn't actually true, but people believed it because it spoke to them - the trick is recognizing why it did that, and what that 'speaking' actually means, instead of just assuming it's a supernatural entity. So, let me hypothesize: genesis is symbolic of the growth from childhood to adulthood. Children don't know the difference between right and wrong, they definitely act as if they will live forever (even if they're not technically immortal), the snake and getting kicked out represents humans coming to terms with the fact that they will eventually die, that entropy will eventually consume all. The garden of Eden wasn't a real place, never was, but as a symbol of blissful ignorance it works quite well. Which, weirdly, means that the snake is the good guy, representing the inner critic that tries and gets you to face reality and stopping running away. /\/\ This reading removes utterly any supernatural significance, but rescues any positive message you could get from it. I said ti before and I'll say it again, the replacement for religion isnt' atheism, but psychoanalysis.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 08:20
|
|
|
Looking forward to 2500 when Muhammad stops being a real person
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 08:20
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Like, okay, here's a thought I want you to entertain: purpose is not necessary for motion, that includes both people and objects. Does any of this matter if we move in the same direction. Does it matter if I think purpose is necessary for motion and you do not, if the motion is in the same direction: for humanity? I have to go back to stowing explosives. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 09:06
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Does any of this matter if we move in the same direction. Does it matter if I think purpose is necessary for motion and you do not, if the motion is in the same direction: for humanity? Does it matter if you stow them or leave them next to a burning oil can, as long as we are moving in the same direction: for humanity?
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 09:37
|
|
|
The snake in Eden was often depicted as a half-woman naga monster in medieval and renaissance art. She also might be Lilith, Adam's first wife. Messy divorces transcend the bounds of time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 09:49
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Well no, genesis isn't actually true, but people believed it because it spoke to them - the trick is recognizing why it did that, and what that 'speaking' actually means, instead of just assuming it's a supernatural entity. It speaks to people because as children they were drilled with such fairy tales and told that if they didn't believe they'd go to hell.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 10:34
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:It speaks to people because as children they were drilled with such fairy tales and told that if they didn't believe they'd go to hell. *tips fedora*
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 11:41
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Well no, genesis isn't actually true, but people believed it because it spoke to them - the trick is recognizing why it did that, and what that 'speaking' actually means, instead of just assuming it's a supernatural entity. I'm not entirely sure what point you're trying to get across here, despite that last sentence.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 12:38
|
|
|
If you prefer, simply pretend there is no point. It's not like this thread was ever anything serious anyway.Flowers For Algeria posted:It speaks to people because as children they were drilled with such fairy tales and told that if they didn't believe they'd go to hell. Re BrandorKP, in pure consequential terms, there is no difference in destination, but the eternal question is always which direction, and that is not so easily divorced from your frame of reference. The dimensions you can see and those you can't, how you judge success or failure as you travel, how you see your starting and endpoints - these aren't irrelevant details, they are as much a part of the process as actually moving. Secretly, I'm not terribly interested in changing your opinions, I like having someone somewhat obscure I can just bounce metaphors off of. So don't let my words tickle your, uh, theological angst you have going. rudatron fucked around with this message at 12:58 on Feb 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 12:40
|
|
|
rudatron posted:So, let me hypothesize: genesis is symbolic of the growth from childhood to adulthood. Children don't know the difference between right and wrong, they definitely act as if they will live forever (even if they're not technically immortal), the snake and getting kicked out represents humans coming to terms with the fact that they will eventually die, that entropy will eventually consume all. The garden of Eden wasn't a real place, never was, but as a symbol of blissful ignorance it works quite well. Which, weirdly, means that the snake is the good guy, representing the inner critic that tries and gets you to face reality and stopping running away. I prefer to read the creation story as a metaphor for early man gaining his sentience. Of course the Garden wasn't a real place, but it represents humanity in a metaphorical state of nature without the capacity to do wrong. Fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil gives man his sentience, but makes him aware of three things: his mortality, his inadequacy (shame of nakedness) and injustice (God's punishment of Eve.) The Kingfish fucked around with this message at 16:27 on Feb 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 16:24
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:It's an ontological question. What do you exist for? As in, like, I am an atheist, I can't really deny that, but it's not what defines me as a person. Any more than "shoe wearer" defines me as a person. Yes it's quite important if you think about it and my life would be very different if it wasn't the case, but it's not what I really consider the definition of me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 16:36
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Co-author of Principia Mathematica, pretty big in theology. I have lots of beliefs. None of them include a god existing. So kindly gently caress off.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
It seems you guys are trying to derail a bit here so if I can I'd like to draw your attention back to the original problem, which is determining whether atheism is actually something you choose, or something that is an inescapable conclusion of certain conditions. I'm asking then if it's like homosexuality.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 17:00
|
|
|
We answered that pages ago, dude. Now I want to know if Brandor is going to try and pull his usual bullshit of trying to pretend that if I have any beliefs at all then I de facto believe in the ~<3~Logos~<3~
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
If you don't believe in the metaphysical then you don't believe in anything.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
les fleurs du mall posted:It seems you guys are trying to derail a bit here so if I can I'd like to draw your attention back to the original problem, which is determining whether atheism is actually something you choose, or something that is an inescapable conclusion of certain conditions. I'm asking then if it's like homosexuality. It depends entirely on your definition of atheism, which is kinda the point. The underlying question you're asking seems to be "can someone develop a cultural belief without firsthand experience", and that is a very hard question to answer. There are multiple examples of the same cultural belief popping up independently across societies (like patriarchy, racism, etc). This seems to suggest that there are elements of humanity which cause those beliefs to appear. If anything, the opposite of your hypothesis seems to be accurate - people engage in (for lack of a better term) "magical thinking" across all societies, even people/societies that are nominally "atheist". So really, being atheist is the aberration rather than the default. This again, depends on your definition of atheism.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 17:13
|
|
|
les fleurs du mall posted:It seems you guys are trying to derail a bit here so if I can I'd like to draw your attention back to the original problem, which is determining whether atheism is actually something you choose, or something that is an inescapable conclusion of certain conditions. I'm asking then if it's like homosexuality. Nobody can choose anything, everything is determined.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 17:47
|
|
|
The Belgian posted:Nobody can choose anything, everything is determined. But what if you don't know what's been determined?! 
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
I'm not sure you can choose to either believe or disbelieve. What complicates matters is that we tend to take people at their word when they say they believe in a god, even though most people's religious belief is not reflected in their conduct. Except for fundamentalism and other practices we'd call fanatical, religious belief in the modern age is generally quite shallow and cursory, and outweighed by the wonders of science. So people say "yes I believe in God" or "I'm saved" but come on, you know that often enough they are grappling with the same existential dread as the rest of us. Sometimes they can't maintain the facade of belief and rather than just calling them atheists who lie a lot to themselves and others, we say they're having a "crisis of faith." As for choosing atheism, I don't know. I get the impression that there are not too many atheists out there who periodically struggle with the concern that maybe God or hell is real. After all, those are ridiculous concepts which have been eclipsed by science and modernity; so while the nominally religious person may struggle to pretend that God is real, atheists don't have to struggle as much to maintain their understanding that the universe is without meaning and death is eternal. Because that makes sense.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
Atheism is the innate default but you also can't choose what to believe. Now that we're on page 10 this post is kind of a waste of space but hey 
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:But what if you don't know what's been determined?! Well of course you / any human don't know what's been determined but that doesn't matter to the universe or the question that's been posed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
yes, op Answered, next thread
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
les fleurs du mall posted:back to the original problem, which is determining whether atheism is actually something you choose, or something that is an inescapable conclusion of certain conditions. I'm asking then if it's like homosexuality. SedanChair posted:I get the impression that there are not too many atheists out there who periodically struggle with the concern that maybe God or hell is real. SedanChair posted:A nominally religious person may struggle to pretend that God is real, atheists don't have to struggle as much to maintain their understanding that the universe is without meaning and death is eternal. Because that makes sense. Potential BFF posted:You can reduce a god down to some nebulous and esoteric thing that exists without observable, let alone testable characteristics but I question why anyone would bother. "Thou art god," from Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land, followed by: "So I thought up the world, and you did too," from Jim Morrison / The Doors' "In the Eye of the Sun." Try bothering now, buddy. There are a lot of ways for a loving god to make the world a better place! Potential BFF posted:The Earth wasn't created 6000 years ago. Potential BFF posted:There wasn't a talking snake in a garden or a magic apple. Potential BFF posted:There was no great flood and no ark to float in it. Potential BFF posted:The Jews were not enslaved in Egypt (a related group may have been at some point) Potential BFF posted:Jesus is, at best, an amalgam of a bunch of holy men and prophets. Potential BFF posted:The Abrahamic god doesn't exist and that's good because it's a loving dick. Potential BFF posted:The gods of other religions aren't relevant enough in my day to day life for me to care but they're also pretend.  Control Volume posted:We need to bring back the bad rear end gods who lived on top of mountains or like on an everliving tree or some poo poo who brutally smite people who talk poo poo about them and are expert pickup artists  rudatron posted:So, let me hypothesize: genesis is symbolic of the growth from childhood to adulthood. Children don't know the difference between right and wrong, they definitely act as if they will live forever (even if they're not technically immortal), the snake and getting kicked out represents humans coming to terms with the fact that they will eventually die, that entropy will eventually consume all. The garden of Eden wasn't a real place, never was, but as a symbol of blissful ignorance it works quite well. Which, weirdly, means that the snake is the good guy, representing the inner critic that tries and gets you to face reality and stopping running away.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
Potential BFF posted:Jesus is, at best, an amalgam of a bunch of holy men and prophets. Actually, this is a pretty good example of a myth that atheists perpetuate even in the face of evidence. It relates back to how "atheists" in Western society are more accurately "anti-Christians", in that they are a reaction to Christianity rather than an independent movement. computer parts fucked around with this message at 20:32 on Feb 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
People can't really choose to be convinced by an argument. People can pick which arguments they hear or consider. So, the atheism itself isn't a choice. But it's often the result of a people choosing to think about their religious doubts.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Actually, this is a pretty good example of a myth that atheists perpetuate even in the face of evidence. Hold on a minute I thought that Atheists in western society were driven by a tooth gnashing racist hatred towards Muslims and gave Christians a free pass.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:Hold on a minute I thought that Atheists in western society were driven by a tooth gnashing racist hatred towards Muslims and gave Christians a free pass. Correct. They hate Muslims because of racism. They hate Christians because gently caress You Dad.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Correct. They hate Muslims because of racism. They hate Christians because gently caress You Dad. Ooooh, this is good! More please! How do I hate fundamentalist Hindus and woo-soaked supernatural/spiritualists? Maybe a tangent on Scientology if time permits. Berk Berkly fucked around with this message at 23:18 on Feb 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 23:15
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Well no, genesis isn't actually true, but people believed it because it spoke to them - the trick is recognizing why it did that, and what that 'speaking' actually means, instead of just assuming it's a supernatural entity. The Kingfish posted:I prefer to read the creation story as a metaphor for early man gaining his sentience. Of course the Garden wasn't a real place, but it represents humanity in a metaphorical state of nature without the capacity to do wrong. Fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil gives man his sentience, but makes him aware of three things: his mortality, his inadequacy (shame of nakedness) and injustice (God's punishment of Eve.) Both interpretations are perfectly valid. The Garden of Eden myth is about gaining self-awareness at the cost of a loss of innocence. It's a narrative that applies to the life of an individual in microcosm just as it applies to the life of a species in macrocosm. Dinosaurmageddon posted:This guy gets it. You get relative humanism. Thanks for sharing with us your interpretations of an ancient human metamyth. Nice that you include the snake (often called Lucifer, or the Light-bringer) being mistaken for the bad guy, when what it is he offered was the gift of knowledge and self-awareness, but at great cost. The Christian story of the fall of man has striking parallels with the Greek myth of Pandora. Pandora plays the role of Eve, the first woman, molded out of the clay of the earth, whose actions lead to the introduction of evil into the world. Epimetheus plays the role of Adam, whose survey of the animals of the earth culminates in a shortfall, and who is ultimately complicit in the introduction of evil into the world as a result of his succumbing to temptation. Prometheus plays the role of the serpent, altruistically bringing forbidden knowledge to humanity and incurring the wrath and punishment of divine forces.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 00:27
|
|
|
Berk Berkly posted:Ooooh, this is good! More please! Another telling sign of atheism not being the "default" is that people take offense when I describe the group.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 00:31
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Correct. They hate Muslims because of racism. They hate Christians because gently caress You Dad. In keeping with my assertion that atheism is only a descriptor of an aspect of a person and not a solid basis for a personal identity, can we rename people like this "knobheads"?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 00:31
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Another telling sign of atheism not being the "default" is that people take offense when I describe the group. Nah, you're pretty spot on, lots of atheists are bigoted assholes. Doesn't make atheism not the default, though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 00:40
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Nah, you're pretty spot on, lots of atheists are bigoted assholes. Doesn't make atheism not the default, though. The only moral default is my default. *Spikes the mic down, causing it to rebound into my face and blind one eye*
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 00:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 11:16 |
|
|
Claiming atheism is the default as some obvious thing is utter insanity as religion has been with us since the beginning of humanity or at least as far as we can trace back information.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 00:52
|
|