Atheist!

[cloudy]

Gender blind? Well, half right, I guess.

It was a nice try at a save, I suppose. Too bad it didn't fool anyone.

 

[Guest]

Oh, come on, tell the truth . . . you'd only be in it for the nude sermons.

It would certainly keep my attention.

I mean, YOU would certainly keep my attention.

 

[Stella_Omega]

It would certainly keep my attention.

I mean, YOU would certainly keep my attention.

And the sacrament.. whoo boy!

 

[Guest]

It was a nice try at a save, I suppose. Too bad it didn't fool anyone.

Too funny.

Ami's done this a few times before.

Pure was another one, I recall, where ami spoke in a kind but condescending tone when they argued.

Once he found out Pure was male, everything changed.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Too funny.

Ami's done this a few times before.

Pure was another one, I recall, where ami spoke in a kind but condescending tone when they argued.

Once he found out Pure was male, everything changed.

(gender) confusion to our enemies!

 

[slyc_willie]

It would certainly keep my attention.

I mean, YOU would certainly keep my attention.

And the sacrament.. whoo boy!

Y'all is makin' me blush . . . .

Hmm . . . now I'm thinking of erotic versions of the Ten Commandments.

 

[amicus]

Rather than snigger at the ole Ami...rather direct your amusement to those of mixed gender who tend to confuse themselves and everyone else with mere print when the prissyness is under wraps.

One should perhaps feel sorry for them?

Amicus...

 

[cloudy]

Rather than snigger at the ole Ami...rather direct your amusement to those of mixed gender who tend to confuse themselves and everyone else with mere print when the prissyness is under wraps.

One should perhaps feel sorry for them?

Amicus...

Now who's being prissy?

 

[wmrs2]

It's a bit involved, and you may end up being sorry you asked, this could get long, there isn't any way to reduce it to a sound byte or a simplistic algorithm, but it's based on examination of evolutionary principle among other things, my own personal study of "human nature" - in order to make it a bit less confusing, some background is necessary.

All religion is based on the premise of duality, IMO. In genesis, Adam and Eve eat from the tree of knowledge, the knowledge of good and evil - strictly speaking, this is an acknowledgment of the phenomena of moral or ethical dilemma.

For the sake of defining my terms, I consider "morality" to be a personal philosophy, unique to the individual, "ethics" refers to empirical effects of social behavior, i.e., how the actions of a given individual affect others for better or worse.

To return to the garden, perhaps the most significant difference between humans and the rest of the flora and fauna, is our capacity for abstract modeling - i.e, most animals deal with whatever is in front of them: if they're hungry, they eat, tired, they sleep, horny, they get busy, etc.

We evolved this capacity for abstract modeling as a survival mechanism, under stressors that included extremely unstable environmental conditions: for much of the period of hominid development, the weather was very unstable - a given region might cycle from forest to Savannah or grassland in a very short period of time, maybe less than a decade.

Hunter/Gatherers (HG) depend on being able to find edible vegetation, the bulk of the diet, as well as being able to find game, which is mobile. Under unstable environmental conditions, edible vegetation and other comestible foodstuffs are in essence, all mobile - vegetation patterns shift rapidly,and with them the herds of edible fauna that also rely on them.

The resulting biological adaptations evolved relatively rapidly under these conditions of environmental stress - thus while retaining a largely simian brain and set of behavioral patterns, fairly dramatic morphological changes began to be selected for as protohumans evolved from and arboreal environment to a terrestrial one: bipedal locomotion is much more efficient, and increases sight range, the ability to better regulate body temperature - apes, like most mammals have very limited sweat glands, they do not possess subcutaneous sweat glands all over their bodies like humans, and also exhibit minimal ratios of subcutaneous fat, which in humans aids in both temperature regulation and helps to slightly extend our tolerance to famine.

What this reflects, of course, is the requirement for a much higher degree of mobility: the ability to cover a lot of ground relatively quickly, to run for days - man is the premier runner on the planet, we can run down any animal on earth.

While early hominids, presumably males, were being selected for these hunting adaptations, females were under slightly different selection pressures. They were primarily the gatherers, and furnished the bulk of the diet - under these environmental conditions, abstract modeling becomes useful: ability to predict weather patterns, seasonal changes, types of vegetation and their uses, i.e, where to find certain types of vegetation at certain times of the year, and what they can be used for, and equally useful is the ability to remember these things and transmit them culturally to ones offspring and/or other members of the group, hence, new types of memory and cognitive function: syntactic and lexical memory, added to and interacting with, the already present episodic, mimetic, eidetic, olfactory, etc., memory channels.

Thus it is, that contrary to evolutionary theory of the Sixties that males evolved language in order to coordinate hunting tactics, the "Hunting Hypothesis" appears to have been incorrect - it seems that what we consider our higher cognitive functions, abstract modeling and linguistic ability were most likely female adaptations, and indeed, female DNA suppresses the male DNA when it comes to cerebral development - you get your brain almost exclusively from your mother.

This process led to enlargement of the cerebral cortex, though it been hypothesized that the brain also serves as a temperature regulation organ - you radiate more heat from your head than any other part of your body, and neural complexity correlates more closely with the corrugation of the surface of the cerebral cortex which increases it's surface area than in simple mass - but in any case, neither hypothesis is mutually exclusive, they may have worked synergystically - what is established is that the hominid brain started increasing in size and complexity.

We have to backpedal here again, because several other dramatic changes are occuring at the roughly same time as bipedalism: social cooperation and the loss of female estrus - you might say that metaphorically this roughly about the time that Adam and Eve bit the Fig.

First, a bit more background, a little cut and paste from another thread:

Technically, primates, particularly the apes, are acentric/centripetal, acentric meaning without center, i.e., independent action, "self actualization", centripetal is "arranged about a center, organized, hierarchical.

What this means is, that your average primate is primarily motivated by self interest: they hunt and gather more or less independently, food sharing is largely confined to infant care and occasionally, courting.

Underlying this is a centripetal social organization, the alpha hierarchy, which is transparent under ordinary conditions: the strongest or cleverest males who are at the top of the hierarchy benefit from it for the most part by stealing food from the others. It's real purpose only becomes apparent when an external threat to the troop manifests, a leopard for example, whereupon, the centripetal alpha hierarchy instantiates, the males, led by the alpha male, distract the leopard by putting on displays throwing things and confusing it, allowing the females, younger and older troop members a chance to break for shelter. After the threat has subsided, the troop resumes it's acentric behaviors.

Baboons are centripetal/acentric, and are more or less in a constant state of alert, and exhibit and altogether more martial social order: the live for the most part on the open Savannah where there may not be as much cover, trees etc., and the alpha males form a, circle of sorts, a defensive screen. In order for this to be effective however, the more vulnerable members of the troop have to be kept in a relatively tight bunch, they can't wander off in every direction in search of food as the arboreal Apes do, and the Alpha and his lieutenants will basically herd the troop from one watering hole or feeding ground to the next, circling, biting or cuffing any who stray too far from the group.

Of course, it's fairly easy to draw the parallels from this to human political constructs.

The mechanism here is the oral transmission of cultural information, including behavioral algorithms - i.e., religion is set of cultural adaptations many of which probably date back to the loss of female estrus: most animals react to pheromones released during female estrus - they may mount each other for various reasons at other times, but when the female goes into estrus she cannot control herself, she presents and is mounted by either available males, probably according to either speed or strength (alpha status) or perhaps by one her choosing - there is a certain amount of courting behavior even among primates, which include grooming and food sharing.

Once the females were no longer driven by the compulsion of estrus, one suspects a certain amount of confusion resulted - the reasons for selecting out estrus are not entirely clear, one surmises it may have had to do with the need to refrain from reproductive activity (birth control) for prolonged periods during say a long migration, may have had to do with changes in pelvic structure selected for due to bipedal adaptation, increasing cranial size of infants, an increased need to bond through sexual intercourse in order to elicit social cooperation, or all of the above - again, what is apparent is that estrus was largely selected out, and this inherently raises moral/ethical issues that simply do not exist for less cerebrally complicated organisms.

Finally, to answer your question, the solution to this moral/ethical dilemma, who to fuck, when and how, is resolved the same way nature resolves all such situations: diversity.

Hence, the huge range of human behavior, social and sexual, ranging from rape to extended courtship. Most mammals are K strategists in terms of reproductive strategy, i.e., under optimal conditions they tend to have fewer offspring and devote more time and resources, bot social and physical, to raising them, and K strategy is associated with neoteny, the prolongation of the developmental stage: during this stage, the learning curve is vastly accelerated, enabling the organism to absorb and apply information at astonishing rates - cultural information, largely transmitted in humans through linguistics and kinesthetics (body language) is absorbed and applied, primarily through play - acting out on hypothetical scenarios, modeling - and this vastly broadens the catalog of behavioral adaptations available to the the child.

Ultimately, what freedom preserves, is the propensity to continue innovating behavioral adaptations to cope with changing situations - religion is an oral tradition that preserves a cultural record of past successful behavioral adaptations, in an abstract, algorithmic form, but if history teaches us anything, it's that nothing lasts forever.

We evolved as generalists, i.e., we adapt to changing conditions not by slow morphological selection, but by altering our behaviors: technology, philosophy, art, music, literature - these all extend our senses, and the range of cultural information available to us - religion, typically also represents an institution, comprised of self interested individuals, and freedom also allows us to make distinctions between our self interest and theirs, which do not always strictly speaking, coincide.

By eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, we left the garden of instinctual behavior, and entered a world of choices, often complex and confusing how to balance our individual needs with the needs of others - the group serves as a selection vehicle: we can survive on our own, but it's finite thing, we need others to reproduce, to defend ourselves, to thrive, optimizing our own survival and our reproductive potential.

This is often mistaken as "moral relativism" certain things here are in fact, fundamental: K strategies and social cooperation - we may not be able to preserve our present pleasant state of environmental stability and we will require both social and technological innovation to adapt.

Nature, if she had a voice, would say: "don't put all your eggs in one basket".

Judeo-Christian morality and ethical theory does cover the bases, albeit from a distinctly androcentric slant: paternity assurances reduce potential genetic diversity on the female side by castigating promiscuous socio/sexiual behavior on the part of females, which reaches it's most hysterical pitch in Augustinian/Calvinist erotophobia, while providing a bit more leeway for the males, etc., the extended family covers most of your economic and childrearing concerns, but there are associated costs to this which will require a whole new chapter, suffice it to say that it includes genetic diversity, inflicted damage on the gene pool, and female orgasm.

In short, freedom is diversity, and Judeo-Christian "family values" (actually borrowed form the Italians), are just the most statistically significant strategy, there are many, many other successful strategies and even Christianity provided for those who chose to opt out of the reproductive game but still contribute to group fitness through cultural contributions - kind of ironic, given their opposition to homosexuality.

In terms of this discussion, even the term "Christian" is kind of misleading - there are thousands, possibly millions of variations and flavors of Christianity, many wildly divergent - diversity - go figure.

No, I am not sorry that I asked, although I may have forgotten what I asked. You gave me a good answer and let me assure you that there is no issue that would motivate me to want to argue against evolution. Your thinking process can be seen clearly if one is speaking the same language as you. However, in my opinion and belief, in any metaphysical discussion there seems to be two ways of thinking. You hint at these two ways of thinking when you say: "All religion is based on the premise of duality, IMO."

I would extend on this concept of duality by saying that all subjects in metaphysical discussions contain various degrees of this duality. You refer to religion and you expand on evolution to explain your reasoning process. When discussing any subject there is the concept of BEING such as you existing or God existing. This is called ontology or the theory of being. It is a primary branch of metaphysics (which asks "what is really real"). You are really real and some say that God is really real. we are beings. Ontology is the branch of philosophy where religion is strongly emphasized. It is good that we have ontology in our language because it helps us to organize our thinking. When we are speaking ontologically, we know that we are discussing actual being.Two good examples of ontological language is when God told Moses "I am that I am" and the Cartesian Assertion of "I think, therefore, I am." Both these statements are ontological in nature.

The other language in metaphysics is cosmology, which ask "what is the universe like?" Science is a major and primary source of explanation in discussion of the universe. In the case of idealism, ontological thinking can be a source of cosmological thinking, if one thinks the universe is made up of ideas or idea stuff. The theory of evolution falls into the cosmological thread of thinking but It falls short in areas of explaining God or man as being.

That, if you will, is where your explanation of what is real leaves out a complete understanding of what is really real. An atheist clings to an explanation of what he calls science where morality is based on this science. There are government systems based on a cosmological expression.

The most popular system like this is communism. The theory of being is weak and emphasizes is placed on human strength and moral relativity. The survival of the fittest and selectivity are important themes in a cosmological world where man creates his own values. Political liberals lean in this direction. This explains why some Supreme Court Judges are accused of re-writing the Constitution.

The conservatives and religious folk have an ontological way of thinking about things. They believe in self-evident and eternal truths. They often argue that these truths should be preserved and not altered because these truths are eternal and do not change. A person who clings to an ontological thinking process will ask "what is your premise for saying this" because he does not believe you have a premise for correct reasoning, if you do not believe in an eternal and absolute being. That is the side I favor and seems most logical to me. Once having established an ontological theory, describing the world view is a matter of making the correct deductions. In this world view, science is a matter of making the correct deductions. Faulty science is making incorrect deductions.

This explanation should in my opinion explains why theist want people to believe in God and Communist China does not want people to believe in God. It also explains why most Americans think of Atheist in negative terms.

 

[sr71plt]

Rather than snigger at the ole Ami...rather direct your amusement to those of mixed gender who tend to confuse themselves and everyone else with mere print when the prissyness is under wraps.

One should perhaps feel sorry for them?

Amicus...

If I could figure out what you thought you were posting, I'd certainly consider feeling sorry for them. Maybe you were messed up by deciding not to ramble and fill up all the margins this time.

 

[Stella_Omega]

rather direct your amusement to those of mixed gender who tend to confuse themselves and everyone else with mere print when the prissyness is under wraps.

they don't confuse them themselves, nor anyone who's been paying attention all these years.

 

[Guest]

they don't confuse them themselves, nor anyone who's been paying attention all these years.

I know.

Thread archival's a real bitch.

We can access all sorts of things.

 

[amicus]

As no one else is likely to, wmrs2, I wish to commend you on a lucid and thoughtful response to a very long post. Well done Keep up the good work!

amicus...

 

[past_perfect]

No, I am not sorry that I asked, although I may have forgotten what I asked. You gave me a good answer and let me assure you that there is no issue that would motivate me to want to argue against evolution. Your thinking process can be seen clearly if one is speaking the same language as you. However, in my opinion and belief, in any metaphysical discussion there seems to be two ways of thinking. You hint at these two ways of thinking when you say: "All religion is based on the premise of duality, IMO."

I would extend on this concept of duality by saying that all subjects in metaphysical discussions contain various degrees of this duality. You refer to religion and you expand on evolution to explain your reasoning process. When discussing any subject there is the concept of BEING such as you existing or God existing. This is called ontology or the theory of being. It is a primary branch of metaphysics (which asks "what is really real"). You are really real and some say that God is really real. we are beings. Ontology is the branch of philosophy where religion is strongly emphasized. It is good that we have ontology in our language because it helps us to organize our thinking. When we are speaking ontologically, we know that we are discussing actual being.Two good examples of ontological language is when God told Moses "I am that I am" and the Cartesian Assertion of "I think, therefore, I am." Both these statements are ontological in nature.

The other language in metaphysics is cosmology, which ask "what is the universe like?" Science is a major and primary source of explanation in discussion of the universe. In the case of idealism, ontological thinking can be a source of cosmological thinking, if one thinks the universe is made up of ideas or idea stuff. The theory of evolution falls into the cosmological thread of thinking but It falls short in areas of explaining God or man as being.

That, if you will, is where your explanation of what is real leaves out a complete understanding of what is really real. An atheist clings to an explanation of what he calls science where morality is based on this science. There are government systems based on a cosmological expression.

The most popular system like this is communism. The theory of being is weak and emphasizes is placed on human strength and moral relativity. The survival of the fittest and selectivity are important themes in a cosmological world where man creates his own values. Political liberals lean in this direction. This explains why some Supreme Court Judges are accused of re-writing the Constitution.

The conservatives and religious folk have an ontological way of thinking about things. They believe in self-evident and eternal truths. They often argue that these truths should be preserved and not altered because these truths are eternal and do not change. A person who clings to an ontological thinking process will ask "what is your premise for saying this" because he does not believe you have a premise for correct reasoning, if you do not believe in an eternal and absolute being. That is the side I favor and seems most logical to me. Once having established an ontological theory, describing the world view is a matter of making the correct deductions. In this world view, science is a matter of making the correct deductions. Faulty science is making incorrect deductions.

This explanation should in my opinion explains why theist want people to believe in God and Communist China does not want people to believe in God. It also explains why most Americans think of Atheist in negative terms.

Since I am no stranger to ontology, let me just state one minor thing: In theology, you can and will enter a premise based on belief. You can continue with ontological questions from there. In philosophy, you cannot - if you enter a premise, you are required to prove it. In this fashion, science and philosophy work on pretty much the same principles. In ontology, we make statements based on abstractions. These abstractions have to be air-tight, meaning they have to hold up to particulars. That makes formulating initial premises and basic definitions difficult, but not impossible.

 

[xssve]

That, if you will, is where your explanation of what is real leaves out a complete understanding of what is really real. An atheist clings to an explanation of what he calls science where morality is based on this science. There are government systems based on a cosmological expression.

This is called "begging the question". Please explain how one can describe reality without "clinging" to science?

I'll address your post at more length after I get my kids off to school.

 

[xssve]

No, I am not sorry that I asked, although I may have forgotten what I asked. You gave me a good answer and let me assure you that there is no issue that would motivate me to want to argue against evolution. Your thinking process can be seen clearly if one is speaking the same language as you. However, in my opinion and belief, in any metaphysical discussion there seems to be two ways of thinking. You hint at these two ways of thinking when you say: "All religion is based on the premise of duality, IMO."

The logical conclusion to my premise is that everything is based on the premise of duality - reality is duality, both metaphorically and empirically - duality leads to multiplicity and complexity, and reality, in a sense, is complexity.

I would extend on this concept of duality by saying that all subjects in metaphysical discussions contain various degrees of this duality.

It is not self evident, but it is confirmable.

You refer to religion and you expand on evolution to explain your reasoning process. When discussing any subject there is the concept of BEING such as you existing or God existing. This is called ontology or the theory of being. It is a primary branch of metaphysics (which asks "what is really real"). You are really real and some say that God is really real. we are beings. Ontology is the branch of philosophy where religion is strongly emphasized. It is good that we have ontology in our language because it helps us to organize our thinking. When we are speaking ontologically, we know that we are discussing actual being.Two good examples of ontological language is when God told Moses "I am that I am" and the Cartesian Assertion of "I think, therefore, I am." Both these statements are ontological in nature.

Thanks for the definition, you have, however, managed to slip in an unstated assumption - the reality of "man" is established, whereas the reality of god is still an open question. one cannot establish the reality of a thing without "clinging to science" as you put it - if I am wrong in this, I'd love to hear exactly how.

The other language in metaphysics is cosmology, which ask "what is the universe like?" Science is a major and primary source of explanation in discussion of the universe. In the case of idealism, ontological thinking can be a source of cosmological thinking, if one thinks the universe is made up of ideas or idea stuff. The theory of evolution falls into the cosmological thread of thinking but It falls short in areas of explaining God or man as being.

Again, we generally agree that objectively and empirically speaking, man exists, we do not agree that god exists.

That, if you will, is where your explanation of what is real leaves out a complete understanding of what is really real. An atheist clings to an explanation of what he calls science where morality is based on this science. There are government systems based on a cosmological expression.

So all these definitions were the premise, an appeal to authority to lend credence to your sudden assertion that god exists, and that science provides an "incomplete understanding" of reality that ostensibly, religion provides?

i.e., ontology is real, and some ontologists believe in a god, cosmology is real, and some cosmologists believe in a god, therefore god is real.

The empirical fact is, that science is full of incomplete explanations - a scientific definition of reality would be "the state of all energy in the universe at any given instant" - that's a lot of shit, throw in cause and effect, i.e., the fact that everything affects everything else, and that it's highly dynamic, i.e., in constant motion, it doesn't stand still, and you have pretty much defined knowledge as a set of infinite probabilities, naturally, there are going to be a few gaps in the model here and there, no?

The model is based not on knowing where every particle of energy is at any given moment, it's based on the observation that these particles behave in some predictable ways, there is a predictable pattern in how energy interacts - heat energy and H2O for example; if you boil water, it changes state, works every time, no god required.

In this model, "god" is an unknown variable, an unprovable hypothesis, and one cannot control, in the experimental sense, for a hypothetical variable that leave no empirical trace of it's existence, either directly or through cause and effect.

Science is not about what you believe, it's about what you can prove; i.e., there is a process called reality, where things exist. If they exist, they affect other things, and thus the hypothetical existence of certain things can be established by either direct or indirect evidence, but if such evidence cannot be established, one cannot simply assume they do however fervently one might wish it to be.

You could, for instance, put a pot of water on the stove to turn it into steam, and pray to god to prevent this - if it boils away, it proves nothing of gods existence either way, she might just think you're an ass, and have better things to do.

Religion is based on faith, and faith can be empirically proven to exist - a belief in god can be empirically proven to exist, the existence of the object of that faith, god, cannot - if it exists, then testable hypotheses can be generated to test it's parameters.

The most popular system like this is communism. The theory of being is weak and emphasizes is placed on human strength and moral relativity. The survival of the fittest and selectivity are important themes in a cosmological world where man creates his own values. Political liberals lean in this direction. This explains why some Supreme Court Judges are accused of re-writing the Constitution.

Now you descend into rhetoric: humans are vertebrate organisms, they behave according to the patterns of organic evolution, specifically mammals>primates>hominids>homo Sapiens Sapiens - at each level of taxonomy, certain predictions can be made based on models of morphology, organic chemistry, neurological organization, environmental interaction, etc.

These things are far less relativistic than a behavioral algorithm based on the opinions of a bunch of paleolithic sheepherders - this is the essence of relativism - they had some good ideas, but it's hardly a complete model.

Look, it works like this: there was this party on time, and somebody fed the Rabbi a bad Clam. After three days of puking his guts out, he drags himself over to the desk and prohibits shellfish forever and ever - it's "unclean", and he'll be damned if any feeds him any bad fucking clams ever again, since God is good and he cannot have intended to poison the Rabbi and put him through this shit - it becomes part of the model, and nobody ever questions it again, even though all the Phoenician fishermen know that if you eat shellfish that isn't shut tight before you cook it, or open after, you throw that fucker out because it'll make you sick like a motherfucker if you eat it - that's another model, and a couple thousand years later, we know exactly why this is - doesn't matter, Jews don't eat shellfish because god said so, end of story.

Christians, on the other hand, can eat shellfish, based on a little convenient linguistic lawyering of a certain biblical passage, since we all know the Pope likes his Linguine in Clam sauce, properly prepared of course.

The point being, that while the premise is untestable, god has thing against eating shellfish, the behavioral algorithm based on the resulting model is not untestable: it's falsifiable, and so the intrepid Christians can now enjoy their shellfish, even though the Bible, god by inference, specifically prohibits it.

The conservatives and religious folk have an ontological way of thinking about things. They believe in self-evident and eternal truths. They often argue that these truths should be preserved and not altered because these truths are eternal and do not change. A person who clings to an ontological thinking process will ask "what is your premise for saying this" because he does not believe you have a premise for correct reasoning, if you do not believe in an eternal and absolute being. That is the side I favor and seems most logical to me. Once having established an ontological theory, describing the world view is a matter of making the correct deductions. In this world view, science is a matter of making the correct deductions. Faulty science is making incorrect deductions.

Now you define ontology as "self evident truths", there is no such thing, it's pretty much the basis of all logical fallacies - it's "faulty science" - you assume a phenomena, and then create a model based on this assumption, generate behavioral algorithms based on this model, to the point of killing people who disagree with it, without ever troubling yourself to prove the phenomena exists to begin with, and since it's a belief system based on an uncontrollable, unprovable variable, it is by definition, relativistic to whoever defines it's essence - is it a vengeful god? A loving god? Male? Female? Black? White? etc.

As I say, a belief in god is empirically demonstrable, but one can only presume that the attributes assigned to this abstraction represent the self interest of the person doing the attributing.

This explanation should in my opinion explains why theist want people to believe in God and Communist China does not want people to believe in God. It also explains why most Americans think of Atheist in negative terms.

Because science if fallible and religion, while it occasionally lapses into sectarian violence and mass murder, works so-so most of the rest of the time? It's not quite a complete hypothesis, but not entirely without merit - here's mine: the Chinese have an old aphorism; "the nail that sticks out get's hammered".

 

[xssve]

Actually, one of the caveats here is that faith is itself only a marginally testable hypothesis - I cannot assume even you believe in god, I can only take your word for it, you might just be saying that - I can take a leap of faith myself, and take you at your word, but it doesn't translate into a blanket assumption that everybody who claims to believe in god is telling the truth - no?

I'll keep clinging to science, thanks.

 

[amicus]

When one has a false premise to begin with, the discussion that follows, while it may appear rational and logical, is faulty.

Our defender of the irrational, claims that 'duality' is diversity, along with a host of other false claims.

'Duality', the philosophy of 'dualism', is the culprit here, and has long been identified as the 'mind/body' dichotomy, and refuted, time and time again.

With the most simplistic clarity I can summon, dualism states that the human mind and the body, the actual brain, and all emotive facilities, are separate, independent entities, each with an agenda of its own.

Really silly when you think about it.

~~~

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_(philosophy_of_mind)

In philosophy of mind, dualism is a set of views about the relationship between mind and matter, which begins with the claim that mental phenomena are, in some respects, non-physical.[1]

Ideas on mind/body dualism originate at least as far back as Zarathushtra. Plato and Aristotle deal with speculations as to the existence of an incorporeal soul that bore the faculties of intelligence and wisdom. They maintained, for different reasons, that people's "intelligence" (a faculty of the mind or soul) could not be identified with, or explained in terms of, their physical body.[2][3]


A generally well-known version of dualism is attributed to René Descartes (1641), which holds that the mind is a nonphysical substance. Descartes was the first to clearly identify the mind with consciousness and self-awareness and to distinguish this from the brain, which was the seat of intelligence. Hence, he was the first to formulate the mind-body problem in the form in which it exists today.

http://www.quodlibet.net/articles/guthrie-rationalism.shtml

http://wiki.objectivismonline.net/wiki/Mind-body_dichotomy

~~~

Just as an added note of humor, Rene' Descartes, would have been far more accurate had he said, "I am, therefore, I think". Since existence precedes mental activity, it makes a little more sense...

amicus....

 

[xssve]

Unity is One thing, duality is Two things, and Descartes didn't invent the concept, it's been around for Milena. Diversity springs from duality, it takes two to tango.

You, for instance, constantly espouse certain dualist beliefs that are descended from Manichean dualism, filtered through Christian Dogma and Social Darwinist pseudo philosophy, politicized by crypto-fascist neo-conservatism and Randism - i.e., conservatives represent the forces of good, liberals the forces of evil, no?

That's dualism.

 

[Liar]

it takes two to tango.

And it takes three to mosh.

Unity and duality be damned. Polyphony is the new black.

 

[ishtat]

Ontological argument

I will comment specifically with the ontological argument sometimes called the "proof" for the existence of God. This has already been dealt with by Xssve but I will try express it perhaps a little more bluntly.

The ontological believer says " I believe in god so a priori god exists" or if you like "god exists so I (must) believe in him."

It is a circular argument with both the premise and the conclusion being the same and both being unprovable assertions. It is therefore nonsense.

It is worthwhile to look at its historical origins. As applied to religion the ontological argument was first presented by Ibn Sina in the 10th century and within a 100 years applied to christianity by St Anselm of Canterbury. It seems to me that it was no accident that this idea gained traction at the height of the power of the medieval church and when the thinking of the great Ancient philosophers had been suppressed by 1000 years of church omnipotence over the minds of men.

St Thomas Aguinas would have none of it despite its appeal to more superficial minds and though Descartes, educated by the Jesuits struggled to find a new respectability for the idea. However, two really great philosophers, Kant and Hume, men of the enlightenment, destroyed it . Hume's comment is particularly pointed and conclusive.

"There is an evident absurdity in pretending to demonstrate a matter of fact or to prove it by any arguments a priori. Nothing is demonstrable unless the contrary implies a contradiction. Nothing that is distinctly conceivable, implies a contradiction.Whatever we conceive as existent we can also conceive as non-existent. There is no being therefore whose non existence implies a contradiction. Consequentially there is no being whose existence is demonstrable."( my emphasis)

It seems to me almost tragic that "believers" cling to this discredited idea from the Dark Ages and I conclude that once again, as noted in my previous post 1053 the persistence of the ontological argument is rooted in the primal fear that governs the believers mind.

 

[amicus]

You, for instance, constantly espouse certain dualist beliefs that are descended from Manichean dualism, filtered through Christian Dogma and Social Darwinist pseudo philosophy, politicized by crypto-fascist neo-conservatism and Randism - i.e., conservatives represent the forces of good, liberals the forces of evil, no?

~~~

I did all that? My God, I think I am proud of myself!

Evil can exist only when good men do nothing. Thus evil does not exist as a separate entity, (there ain't no devil).

While many things appear to exist in a dual/opposite relationship, is just appears that way(Deep Impact), when in reality, man chooses those things beneficial to his existence, or, 'good', things.

Izzat the best you can offer after a complete destruction of your lengthy argument?

Don't answer that, it is self evident.

Amicus...

 

[wmrs2]

Since I am no stranger to ontology, let me just state one minor thing: In theology, you can and will enter a premise based on belief. You can continue with ontological questions from there. In philosophy, you cannot - if you enter a premise, you are required to prove it. In this fashion, science and philosophy work on pretty much the same principles. In ontology, we make statements based on abstractions. These abstractions have to be air-tight, meaning they have to hold up to particulars. That makes formulating initial premises and basic definitions difficult, but not impossible.

I have a question for you. What makes you not a stranger to ontology? Do you have experience in a special epistemology that gives you a special insight? You seem to present what I would consider a contradiction to what ontology is from the get go of your first statement. Ontology is the study of being.The best way to think of ontology is to think that ontology is a premise. You are not introducing a belief while discussing ontology any more than when you are discussing cosmology. Cosmology and ontology are both considered starting points for thinking. Religious people of faith simply think that ontology is a better starting point or primes of logical thinking and deduction.

In ontology, we make statements based on abstractions

To be correct about ontology, instead of saying the above, you should say; "Ontology is the abstraction (of the absolute). Science, as a mental construct, is not a process but it is a type of ontology in principle. For example, if there were no facts to consider, we would not need science, but science would still "be" waiting for cosmological facts to arrive to be evaluated by science. For this very reason, science is considered one of the five branches of philosophy.

A better term for religious faith is to say that religion is a deduction based on the ontology of the universe. Faith really enters the picture only when you decide which is the most accurate view of the universe. If the universe is viewed basically through the eyes of "being" then you believe in God. You must believe in God if your theory or world view is based on ontology. To say otherwise is a great contradiction. It is like saying: "I don't believe in God, although God created the world." It does not make logical sense or a correct deduction.

If you view the world through a purely cosmological point of view, this is a type of faith in which there is no God. A purely cosmological theory is atheism. In atheism, the stuff of existence is some type of matter. Intelligent being is reduced to chemical and physical combination. If an atheist says "there is a preexistence of science, this is a great contradiction for him. To recognize pre-existence of the constructs is to admit that there is eternal science which is to admit there is a God. The atheist believes he invented science.

It is possible to view the universe through both cosmological eyes and ontological eyes but that is a discussion for idealism. Shit, you can just about twist anything in philosophy to fit your beliefs or you can fit your beliefs to any set of facts to say and argue anything. It really comes down to who has the best premises of an argument. There are no air-tight premises unless it be God.

 

[amicus]

I got a big smile on me wrinkled mug...whatever happened to that semi literate teenaged girl who stared right into the eyes of the big bad wolf and the wolf just snarled and snuck away?

Another fine, patient presentation of a rational basis for faith. I would confront you on your description of non belief, but it is much more enjoyable to watch you destroy your faithless opponents.

And, even though unspoken and never to be admitted, you have truly stripped the liberal emperor of his flimsy robe and left him/them naked for all to see.

Good job.

Amicus...

 

[Guest]

Ami?

Most posters on this thread think she is woefully ignorant and they have you on ignore.

But you just keep on keeping on.