Atheist!

[xssve]

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.

Evidence my dear, you can believe anything you want, you don't even have to defend it to me, it's free country, but when it comes to policy, I prefer to put my faith in the demonstrable and make decisions based on sound principles of ethical behavior instead of some fat ass redneck televangelist living large off the retirement checks of little old ladies, or waiting around for Jesus to come and bail my dumb ass out cause I don't know Adam Smith from Idi Amin.

Capice?

 

[xssve]

Why ami, I didn't know you had so much respect for authority - here's a new signature line for you.

"We fear God, we look up with awe to kings; with affection to parliaments; with duty to magistrates; with reverence to priests; and with respect to nobility. Why? Because when such ideas are brought before our minds, it is natural to be so affected"

 

[xssve]

And it takes three to mosh.

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

Polyphony, that's the word I was looking for.

If you've got one thing, you've got nothing, or more accurately, not nothing.

If you have two things, an electron and a proton say, oppositely charged, you have an entire mosh pit of a universe and the laws of physics to govern it.

 

[wmrs2]

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.

It is not self evident, but it is confirmable.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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".

First, allow me to compliment you on your excellent explanation of how my theory is different from yours. I really enjoyed your writing.

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.

Do you see that without pre-existent constructs or models, the above describes total chaos similar to the first verse recorded in the Bible. From the get go, you refer to the need for God.

Instead of:"It is (things are) not self evident, but it is confirmable" one should say "things are confirmed by self-evident and preexistence models." It is the constructs, science if you please, that gives order to facts, not the other way around.

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

What we do not agree on is "what is the nature of that which exist."

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?

In my world system God is the ultimate premise to thinking and pure religion is correct deductions that meets the requirements of science and logic. Instead of saying,"The empirical fact is, that science is full of incomplete explanations," it should be said that "science has all the complete explanations but is waiting for experience to reveal the information." There are no gaps in this explanation whatsoever but only a waiting process to clear up the chaos.

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.

I suggest that your statement "certain predictions can be made based on models of morphology, organic chemistry, neurological organization, environmental interaction, etc." is very telling because in your reasoning process you recognize the importance of pre-existing models. These models to which you refer are not relativistic, which I say, is self apparent. In summary, the ontological model of God is a complete model. The gaps appear when we try to fill the model with incorrect deductions. Science is real and pure but the information attributed to science is often false but by comparing the information to the model, it is possible to eventually identify the truth; this is because truth is stable and does not change.

The model is based not on knowing where every particle of energy is at any given moment,

Just the opposite is true. The ontological model provides for an explanation for omniscience. If there is omniscience, there is a God. The same science that is true here on earth is probably true on Mars, true on other star systems and throughput the known universe, This truth is universal, self-evident, eternal, and definitely a type of omniscience of God.

The conflict you see from boiling water and eating shellfish can be dismissed from the fact that people do make incorrect deductions but the following needs a little attention.

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.

Science is a self evident truth upon which you depend so what you say about there being no self evident truths is incorrect. Faulty science is incorrect deductions. You assume the existence of the same phenomena that cosmologist assume, do you not?

 

[wmrs2]

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.

I did not mean to say that clinging to science was a bad thing as I also like to think that I cling to science.

In as much as you say cosmologist believe in God but can not prove, is it not also true that a claim that there is a universe outside our minds can also be challenged? There is not much difference between the faith of a pure oncologist and a pure cosmologist.

 

[wmrs2]

Evidence my dear, you can believe anything you want, you don't even have to defend it to me, it's free country, but when it comes to policy, I prefer to put my faith in the demonstrable and make decisions based on sound principles of ethical behavior instead of some fat ass redneck televangelist living large off the retirement checks of little old ladies, or waiting around for Jesus to come and bail my dumb ass out cause I don't know Adam Smith from Idi Amin.

Capice?

Strangely as it may seem, I agree much with what you say here. Sound principles of ethical behavior is what the cosmologist believer champions also. These sound principals are what we refer to as self-evident, eternal, unchanging truths; so yes. I prefer these also instead of some fat ass redneck taking my pension check. If I have a choice, I will spend my money on popcorn.

 

[xssve]

First, allow me to compliment you on your excellent explanation of how my theory is different from yours. I really enjoyed your writing.

My pleasure.

Do you see that without pre-existent constructs or models, the above describes total chaos similar to the first verse recorded in the Bible. From the get go, you refer to the need for God.

Well get back to this notion of "pre-existing models" in a moment, first, on the contrary in spite of the fact that there are certain resonances between Genesis and big Bang Theory, physics doesn't need god, energy and polarity is all you need - unless you want to define energy as God - i.e., pure energy, which is an ancient dualist concept - in Zoroastrianism, from which Christianity borrowed heavily in it's Mithraic morphology, Ahura Mazda (god) is described as "time itself", the Mithraics used fire as a symbol of god.

Now physical reality is the result of motion, from motion you get both time and mass - and this is similar to the archetypal Zoroastrian model, but it doesn't make Zoroastrianism physics - it's a narrative, Ahura Mazda is an anthropomorphic symbol of a concept that the average human mind simply cannot grasp, even with a detailed model, it's still a work in progress and probably always will be.

Instead of:"It is (things are) not self evident, but it is confirmable" one should say "things are confirmed by self-evident and preexistence models." It is the constructs, science if you please, that gives order to facts, not the other way around.

There are no pre-existing models, what there is is a physical universe governed by the laws of physics, which we catch glimses of through the models we construct - it's anything but self evident, if it were all self evident, we would have no need of models.

Plato hypothesized pre-existing models, which we call archetypes, but they are very general, and exist only in the mind, possibly part of the Language Acquisition Device (LAD) in the human brain, it allows us to make generalizations about things, to construct abstract categories instead of having to refer to everything separately - there is your cat, and then there are "cats" - Apes don't do this.

Duality may be one such archetype, recognizing a distinction between things and assigning relativistic values to them - we're back to the Garden again, good and evil are value assignments, but one cannot rely on religious oral traditions to make these value assignments, there is too much human frailty and self interest involved - Hitler probably did not believe he was evil, he was quite certain he was doing everybody a big favor I'm sure.

There is a science, the science of ethics, that is used to examine behaviors and behavioral algorithms and test them for ethical validity - the Golden Rule is an excellent example, it indeed echos what Evolutionary psychologists call reciprocal altruism - it still doesn't mean there's a god, it mean Hillel was no dummy.

The foundational principle of ethics is really just an analysis of how the costs and benefits of a given behavior are distributed - the more symmetrical the costs and benefits, the more ethical the behavior.

What we do not agree on is "what is the nature of that which exist."

In my world system God is the ultimate premise to thinking and pure religion is correct deductions that meets the requirements of science and logic. Instead of saying,"The empirical fact is, that science is full of incomplete explanations," it should be said that "science has all the complete explanations but is waiting for experience to reveal the information." There are no gaps in this explanation whatsoever but only a waiting process to clear up the chaos.

Um, once again, no - the devil is in the details we don't have complete explanations for everything, probably never will - there's a lot of stuff, and it's all moving around, we do the best we can.

Religion assumes it has all the answers, and discourages anybody from asking questions - and that's what science is, it's an organized system of asking a lot of questions, and trying to find answers to them - it isn't revelation, which is empirically, just one persons opinion, since there is no way to control for divine inspiration, a hypothesis - science analyzes that hypothesis for validity.

I suggest that your statement "certain predictions can be made based on models of morphology, organic chemistry, neurological organization, environmental interaction, etc." is very telling because in your reasoning process you recognize the importance of pre-existing models. These models to which you refer are not relativistic, which I say, is self apparent. In summary, the ontological model of God is a complete model. The gaps appear when we try to fill the model with incorrect deductions. Science is real and pure but the information attributed to science is often false but by comparing the information to the model, it is possible to eventually identify the truth; this is because truth is stable and does not change.

They are only pre-existing models because some scientific minded individuals went to the hard work and trouble to bring them into existence, sometimes at the cost of their lives - the things were always there, the models were not - the map is not the territory.

God is no model at all - which god? Which religion? YHWH or Elohim? There is no single monolithic perfect model of god - as of this moment there are approximately 6,770,793,981 different definitions of what god is and what he/she/it wants, no two of them exactly alike.

Just the opposite is true. The ontological model provides for an explanation for omniscience. If there is omniscience, there is a God. The same science that is true here on earth is probably true on Mars, true on other star systems and throughput the known universe, This truth is universal, self-evident, eternal, and definitely a type of omniscience of God.

Omniscience is the point where all energy collapses into a single point, unity - at that point, it expands again, blossoming like a flower and creating physical reality once again - duality, perfect energy and imperfect physical reality - reality is a flaw in that perfect omniscience, it's the grain of sand in the oyster, it's fingernails on a Blackboard, it's friction.

The conflict you see from boiling water and eating shellfish can be dismissed from the fact that people do make incorrect deductions but the following needs a little attention.

So who is correct and who is incorrect? Who decides who is correct and who is incorrect?

Science is a self evident truth upon which you depend so what you say about there being no self evident truths is incorrect. Faulty science is incorrect deductions. You assume the existence of the same phenomena that cosmologist assume, do you not?

Science itself is not self evident, although it seems to come more naturally to some than to others - it's an abstraction, a process, the scientific method, it isn't a truth, it's a method of creating predictive models based on experimentation and empirical evidence.

I really don't assume anything, except for the purposes of argument, I sift the evidence for what look like the most predictive model to me, and then I test the model by making predictions based on it - it's been working pretty well for me.

You, as I say, can believe what you like, you can define god anyway you like, but nothing is self evident - a solid rock is mostly empty space that you perceive as solid, a human body is a big bucket of water with a handful of carbon and few chemicals - the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts, yes, that's complexity, but even that isn't always self evident, other than as a generality - it falls somewhere far short of describing the whole. Even the I Am is questionable - it seems self evident enough, you is, until you ain't no mo'.

And that's the thing that makes you wish you wasn't alone, a tiny little spark in a vast, dark chasm.

We all in the same boat, spark it up.

 

[amicus]

Post #1132

~~~

"ancient dualist concept"

You just won't give up on your ancient 'dualism' philosophy, eh?

"physics doesn't need god, energy and polarity is all you need

" and of course you can always posit that energy and polarity has always existed, just like God.

"an anthropomorphic symbol of a concept that the average human mind simply cannot grasp,"

Oh, wow, showing off our intellect are we now?

"it's anything but self evident,"

did that apple really bounce off your head in a controlled model?

"possibly part of the Language Acquisition Device (LAD)

[/I]" then of course pre language humanoids had no conceptual ability? You miss the entire point of the mind.

"...Duality may be one such archetype, recognizing a distinction between things and assigning relativistic values to them - we're back to the Garden again, good and evil are value assignments.."

[/I] back to your insistence on dualism, eh?

"...Evolutionary psychologists call reciprocal altruism"

another crock...like liberal fascists saying conservatives happen because of a genetic defienciency.

"...The foundational principle of ethics is really just an analysis of how the costs and benefits of a given behavior are distributed - the more symmetrical the costs and benefits, the more ethical the behavior..."

The cost/benefit ratio worked out fine as a 'final solution' to the Jews in Germany and the Gulags in Russia, yeah, sure. That is the inherent danger in refusing to acknowledge the self evident right to life of all humans.

"...Um, once again, no - the devil is in the details we don't have complete explanations for everything, probably never will - there's a lot of stuff, and it's all moving around, we do the best we can."

Never mind that science/astronomy can predict the path of the orbit of planets a thousand years hence...and tide tables years and years in advance...et cetera et cetera et cetera...

"...a hypothesis - science analyzes that hypothesis for validity...."

and when a valid hypothesis is finalized, voila, 'fact!' absolute and unchanging fact!

"...They are only pre-existing models because some scientific minded individuals went to the hard work and trouble to bring them into existence,..."

No. the facts, call them models if you wish, are always there, scientific minded individuals did not bring them into existence, they exist in reality, independent of your lugubrious tainted opinion. What an overwhelming ego to think the universe exists only because you think it does...you need counseling...

"...Omniscience is the point where all energy collapses into a single point, unity - at that point, it expands again, blossoming like a flower and creating physical reality once again - duality, ***perfect energy and imperfect physical reality - reality is a flaw in that perfect omniscience, it's the grain of sand in the oyster, it's fingernails on a Blackboard, it's friction...."

The above quote is priceless, you should have it on your gravestone. The real world, to you, is imperfect in your perfect little mind, ignore reality, and bend and mold it to your own liking. That my dear child is called insanity.

"So who is correct and who is incorrect? Who decides who is correct and who is incorrect?" Reality, your imperfect physical reality will inform you as to a correct interpretation of that plant you are about to consume; guess wrong, you die.

"...Science itself is not self evident, although it seems to come more naturally to some than to others - it's an abstraction, a process, the scientific method, it isn't a truth, it's a method of creating predictive models based on experimentation and empirical evidence...."

Chicanery here, you merely replaced the word, 'reality'. with science, which is, in fact, the result of focused, non contradictory thought.

"...but nothing is self evident .."

Not even your own existence, to you only, of course.

"...Even the I Am is questionable .."

Ah, so you did admit that...

"...And that's the thing that makes you wish you wasn't alone, a tiny little spark in a vast, dark chasm.

We all in the same boat, spark it up..."

Poor little girl in a great big world who denies God and finds her fellow man somewhat lacking in solace..poooooor baby....

~~~

wmrs2, aside from the Chauvinistic, egomaniacal posturing, Xssve is a frightened little mind having rejected God because it is beneath him/her to accept and finding reality much too harsh and demanding a mistress, has rejected both faith and reason as a philosophy of life and is hell bent for election to dissuade anyone else from either faith or reason as a foundation for thought.

And, par for the course, attempts to belittle those who have chosen faith or reason as a foundation to uphold that little kingdom of alienation so favored by the inert and effete intellectuals of the time.

For anyone else who wants a glimpse of the true evil, the intellectual root and result of logical positivism full blown into liberal fascism and the rejection of all moral absolutes, then read closely the conclusions produced by this total rejection of faith and reason.

There will be nothing but denial, of course, for even a slight admission of error would destroy the entire fabric of relativism.

There...thas my pro bono for the day...

affectionately yours....Amicus...

 

[wmrs2]

My pleasure.

Well get back to this notion of "pre-existing models" in a moment, first, on the contrary in spite of the fact that there are certain resonances between Genesis and big Bang Theory, physics doesn't need god, energy and polarity is all you need - unless you want to define energy as God - i.e., pure energy, which is an ancient dualist concept - in Zoroastrianism, from which Christianity borrowed heavily in it's Mithraic morphology, Ahura Mazda (god) is described as "time itself", the Mithraics used fire as a symbol of god.

Now physical reality is the result of motion, from motion you get both time and mass - and this is similar to the archetypal Zoroastrian model, but it doesn't make Zoroastrianism physics - it's a narrative, Ahura Mazda is an anthropomorphic symbol of a concept that the average human mind simply cannot grasp, even with a detailed model, it's still a work in progress and probably always will be.

There are no pre-existing models, what there is is a physical universe governed by the laws of physics, which we catch glimses of through the models we construct - it's anything but self evident, if it were all self evident, we would have no need of models.

Plato hypothesized pre-existing models, which we call archetypes, but they are very general, and exist only in the mind, possibly part of the Language Acquisition Device (LAD) in the human brain, it allows us to make generalizations about things, to construct abstract categories instead of having to refer to everything separately - there is your cat, and then there are "cats" - Apes don't do this.

Duality may be one such archetype, recognizing a distinction between things and assigning relativistic values to them - we're back to the Garden again, good and evil are value assignments, but one cannot rely on religious oral traditions to make these value assignments, there is too much human frailty and self interest involved - Hitler probably did not believe he was evil, he was quite certain he was doing everybody a big favor I'm sure.

There is a science, the science of ethics, that is used to examine behaviors and behavioral algorithms and test them for ethical validity - the Golden Rule is an excellent example, it indeed echos what Evolutionary psychologists call reciprocal altruism - it still doesn't mean there's a god, it mean Hillel was no dummy.

The foundational principle of ethics is really just an analysis of how the costs and benefits of a given behavior are distributed - the more symmetrical the costs and benefits, the more ethical the behavior.

Um, once again, no - the devil is in the details we don't have complete explanations for everything, probably never will - there's a lot of stuff, and it's all moving around, we do the best we can.

Religion assumes it has all the answers, and discourages anybody from asking questions - and that's what science is, it's an organized system of asking a lot of questions, and trying to find answers to them - it isn't revelation, which is empirically, just one persons opinion, since there is no way to control for divine inspiration, a hypothesis - science analyzes that hypothesis for validity.

They are only pre-existing models because some scientific minded individuals went to the hard work and trouble to bring them into existence, sometimes at the cost of their lives - the things were always there, the models were not - the map is not the territory.

God is no model at all - which god? Which religion? YHWH or Elohim? There is no single monolithic perfect model of god - as of this moment there are approximately 6,770,793,981 different definitions of what god is and what he/she/it wants, no two of them exactly alike.

Omniscience is the point where all energy collapses into a single point, unity - at that point, it expands again, blossoming like a flower and creating physical reality once again - duality, perfect energy and imperfect physical reality - reality is a flaw in that perfect omniscience, it's the grain of sand in the oyster, it's fingernails on a Blackboard, it's friction.

So who is correct and who is incorrect? Who decides who is correct and who is incorrect?

Science itself is not self evident, although it seems to come more naturally to some than to others - it's an abstraction, a process, the scientific method, it isn't a truth, it's a method of creating predictive models based on experimentation and empirical evidence.

I really don't assume anything, except for the purposes of argument, I sift the evidence for what look like the most predictive model to me, and then I test the model by making predictions based on it - it's been working pretty well for me.

You, as I say, can believe what you like, you can define god anyway you like, but nothing is self evident - a solid rock is mostly empty space that you perceive as solid, a human body is a big bucket of water with a handful of carbon and few chemicals - the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts, yes, that's complexity, but even that isn't always self evident, other than as a generality - it falls somewhere far short of describing the whole. Even the I Am is questionable - it seems self evident enough, you is, until you ain't no mo'.

And that's the thing that makes you wish you wasn't alone, a tiny little spark in a vast, dark chasm.

We all in the same boat, spark it up.

Again, you do an excellent job in explaining what you see to be true. Your explanation of what is real is given through primarily a cosmological model. My point has never been that you could not explain reality through a cosmological model but my point has been that reality can best be described through primarily an ontological model.

Science, physics, medicine, governments, most things that are, are constructs or models. Plato's forms are constructs or models. The best definition of Plato's forms or models in general is that each is a definition.

People who use the cosmological to explain reality think they construct science, math, and the self-evident things. Idealism and the ontological model say these are entities that always existed. There are many rational reasons that a person should chose the ontological mode over the cosmological model.

First, the ontological model is superior in determining ethics, how people should behave. Hitler, to use your example, did not invent evil or good. His behavior matched what Western Civilization called evil. If the definition or form of evil were to change, then it could be possible to construct a definition of good that justified the killing of the Jewish people. This is a "great" problem with humanism, that is, humans say what is good and evil. One can be guilty of evil one day, win the war, and be good by doing the same behavior the next day.

This is one of the main problems with totalitarian governments, such as communism, and the Hitlers of this world. These make the laws based on what they want the laws to be. This is also the difference between liberals and conservatives, atheist and believers, morality by law and moral relativity, the right to life and the right to chose, the determination of moral and immoral sex, heterogeneous marriages or gay marriages, and many other things related to ethics.

One of my previous statements was that most people have no idea what a world view was. It is important to know which world system is best, if it can be known. I personally think the ontological model is superior to the cosmological model. It is the differences between these two models that cause most of the conflicts in the world, the nation, local communities and religions.

There are great examples where these conflicts are very large. Many members of the Catholic Church differ with the Pope on views of abortion, birth control, and many other laws and customs. The Pope is not going to compromise on eternal truth but many of his members are choosing moral relativity and doing damn well what they please.

Several liberals were pissed off at me when I said that Al Gore yielded to the rule of law (eternal law) when he conceded the election to George Bush. My point was that many liberals would rather have said "fuck the law" but Al Gore differed with his own party on this one thing. Many people have worked to change the law by appointing judges to the Supreme Court that would re-write the law based on the principle that the Constitution is a living thing and should change to meet the needs of the changing population. To this the conservative says there is no way that the Constitution should be interpreted anyway but by a "strict constructionist" point of view that eternal law do not change.

Now you know why it is so difficult for liberals and conservatives to feed from the same grassland, why the gays were disappointed in California, the right to life in the whole nation, why the liberals are giving all the money away in the national treasurer, and why the communist are happy to see the country turn to the left.

 

[xssve]

First, the ontological model is superior in determining ethics, how people should behave. Hitler, to use your example, did not invent evil or good. His behavior matched what Western Civilization called evil. If the definition or form of evil were to change, then it could be possible to construct a definition of good that justified the killing of the Jewish people. This is a "great" problem with humanism, that is, humans say what is good and evil. One can be guilty of evil one day, win the war, and be good by doing the same behavior the next day.

On the contrary, in humanism is it always wrong to commit genocide, in religion, it always depends on whether it's "god's will" or not, there are examples all around you - calling it "error" in hindsight doesn't seem to help, the pattern never seems to change.

Basing ones ethics on the musings of some paleolithic sheepherders is the essence of relativism. Even the Jews systematically re-examine and revise their own records and the moral lessons and behavioral algorithms derived from them, through a process of debate and consensus - it's a signal departure from the revelatory model. Catholics do the same thing, but the process is far less transparent, and the motives behind the revisions often appear more... political.

Meanwhile, the laity often makes it up as they go along, mixing and matching various interpretations from wildly divergent sources, constantly spawning new sects - revelation is the central pillar, and this is as random and arbitrary as throwing darts for all practical purposes. Guess what? That's how religion works, it's often little more than a framework for tribal identification, the subject of no end of hand wringing for the clergy - it invariably fragments.

Science makes the entire debate process transparent, the consensus, however robust it may appear, is always subject to revision, provided dissent or modification passes the confirmation gauntlet of predictive validity and replicability of results.

 

[JackLuis]

I have followed this thread since the start and watched it evolve. I must say it has been most courteous of late, cudo's.

But where are the Atheists?

You know the ones who say, "This is a crock of shit! Religion is the scam that employs the Priests. That is the underlining reason for the Church(s).
It is all very well to precisely define your methodology and such, but if what your are talking about is pipe smoke why bother?

I believe that Churches do provide a service to their parishioners, help them through problems and all, But the hierarchy of organized religion is as crooked as the hierarchy of Wall Street! Humans are corrupted by power and that is one of the reasons you do not let organizations get "Too Big To Fail" (TBTF)

Ami- Love the suit, disregarded your condescension. Keep smiling.

 

[Stella_Omega]

jackluis, Atheism is not necessarily the same thing as anti-religion, -- although they go together like a horse and carriage.

But yeah, you can take it as read from me.

 

[xssve]

Religions is one thing, a church is another, belief is still another - it's such a touchy issue, mention any one of them, and you automatically lump them all in together, with out even knowing which religion, what church, etc.

"Christian" comprises so many sects it's almost meaningless, at best you can break it down to "a belief in a redeemer" - everything else is up for grabs.

I don't believe in redeemers, and I think it's like posting a "fleece me" sign on your forehead, it's tailor made for con artists - I believe that there perceptive people around in any age, at any given moment - occasionally they get press and religions are born - we call them "Prophets", or revealers, they are human, imperfect, but their messages resonate on some deep subconscious level - this is how most religions outside Christianity view it, but the Romans turned a Rabbi into a God, for whatever reason, and we're stuck with it.

And yeah, the believers get played like fiddles and fleeced like sheep - they don't call them "the flock" for nothing.

 

[NoJo]

I have followed this thread since the start and watched it evolve.

Presumably under another ID, because the thread started in 2006. In my opinion this thread has, in general devolved -- long, long posts peppered with quotes are not my idea of how to use a BB for dialog, I much prefer to read a post which is a short, clean single paragraph. That way the thread encourages more people to post, and is therefore more interesting, having a greater variety of viewpoints and styles. Diversity of opinions are the key, not argument

 

[ishtat]

But where are the Atheists?

You know the ones who say, "This is a crock of shit! Religion is the scam that employs the Priests. That is the underlining reason for the Church(s).
It is all very well to precisely define your methodology and such, but if what your are talking about is pipe smoke why bother?

Ami- Love the suit, disregarded your condescension. Keep smiling.

Most athiests care so little about religion that most believers don't even know who they are - and the athiests aren't bothered about that either.

 

[Liar]

But where are the Atheists?

Out getting laid.

 

[NoJo]

Out getting laid.

I must be more religious than I thought

 

[Guest]

Out getting laid.

I must be more religious than I thought

Do you shout "Oh, God!" when you climax?

 

[xssve]

One liners are what chatrooms are for, IMO, and there is always that thing on your mouse, the "scrollwheel" I think it's called.

Since it's Subjoes thread, I apologize for getting longwinded, but I happen to think it's a subject that deserves some thought, whether you believe in the supernatural or not - all things being equal, it's neither here nor there to me, but when public policy is being based on magical thinking, it needs to be addressed in a comprehensive manner, and the lines need to be drawn clearly and unequivocally.

Religion is an oral tradition that envelops and syncretizes dissenting or competing concepts and ideas - the ancient seasonal festivals and deities (saints), etc., the constitution and the legal system, now it's trying to assimilate science itself - logical positivism, now a distorted version of evolutionary psychology and mainstream philosophy - I'd like to maintain the distinction between objective analysis and political spin lest all objective meaning be lost.

 

[JackLuis]

Presumably under another ID, because the thread started in 2006. In my opinion this thread has, in general devolved -- long, long posts peppered with quotes are not my idea of how to use a BB for dialog, I much prefer to read a post which is a short, clean single paragraph. That way the thread encourages more people to post, and is therefore more interesting, having a greater variety of viewpoints and styles. Diversity of opinions are the key, not argument

I guess I missed the year on the early posts?

I agree a paragraph is enough to make a point.

 

[amicus]

Xssve: ",,, but when public policy is being based on magical thinking,..."

~~~

Dismissing two thousand years of religious ethics and morality with a rhetorical castaway, 'magical thinking', is perhaps accurate, but hardly of any value at all.

Especially since the alternative offered is a hodge-podge of faith and belief, loosely identified as, 'for the greater good...' Hell, if I had to choose I would pick religion over relativism.

Fortunately, for all mankind, there is a third choice, reason and rationality.

It requires a little focused, objective thought, it is not just lying there like abortion, homosexual rights and global warming, to pick up and run with.

Just as modern liberals try to cash in on classical Liberalism, a respect for the individual; those advocating relativism try to steal, 'objective', when that is the very last thing they are.

The litmus test for any relativist is to query them on the value of human individual life, if they fail that, they fail everything.

Amicus...

 

[Liar]

Do you shout "Oh, God!" when you climax?

I sometimes shout "Oh Fuck!" Does that mean that fornication is my god?

 

[sr71plt]

~~~

Dismissing two thousand years of religious ethics and morality with a rhetorical castaway, 'magical thinking', is perhaps accurate, but hardly of any value at all.

Especially since the alternative offered is a hodge-podge of faith and belief, loosely identified as, 'for the greater good...' Hell, if I had to choose I would pick religion over relativism.

Fortunately, for all mankind, there is a third choice, reason and rationality.

It requires a little focused, objective thought, it is not just lying there like abortion, homosexual rights and global warming, to pick up and run with.

Just as modern liberals try to cash in on classical Liberalism, a respect for the individual; those advocating relativism try to steal, 'objective', when that is the very last thing they are.

The litmus test for any relativist is to query them on the value of human individual life, if they fail that, they fail everything.

Amicus...

This would be the thread that you would find all of those personal attacks I made against wmrs2 that you charged me with on another thread, Amicus. Find them here and point them out for me, please (along with any connected posts by wmrs2 too, for comparison purposes)--or just stop this intellectually dishonest posting technique you employ.

 

[sr71plt]

I sometimes shout "Oh Fuck!" Does that mean that fornication is my god?

Would that be a bad thing or a good thing?

 

[Guest]

I sometimes shout "Oh Fuck!" Does that mean that fornication is my god?

Would that be a bad thing or a good thing?

Works for me either way.