Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Infinity Lover · 09-12-2002, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by GeoTheo:


Marcel,
I agree that decieving your self into thinking you are superman must be a very powerful feeling for you. I would rather accept reality though since we both will die someday and thus have only limited control of our fate.

typo

[ September 11, 2002: Message edited by: GeoTheo ]

Hmmm, guess there's a definition of the word agreement I'm not familliar with. Then again the 'blanky/thumb' anology was a trifle on the lame side (suitable, but not very diplomatic); would cycling without trainingwheels work better (spanks himself; bad boy).
I asure you I don't preceive myself superhuman, or sub-anything for that matter. Commiting to yourself takes effort. It's not about bee-assing yourself. It's about not bee-assing yourself.

And I fail to see how my mortality (something you have no control over) has anything to do with the random nature of life. Ultimately there's no fate; only consequences of choices, how you choose to deal with unexpected turns included.

Life's never what you expect from it, but ultimately what you make of it.

Marcel.

Ernest Sparks · 09-13-2002, 08:02 AM

Gee, I thought this topic was going to be bout 'e', the base of the natural exponential function 'exp(Z)' and a transcendental number.

GeoTheo · 09-13-2002, 10:10 AM

Marcel,
You have developed a worldview that appeals to you. It also appeals to you to have the idea that those who don't share it are little babies carrying around blankets and sucking their thumbs.
Neither view is justified.
You like the idea that the universe only has the meaning you assign to it. You cannot say this is objective and requires no metaphysical leap.
It is subjective and does require a metaphysical leap. How are you then justified in having this sense of superiority? You are superior because you have placed your self in your mind as being superior. This is why I said you think you are superman. You believe you create the Universe and are thus the master of your fate. Invictus, if you will. Trouble is, just like me you will die. So I don't see any objective superiority.
I see myself as being limited and submitting myself to a greater good. I see meaning in the Universe that is there independant of me and I see myself as being able to recognize it and subordiante myself to it.
If we are both only creating meaning in our minds and we both will die how are you any better than me and how am I a child?

GeoTheo · 09-13-2002, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by wordsmyth:


Note: Emphasis mine

The emphasis in the above statement highlights the most basic flaw in choosing one religion over another. There simply is no substantial evidence that points to one religion as more probable than any other. In fact, there doesn't appear to be any empirical evidence for any theistic claims.

Since there is no empirical evidence that validates one religion over another, we are left only with reasoning.

Reasoning and understanding in the modern world tells us that the beliefs of our ancestors are indeed absurd.

Natural disasters are not caused by an angry and unseen deity, but by observable and predictable events (e.g. weather patterns).

Mental Illness is not the result of demon possession and exorcism has never been demonstrably effective in treating it.

Lightning rods have proven much more effective against lightning strikes than prayer and ringing a church bell.

In fact, natural explanations have proven more valuable to human understanding and welfare than any supernatural claim. Can you provide a single example of how any supernatural explanation has benefitted mankind in any substantial way?

As natural explanations replace supernatural beliefs, the supernatural (including God(s)) appears more and more to be the result of ancient ignorance and superstition.

[edited for grammar]

[ September 12, 2002: Message edited by: wordsmyth ]

You assume incorrectly that explaining the unknown
is the only purpose religious belief serves.
You also limit all determination of truth to impiricism. I could point at that there is a point in which the findings of science makes reality absurd. Everything is composed of atoms and all phenomena are explained in terms of activity at the quantum level and therefore all is basically to a degree indeterminate. You then basically have to assume that everything we see is more or less an illusion of what it really is.
This then puts you on the same playing field with me.

GeoTheo · 09-13-2002, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Immanuel Kant:
GeoTheo-

Language holds no intrinsic value whatsoever.

What? Why?

Because Language is an "intersubjective activity" where people participate.
Wittgenstein destroyed epistemology forever with his Private Language argument that concludes that there are no solipsistic definitions.
Nobody has the ability to think before they learn the rules of the language in order to engage in language of any sort.
Nobody has a "privileged" or to be precise: "private access" to the definition of a word.
The term under question 'God' is but a common word in the English language.
Therefore you cannot pretend to understand a word better than other people.

~Subjectivist~

[ September 12, 2002: Message edited by: Immanuel Kant ]

Assuming you are a metaphysical naturalist(If not then I am not debating you in this thread) you have not removed the word from your vocabulary. You have removed any way of assigning it a meaning. Your meaning is different than mine, therefore you do not posess the meaning I do.
So "God" to you is meaningless. You then wrongly assume it would be absurd to believe in God.
All you have said is that it would be wrong for you to believe in God because God is not part of your worldview. You only believe in the material.
I do not say God is a material entity. I agree God exists in my mind. I agree that he does not exist in your mind. But since our grasp of reality consists of nothing more than the perception of our minds. I don't think this puts God's existence on as shakey a ground as you think.
How do you know your senses are to be trusted?
Partly because others you communicate with seem to have similar fedback from theirs.
I can get feedback from others about God's existence. He seems to dwell in other peoples minds besides mine. This belief in God seems to add a different dimension to all of reality.
But the experience is that it adds a dimension that is supposed to be there. The experience is that of gaining wholeness and completeness. That is why your view of reality appears fragmented. How can you be sure that impiricism is exhaustive in it's grasp of reality?
How do you know you don't just prefer it because you understand it better?

Jamie_L · 09-13-2002, 11:15 AM

Latecomer to this thread, but here goes...

Quote:

Originally posted by GeoTheo:
I believe everything a metaphysical naturalist believes and more. Must it logically follow then that this "more" is bunk?

I think you've got it backwards. Metaphysical naturalism is a label used to describe a certain set of common conclusions that some people have reached about the world. It's not that we (metaphysical naturalists) believe your "more" is bunk because we are naturalists. For various reasons, we believe the "more" is bunk, and therefore we are labeled as metaphysical naturalists.

As far as alphabets go, I find the concept of the letter "e" to be fundamentally different from God. "E" does not interact with the world, it produces no effects in the natural world nor can it be effected by causes in the natural world. God, on the other hand, as presented by most god-based religions, DOES create effects in the natural world, and is effected by the natural world (in some cases).

The abstract concept of God that exists in the brain of any individual is not the same as the actual, existing God that the concept suposedly references. To say they are the same, is a misdirection that I feel abuses the term "abstract concept". Nothing that can interact with non-abstract entities can be defined as an abstract concept.

Jamie

Keith Russell · 09-13-2002, 11:21 AM

Greetings, GeoTheo:

So 'God' exists in your mind. Yet you say that 'God' is not a material entity.

Yet, the mind is a material entity, and so 'God' exists as a concept in your mind.

The problem is, 'God' is also (nearly always) meant as a concept which relates to something outside an individual consciousness. One of 'God's' primary characteristics is that of 'Creator'.

Your 'concept' of 'God' was formed by you after you were created, so your concept did not create you--let alone the rest of existence.

It could be argued that your concept of 'God' thus isn't 'God' at all, since what did not create existence, isn't God.

Keith.

[ September 13, 2002: Message edited by: Keith Russell ]

Autonemesis · 09-13-2002, 11:26 AM

GeoTheo, please answer my thought experiment, or admit you don't have an answer. Thanks.

Infinity Lover · 09-13-2002, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by GeoTheo:
Marcel,
You have developed a worldview that appeals to you. It also appeals to you to have the idea that those who don't share it are little babies carrying around blankets and sucking their thumbs.
Neither view is justified.

That would be more like adults whith blankets sucking thumbs; which I agree is not a very diplomatic metaphor. (And sorry if it hit too much of a nerve) I wouldn't go as far as calling that purely subjective though. To (many)atheist theism is much like grownups believing in holy fairytales.
I don't expect you to agree with that point of view, but I wouldn't want you to think it doesn't exist nonetheless.

Quote:

G.T.
I'm trying to describe what it is like to be some one with a larger vocabulary talking to a person with a limited vocabulary trying to describe a concept the other person has no word for.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I got the impression you were comparing holding religious views with 'having a larger vocabulary', which to me indicates a sense of superiority. I was trying to point out, that to others it's rather a compensation for some (assumed?) lack.

Quote:

G.T.
You like the idea that the universe only has the meaning you assign to it. You cannot say this is objective and requires no metaphysical leap. It is subjective and does require a metaphysical leap.

I don't superimpose any meaning on the universe. It's there and I live in it. What I hear on the news, is stuff I heard on the news. What science thinks is (or might be) the case, to me is what science... etc. Whatever concept I might draw up in my mind, is something I keep on the side for what it is; a mere concept in my mind. I don't turn it into a conclusion to jump to. I'm not a 'believer' Geo.

Quote:

G.T.
How are you then justified in having this sense of superiority? You are superior because you have placed your self in your mind as being superior. This is why I said you think you are superman.

I don't think in terms of more or less, or equal for that matter. We're all unique parts of existence with individual value.
Would you say religion doesn't fullfill any kind of need for you?
If so... That means it compensates for something, you'd otherwise consider yourself to be lacking. It completes you.
And religion is the added feature here; nobody pops out of the womb a believer.

Quote:

G.T.
You believe you create the Universe and ...

Okay chill out please... I obviously ticked you off, (I believe I created the universe? Sounds like frustration talking to me) and I apologize.

Please try to understand that I was very much getting the impression you were implying that we (atheists) are simply 'lacking religion', and I attemted to point out that isn't quite how I see it. You only 'lack religion' if you think you need it. I'll admit I could've chosen a better way to explain it.

Better?
(No, I don't mean superior

)

Marcel.

[ September 13, 2002: Message edited by: Infinity Lover ]

GeoTheo · 09-13-2002, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kind Bud:
GeoTheo, please answer my thought experiment, or admit you don't have an answer. Thanks.

I find it lacking in explanatory power. It ignores the element of "wholeness" believers experience.
They have the impression of being fragmented and then becoming whole. "I was blind but now I see."
Not, "I didn't used to be able to see a picture of Jesus, but now I can."

09-13-2002, 11:21 AM	#67
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	Greetings, GeoTheo: So 'God' exists in your mind. Yet you say that 'God' is not a material entity. Yet, the mind is a material entity, and so 'God' exists as a concept in your mind. The problem is, 'God' is also (nearly always) meant as a concept which relates to something outside an individual consciousness. One of 'God's' primary characteristics is that of 'Creator'. Your 'concept' of 'God' was formed by you after you were created, so your concept did not create you--let alone the rest of existence. It could be argued that your concept of 'God' thus isn't 'God' at all, since what did not create existence, isn't God. Keith. [ September 13, 2002: Message edited by: Keith Russell ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-13-2002, 08:02 AM	#62
Ernest Sparks Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Portland, OR USA Posts: 1,248	Gee, I thought this topic was going to be bout 'e', the base of the natural exponential function 'exp(Z)' and a transcendental number.

09-13-2002, 10:10 AM	#63
GeoTheo Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Bemidji Posts: 1,197	Marcel, You have developed a worldview that appeals to you. It also appeals to you to have the idea that those who don't share it are little babies carrying around blankets and sucking their thumbs. Neither view is justified. You like the idea that the universe only has the meaning you assign to it. You cannot say this is objective and requires no metaphysical leap. It is subjective and does require a metaphysical leap. How are you then justified in having this sense of superiority? You are superior because you have placed your self in your mind as being superior. This is why I said you think you are superman. You believe you create the Universe and are thus the master of your fate. Invictus, if you will. Trouble is, just like me you will die. So I don't see any objective superiority. I see myself as being limited and submitting myself to a greater good. I see meaning in the Universe that is there independant of me and I see myself as being able to recognize it and subordiante myself to it. If we are both only creating meaning in our minds and we both will die how are you any better than me and how am I a child?

09-13-2002, 11:26 AM	#68
Autonemesis Contributor Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: I've left FRDB for good, due to new WI&P policy Posts: 12,048	GeoTheo, please answer my thought experiment, or admit you don't have an answer. Thanks.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.