Kenny
no
it means you have to get off your royal hind quaters and actually do something if you want to reap the benefits of applied or experiential knowledge
”
It's meaningless. There are ways to 'experience' alien abduction, but does that mean they were actually abducted by aliens? No, it's just reinforced delusion. And what is the benefit of experiencing alien abduction if aliens are not even visiting Earth? Similarly, why would I want to get off my ass and reap the benefits of 'experiencing' god, when god isn't there?
I am not sure why you brought up the alien abduction thing - but for the sake of rhetoric, its not exactly clear why being abducted by an alien and having an experience of it does not qualify for having an experience of being abducted by aliens - or to put it in general principles, its not clear on what authority you deem that someone's claims to an experience can be factual or not
at the moment it appears that the only authority is your perceived limitations of reality - like for instance if you deem that it is impossible to be abducted by aliens since they don't exist, then all claims of alien abductions are false - similarly if you deem that manufacturing a cold fusion engine is impossible, then all claims of such manufacture are false - do you see the striking resembelance between your argument and the argument of the high school drop out adamanant that an electron does not exist?
“
yes, until you come to the point of actually 'applying' knowledge there is no benefit intrying to understand it theoretically
”
Red herring use of the word 'knowledge' again. People who claim to experience alien abduction, have no knowledge of aliens.
once again - I'm not talking about alien abductions - I am talking about applied or experiential knowledge, which forms part of virtually any syllabus of teaching and learning you care to mention.
compare
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiential_knowledge
with theoretical knowledge
in short there are three aspects of learning
- knowledge - what we know (theoretical knowledge)
- skills - what we can do (applied knowledge)
- values - how we can be (realised knowledge)
it is absurd to try and approach 'skills' by 'knowledge' based paradigms (would you feel confident to undergo heart surgery from a doctor who says "I am so excited, this is my first ever dissection of a body- but don't worry - I have read about this extensively"
“
the only difference is that there is no one making a claim of direct perception of a celestial teapot or a process that has granted success to others in directly perceiving it - this explains why people worship god and not celestial teapots by the way
”
Obviously nobody is making claims of teapot perception, but there are people making claims of direct alien perception and even alien worship.
once again its not clear why you are talking about aliens - are you trying to say that there is absolutely no possibility that aliens exist?
The question is not about god, but why people feel the need to worship at all, as we get some sort of joy out of worshipping all manner of things.
the issue is quite simple - there is a certain class of person who applies a certain process to perceive a certain result - as far as the celestial teapot goes (or its contemporary derivatives, namely the FSM, pink unicorn/leprechaun etc) they are perceptions in ownership by atheists (but a cursory examination reveals them to be straw man arguments originally proposed by Bertrand Russel, so it end sup that there is actually no claim of direct perception of these entities, much less a process advocated how one can perceive them)
“
as for the wonder thingthere are heaps of scientists, of old and recent times who advocate a strong wonder of nature
"How can we avoid crying out, O god of miracles! How wonderful are all thy works! How beautiful are the ornaments! How well adapted the powers which thou hast so profusely bestowed upon thy creatures"
”
Once again you feel the need to quote religious scientists. All this leaves to me to do is point out that the majority of scientists these days are atheist and their strong wonder of nature is not diminished. Your point?
My point is that a scientists wonder of nature is not curtailed by theism, so your claim that atheistic science enables a greater wonder at the universe does not hold up
“
the ponderings of material creation, such as abiogenesis, appear superstitious.
(BTW th e superstitious aspect of abiogenesis is its incompleteness in knowledge)
”
No, abiogenesis is entirely logical and reasonable given current evidence. The simplest form of life is barely discernable from 'dull matter' (as you would call it) anyway. We are all made of star stuff, we are evolved, we didn't poof out of nowhere, get over it.
thats the point - abiogenesis innvolves the same "poof out of nowhere' principle so it operates on the same superstitious principle you accuse religion having the monopoly on.
Considering that there is no clear scientific consensus on how abiogenesis occurred, what the first abiogenetic organism was, what material elements the first abiogentic organism manifested from, what environment the first abiogentic organism manifested in and when the first abiogentic organism appeared, its not clear on what grounds you say it is logical and reasonable (at the very least it is not evidential, which is what something requires to avoid the "superstitious" label)
“
with or without religion, there is no escaping laws and authority - like for instance its quite bizzare how green house emissions (which are the result of industrial exploitation - and material exploitation being the natural default position in the absence of dominant religious principles) have caused to polar cap sto melt and reveal land masses, which in turn inspires oil companies to look for oil deposits there - every cloud has silver lining I guess
”
Industry does not have religious principles?
certainly don't find instructions in scripture to open a factory and exploit material nature to the point of endangering human civilization, so I guess not
So? Neither does agriculture and that was started by very superstitious and religious farmers thousands of years ago which practically devastated much of the environment in Europe.
I guess advancement of modern civilization is that we can do more damage in 60 years of industrialism than 2000 years of feudal agrarian culture
So it's irrelevant to note the apparent lack of superstition in our efforts to survive and progress. And I can't help but note that religious folk are generally right wing, and the environment is not one of their top priorities.
thats because their religious principles thinly coat their material desire to exploit (and the material desire to exploit is the root cause of atheism)
“
lol - hardly - I think you have a hard time establishing that mental maladies (depression, anxiety, etc ) are any lesser in a proclaimed atheist
”
Well, from experience, proclaimed atheists are very stable, intellectual and happy people. People warped by religious dogma haven't struck me as having much stability. I don't think anyone with strong beliefs in heaven, god, angels, Jesus as their savior, Satan, etc. can be stable.
your tentative claims are fine, but I think you have have a more difficult task ahead of you if you want to
establish them
“
if you mean the ability to imagine anything and write it off as reality, I would agree
”
Freedom of thought as in being able to think without restriction of religious dogma.
are you saying that atheism doesn't have a dogma? like for instance the chairman at an atheistic society could take the mic and say "I've been thinking that the existence of god could explain a few things ...." and be respected by their associates?
For example, people refute evolution based only on their religious dogma. Without religion, there is no controversy in evolution.
people also refute evolutional theory due to flaws in the theory
“
and unless you are practicing your atheistic 'freedom of thought', what communes or collectives of atheism are the evidence you are drawing on to declare them as the gurus of peace and co-operation?
”
Don't you think, if there were higher levels of atheism amongst the populations of America and the Middle East, that there would be some degree of rationality amongst their elected powers?
nope - it would still be all about oil
How could George Bush get elected in Sweden? It just wouldn't happen.
Unlike France, Germany and the United Kingdom, who depend on importation of energy reserves, Sweden has large resources of hydro-electric power. In 2003, Sweden gained 23% of its energy from renewable sources, compared to an EU average of 6%. It has recently made a commitment to an oil-free economy by 2020 – Sweden’s future is looking to be a green one.
http://www.cafebabel.com/en/article.asp?T=A&Id=1766
compared to
"The United States currently has 5 percent of the world’s population, but uses 25 percent of the world’s annual energy production. This disproportionate consumption of energy relative to global consumption causes loss of the world’s good will and provides a context for potential military conflicts, at the cost of lives, money, and political capital. A more equitable distribution of resources is in our best interest for a peaceful future."
http://www.oilcrisis.com/us/
How could the energy demands of the USA be compared to the energy demands of sweden?
“
except in times of drought or a million other circumstances where it becomes quite obvious that our station in the universe is not as great as we commonly pretend it is
”
Really? So rather do something like BandAid, we should all sit and pray in times of drought and famine? Good one.
it may not be a bad idea, even from the view of persons who have no particular theistic angle to offer
In 1986, the anarchist band Chumbawamba released the album Pictures of Starving Children Sell Records, as well as an EP entitled "We Are The World", jointly recorded with US band A State of Mind, both of which were intended as anti-capitalist critiques of the Band Aid/Live Aid phenomenon. They argued that the record was primarily a cosmetic spectacle, designed to draw attention away from the real political causes of world hunger.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Band_Aid_(band)#Criticism
