Isn't time that Humanity was more important than any religion

[lightgigantic]

Straw man. He never said his position didn't draw upon any doctrines, he said it wasn't "based upon religious doctrines."

sure

hence it becomes in essence a question of political quibbling as opposed to anything intrinsically philosophical

There is a difference. You can draw upon the empty words of a fortune cookie, but that doesn't mean it's based on that, and a fortune cookie certainly wouldn't count as a religious doctrine even if it were the basis for a position.

not sure what you are talking about here

O

f course, it's entirely possible to formulate a philosophical position based purely upon experience.

and in today's day and age, that unavoidably involves drawing upon the experience/opinions of others.

the And since most people read neither their faith's holy text nor the texts of major philosophers, it's safe to say that this is how most people devise their personal philosophical positions.

Most people who talk about evolution have never read any of the seminal works in the field ... nevertheless its a far stretch to say that their ideas about it are solely a consequence of their experience.

 

[river]

Straw man. He never said his position didn't draw upon any doctrines, he said it wasn't "based upon religious doctrines." There is a difference. You can draw upon the empty words of a fortune cookie, but that doesn't mean it's based on that, and a fortune cookie certainly wouldn't count as a religious doctrine even if it were the basis for a position.

Of course, it's entirely possible to formulate a philosophical position based purely upon experience. And since most people read neither their faith's holy text nor the texts of major philosophers, it's safe to say that this is how most people devise their personal philosophical positions.

Balerion

Thanks for the clarity of my position

You have it bang on

 

[Balerion]

sure

hence it becomes in essence a question of political quibbling as opposed to anything intrinsically philosophical

This is a non-sequitur.

not sure what you are talking about here

You said it's virtually impossible to not draw upon some doctrine to base your philosophy upon; I clarified that "drawing upon" certain sources is not the same as basing one's entire philosophy upon the doctrines of others. I also said that one can formulate their philosophy on experience alone, without the aid of doctrines.

and in today's day and age, that unavoidably involves drawing upon the experience/opinions of others.

Sure, but that doesn't mean I base my philosophy on any doctrine, nor on anyone else's opinion. For example, my philosophical stance on life as it pertains to conception and how it relates to abortion is based on my own experiences with the issue in my teenage years. Real-life experiences, not things I read in a book or gleaned from others.

Most people who talk about evolution have never read any of the seminal works in the field ... nevertheless its a far stretch to say that their ideas about it are solely a consequence of their experience.

Well, for one, evolution isn't a philosophical matter, it's a scientific one. And one does not need to have read The Selfish Gene to have a workable grasp on the subject, since evolution is taught in most biology classes. Most children don't, on the other hand, discuss complex moral issues, or even basic ones, in school, so what they think about a certain subject on that front is most likely going to come from their own experience.

 

[lightgigantic]

This is a non-sequitur.

either that or you don't understand

You said it's virtually impossible to not draw upon some doctrine to base your philosophy upon; I clarified that "drawing upon" certain sources is not the same as basing one's entire philosophy upon the doctrines of others. I also said that one can formulate their philosophy on experience alone, without the aid of doctrines.

feel free to indicate those philosophical outlooks that exist independent from already existing doctrines/outlooks/opinions or please be quiet

Sure, but that doesn't mean I base my philosophy on any doctrine, nor on anyone else's opinion. For example, my philosophical stance on life as it pertains to conception and how it relates to abortion is based on my own experiences with the issue in my teenage years. Real-life experiences, not things I read in a book or gleaned from others.

instead we are left with a picture where you opinion is practically non-different (hence the "virtually" in "virtually impossible") from already pre-existing doctrines/outlooks/opinions
:shrug:

Well, for one, evolution isn't a philosophical matter, it's a scientific one.

Its a common ploy of atheists to pretend that science isn't a philosophy (when it suits their game of course ...)

And one does not need to have read The Selfish Gene to have a workable grasp on the subject, since evolution is taught in most biology classes. Most children don't, on the other hand, discuss complex moral issues, or even basic ones, in school, so what they think about a certain subject on that front is most likely going to come from their own experience.

hell, with the amount of media saturation one doesn't even have to read the selfish gene to have a workable grasp on the book
:shrug:

 

[Balerion]

either that or you don't understand

I'm going to go with the former.

feel free to indicate those philosophical outlooks that exist independent from already existing doctrines/outlooks/opinions or please be quiet

So you want me to literally invent philosophy right here on the spot? Nah, that's not asking a lot.

How about you list for me the philosophical outlooks that are dependent on existing doctrines? (And remember, doctrines are what we were talking about. Not opinions or outlooks)

instead we are left with a picture where you opinion is practically non-different (hence the "virtually" in "virtually impossible") from already pre-existing doctrines/outlooks/opinions
:shrug:

That's not the point. You and I could both draw a picture of a sad man holding a balloon, but that doesn't mean we stole the idea from each other or that our inspiration was the same. Your argument wasn't "It's impossible to have a unique outlook," but rather "It's impossible to hold a philosophical position that doesn't draw upon a doctrine of some kind."

Stop moving the goalposts.

Its a common ploy of atheists to pretend that science isn't a philosophy (when it suits their game of course ...)

It's a common ploy for theists to stretch and even change the definitions of words when it suits them.

hell, with the amount of media saturation one doesn't even have to read the selfish gene to have a workable grasp on the book
:shrug:

Is that how you claim to know Dawkins' work even though you've never read any of it? Well, I hate to burst your bubble, but no, one cannot have a workable grasp on the book without reading it.

 

[James R]

Its a common ploy of atheists to pretend that science isn't a philosophy (when it suits their game of course ...)

Since when did science become a philosophy ... and why wasn't I notified?

 

[lightgigantic]

Since when did science become a philosophy ... and why wasn't I notified?

since when did science stop being a philosophy?
(... maybe it was something they discovered)

 

[lightgigantic]

I'm going to go with the former.

sure
asking for clarifications from opposing parties isn't your strong suit

So you want me to literally invent philosophy right here on the spot? Nah, that's not asking a lot.

The point is that you couldn't even if you wanted to
:shrug:

How about you list for me the philosophical outlooks that are dependent on existing doctrines? (And remember, doctrines are what we were talking about. Not opinions or outlooks)

err .. all of them

Not sure exactly what you are talking about but this is what I am talking about :
"Practically impossible to hold a philosophical stance (what to speak of a metaphysical one) without drawing upon some sort of "doctrine" or other."

That's not the point.

It most definitely is.

In the era of contemporary mass media all your ideas are part of a continuum.
Welcome to the 21st century!

You and I could both draw a picture of a sad man holding a balloon, but that doesn't mean we stole the idea from each other or that our inspiration was the same. Your argument wasn't "It's impossible to have a unique outlook," but rather "It's impossible to hold a philosophical position that doesn't draw upon a doctrine of some kind."

Actually it would be ... I think you (or anyone) would be hard pressed to offer a visual presentation of a person with a balloon in a manner that isn't derivative from already pre-existing art narratives (since balloons are pretty much a post-industrial article). Even if you want to try do something weird we can define it in terms of surrealism or abstract expressionism

Stop moving the goalposts.

They haven't budged.
I am simply clearing the weeds you have let grow around them

It's a common ploy for theists to stretch and even change the definitions of words when it suits them.

guess atheists already have that one covered when they try in one breath to pretend that science isn't philosophy and in the next breath try and argue about the nature of reality on the authority of it.
:shrug:

Is that how you claim to know Dawkins' work even though you've never read any of it? Well, I hate to burst your bubble, but no, one cannot have a workable grasp on the book without reading it.

Lol
what to speak of getting a workable grasp on the book without reading it ... you get a more workable grasp on the book by reading about what others have said about it.

Dude, your bubble was popped wholesale around the 17th Century and your statements are contrary to all current forms of academic presentation, from crit lit essays to peer reviewed journals

 

[Balerion]

sure
asking for clarifications from opposing parties isn't your strong suit

Another startling non-sequitur.

The point is that you couldn't even if you wanted to
:shrug:

You're asking me to develop a personal philosophy out of thin air for the sake of this thread. How about I ask you to build a house for us all to sleep in after we're done here?

But fine, you want one, let's have a go at it: The intellectual dishonesty displayed by most Christian apologists on the internet is a separate phenomenon from other eForum ills such as trolling and stalking, as it is rooted in the contradictions and fallacies inherent to their belief system. As such, they are to be pitied rather than hated, and engaging them in discussions is a fruitless exercise unless you enjoy watching theists who are so unsure of their own positions squirming as they attempt to circumvent the truth through tactics such as evasion, misrepresentation, quote mining, and outright lying.

There. A philosophy not based on any doctrine, just my own experiences on internet forums.

eerr .. all of them

Fail.

It most definitely is.

In the era of contemporary mass media all your ideas are part of a continuum.
Welcome to the 21st century!

You mean a theist has a warped and inaccurate view of the world he lives in? GET OUTTA HERE.

:shrug:

Actually it would be ... I think you (or anyone) would be hard pressed to offer a visual presentation of a person with a balloon in a manner that isn't derivative from already pre-existing art narratives (since balloons are pretty much a post-industrial article). Even if you want to try do something weird we can define it in terms of surrealism or abstract expressionism

Except I've just now presented you with an example of a picture of a man with a balloon that isn't derived from pre-existing art narratives.

They haven't budged.
I am simply clearing the weeds you have let grow around them

No, you've moved them. Since there's no point in re-typing the point you did not effectively counter, yet you still insist on pretending I did not make it, I will copy-and-paste it here:

That's not the point. You and I could both draw a picture of a sad man holding a balloon, but that doesn't mean we stole the idea from each other or that our inspiration was the same. Your argument wasn't "It's impossible to have a unique outlook," but rather "It's impossible to hold a philosophical position that doesn't draw upon a doctrine of some kind."

Stop moving the goalposts.

guess atheists already have that one covered when they try in one breath to pretend that science isn't philosophy and in the next breath try and argue about the nature of reality on the authority of it.

It isn't a philosophy. There's a philosophy behind the hammer; does that make the hammer a philosophy? Of course not.

Lol
what to speak of getting a workable grasp on the book without reading it ... you get a more workable grasp on the book by reading about what others have said about it

I always wondered how uneducated and unread pseudo-philosophers convinced themselves that they were either educated or well-read, and now I see. Instead of reading the works themselves, you read the reviews of them, and then idiotically claim that the reviews give a better insight to the book than actually reading it can. And not even the reviews, but a summary of those reviews on Wikipedia! Man, that is some Olympic-level mental gymnastics there.

Dude, your bubble was popped wholesale [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_newspapers_and_magazines"]around the 17th Century

and your statements are contrary to all current forms of academic presentation, from crit lit essays to peer reviewed journals

Yes yes, we know, you're now going to maintain this idiocy that a critical essay of a work is a suitable--nay, superior--substitute for reading the work itself. Welcome to a whole new low in human integrity.

 

[lightgigantic]

Another startling non-sequitur.

thanks for providing yet another example

You're asking me to develop a personal philosophy out of thin air for the sake of this thread.

Well according to you, its easy.

How about I ask you to build a house for us all to sleep in after we're done here?

Perhaps that would be relevant if I just spent the past 7 posts bragging about how easy it is ....

But fine, you want one, let's have a go at it: The intellectual dishonesty displayed by most Christian apologists on the internet is a separate phenomenon from other eForum ills such as trolling and stalking, as it is rooted in the contradictions and fallacies inherent to their belief system. As such, they are to be pitied rather than hated, and engaging them in discussions is a fruitless exercise unless you enjoy watching theists who are so unsure of their own positions squirming as they attempt to circumvent the truth through tactics such as evasion, misrepresentation, quote mining, and outright lying.

There. A philosophy not based on any doctrine, just my own experiences on internet forums.

err ... atheist (hell, even theistic criticisms) of (apparent) contradictions in religious followers is hardly a new phenomena, nor one divorced from established philosophical or sociological norms or ongoing historical discourses. In fact far from it being unique, you could say it is the most common.

try again.

Fail.

actually its a plain fact.

You mean a theist has a warped and inaccurate view of the world he lives in? GET OUTTA HERE.

:shrug:

No.
I am just bringing you up to par with events of the past, say, 600 years of western civilization

Except I've just now presented you with an example of a picture of a man with a balloon that isn't derived from pre-existing art narratives.

read it again to understand why that isn't possible for you.

In fact don't worry.
I am forced to repeat myself in the next paragraph
:shrug:

No, you've moved them. Since there's no point in re-typing the point you did not effectively counter, yet you still insist on pretending I did not make it, I will copy-and-paste it here:

That's not the point. You and I could both draw a picture of a sad man holding a balloon, but that doesn't mean we stole the idea from each other or that our inspiration was the same. Your argument wasn't "It's impossible to have a unique outlook," but rather "It's impossible to hold a philosophical position that doesn't draw upon a doctrine of some kind."

Stop moving the goalposts.

already explained why that task is beyond you.

Stepping outside of the sociological boundaries that frame art, philosophy, literature or science is simply a task you (or anyone who identifies themselves as an earthling .... and also those so psychotically unhinged not to identify as one for that matter) cannot perform (unless of course one subscribes to a heavily withdrawn provincial world view ... which is more a finesse of delusion than intellectual ingenuity :shrug:

It isn't a philosophy. There's a philosophy behind the hammer; does that make the hammer a philosophy? Of course not.

got to laugh at how you are discreetly trying to shift away from science and are now trying to talk about engineering.
It doesn't matter though.

Engineering is also framed by issues of philosophy ... unless you have another heavily withdrawn provincial world view (to complement the one you have already given about drawing a picture of a sad man with a balloon ...) that explains how engineers and their contributions have not influenced how we value, act and exist in this world.

Its kind of a big subject but let me bring the first line of this link to your attention :

Philosophy : Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.

I always wondered how uneducated and unread pseudo-philosophers convinced themselves that they were either educated or well-read, and now I see. Instead of reading the works themselves, you read the reviews of them, and then idiotically claim that the reviews give a better insight to the book than actually reading it can. And not even the reviews, but a summary of those reviews on Wikipedia! Man, that is some Olympic-level mental gymnastics there.

What to speak of posing an intellectual argument, you would have a hard time passing high school with an attitude like that.

Yes yes, we know, you're now going to maintain this idiocy that a critical essay of a work is a suitable--nay, superior--substitute for reading the work itself. Welcome to a whole new low in human integrity.

So reading the conclusions of persons who are more educated, more qualified, more experienced and more widely read on a subject than one's self makes one inferior?

Looks like we are getting a great insight into how you maintain this heavily withdrawn provincial world view of yours ...

:shrug:

(infact, hate to break it to you buddy, but dawkins work isn't even seminal - perhaps in terms of atheism but certainly not science -- IOW your reading his stuff is simply you reading somebody else's opinions about things that concern you ... so despite all this intellectual gallivanting it appears you have always been a member of the club since day dot. )

 

[Jan Ardena]

since when did science stop being a philosophy?
(... maybe it was something they discovered)

When the empire builders, narcissits, and utopia addicts usurped it, philosophy was pushed to the back burner
and the godless religion moved in.

jan.

 

[river]

The thing is , is that we can get past the mindset that any preceding philosophy has anything to do with my proposed op

I have no degree in philosophy or any ology at all

Which hence gives me the freedom of contemplation upon the philosophy of Humanity in the purest form or shape

For me is the importance of Humanity growth

Not only spiritually , as in the Human spirit , but also in attitude towards our planet

Sure there are many cults , books and movies , that bog us down with these points of view and that they could be true , to a certain extent

But none puts Humanity first , hence my problem with their teachings , as I've said before

We are holden upon these spiritual and philosophies through thousands of years , we research them , extract meaning(s) and then put these various understanding upon our being , Human Being

There are so many extractions and interpratations that it gets , ridiculus really , who to believe and why

And then ask the question why should I believe one perspective more than another ?

See the thing is that NONE hold Humanity first and foremost , thats my problem

There is ALWAYS some form of control of Humanity outside or without , that defines Humanity

What I would like to see , what really we need to see , is Humanity , Holistically, seeing its self as an independent entity , life form

( Our worth so to speak is based on entities that are not Human , thats the problem )

And this needs to happen worldwide

And now

 

[river]

We need to bring GOOD people together worldwide , that see , and understand that good people of Humanity have the power and have a vision of Humanity that is solid and good for ALL peoples , worldwide

 

[wynn]

The thing is , is that we can get past the mindset that any preceding philosophy has anything to do with my proposed op

I have no degree in philosophy or any ology at all

Which hence gives me the freedom of contemplation upon the philosophy of Humanity in the purest form or shape

By that reasoning then, infants are the purest, wisest, most humane humans.

 

[wynn]

Okay but not based on any type of religious doctrine

In that case, you would like to appoint yourself up as an authority in the matter, and that people should just accept you as an authority?

I don't present anything , other than god , that is in stark contrast with what most people value , which is life , justice , safety , education , health and prosperity

Surely you've noticed that people tend to have vastly different ideas about what life, justice, education, safety, health and prosperity mean.
For example, both the slave and the slave owner desire prosperity, but the two have vastly different ideas about what prosperity means.

Can you point out a time when life wasn't a struggle for survival?

Are you saying that religion is really about survival ?

Can you point out a time when life wasn't a struggle for survival?

 

[river]

Originally Posted by river
The thing is , is that we can get past the mindset that any preceding philosophy has anything to do with my proposed op

I have no degree in philosophy or any ology at all

Which hence gives me the freedom of contemplation upon the philosophy of Humanity in the purest form or shape

By that reasoning then, infants are the purest, wisest, most humane humans.

I see

What experience have they gathered , through life time

Your reasoning is stupid really

 

[Balerion]

In that case, you would like to appoint yourself up as an authority in the matter, and that people should just accept you as an authority?

Why do you need to be told by someone else? Why can't you just judge something on its merits? Clearly, river is saying that his own worldview is one he's acquired through living, without the need for someone to tell him to "Do this" or "Do that." Why can't you do the same? Why the appeal to authority?

Surely you've noticed that people tend to have vastly different ideas about what life, justice, education, safety, health and prosperity mean.
For example, both the slave and the slave owner desire prosperity, but the two have vastly different ideas about what prosperity means.

How does that invalidate what he said?

 

[river]

Originally Posted by river
Okay but not based on any type of religious doctrine

In that case, you would like to appoint yourself up as an authority in the matter, and that people should just accept you as an authority?

I just use reasoning , based on what I know and experience

I don't present anything , other than god , that is in stark contrast with what most people value , which is life , justice , safety , education , health and prosperity

Surely you've noticed that people tend to have vastly different ideas about what life, justice, education, safety, health and prosperity mean.
For example, both the slave and the slave owner desire prosperity, but the two have vastly different ideas about what prosperity means.

A slave owner would not exist in my world , since the owner does not have the slaves well being in mind , at all

Can you point out a time when life wasn't a struggle for survival?

Are you saying that religion is really about survival ?

Can you point out a time when life wasn't a struggle for survival?

I still don't understand your connection between religion and survival ?

 

[wynn]

I see

What experience have they gathered , through life time

Your reasoning is stupid really

It's your reasoning that is stupid.

You are simply coming from the romantic perspective of the ideal individual, who presumes themselves to be above and beyond culture and society.

I just use reasoning , based on what I know and experience

Reasoning, a lot of which you have picked up in the process of socialization/acculturation.

While you may not have any formal ties to any specific ideology/philosophy etc. (such as by having a PhD in existentialist philosophy or whichever), simply having been born and raised among people makes it inevitable to pick up their ideas.

A slave owner would not exist in my world , since the owner does not have the slaves well being in mind , at all

My example with slavery is just one example that I gave to illustrate my point. Which still stands: people tend to have vastly different ideas about what prosperity, justice etc. mean.

And given that they do have such different ideas on these matters, how do you propose that they all consolidate into one worldview, one philosophy, one system of values?

How does "your world" come into existence?

What is your idea for how this world, with all its differences, is to become your world, with no differences?
What are you going to do with all those who oppose you or your views? Imprison them? Kill them?

I still don't understand your connection between religion and survival ?

You said:

Hence we have lost our humanity towards each other and religion hasn't quelled this attitude

and I asked:

Can you point out a time when life wasn't a struggle for survival?

You suggest that at some point, we had our humanity, but then lost it.
How can that be? Was there a time when life was not a struggle for survival and people could "fully express their humanity"?

 

[wynn]

Why do you need to be told by someone else? Why can't you just judge something on its merits? Clearly, river is saying that his own worldview is one he's acquired through living, without the need for someone to tell him to "Do this" or "Do that." Why can't you do the same? Why the appeal to authority?

Denying that one is appealing to authority doesn't make one appeal any less to authority.

Everyone appeals to some kind of authority or other.

Why can't you just judge something on its merits?

To quote you:

Why haven't you considered that good and evil are just subjective values placed on things by humans, and not actual objective qualities?

If "good and evil [and some other evaluations] are just subjective values placed on things by humans" then it is not possible to "judge something on its own merits," because, per your reasoning, there is no such thing, no actual objective qualities.

Resorting to the idea of "judging something on its own merits" is an example of denying this subjective nature of judgment, as well as denying that a person's subjective judgment is also in part a product of socialization/acculturation.

How does that invalidate what he said?

I want to know how he imagines to settle the current differences between people, so that he can bring about the world in which everyone is humane.