The problem with atheism – No rational connection between the methodology and object

[lightgigantic]

“ Phlogistician

Even science uses allegory when presenting issues with persons who can’t/won’t accept concise statements eg “the earth is like an orange and the moon is like a ping pong ball and when it orbits the earth it ….. blah blah blah”
”
That's analogy, not allegory.

its a visible symbol representing an abstract idea

“
Unless you have been busy deleting your 4000+ posts on sci, your claims on the subject are quite apparent
”
Find a post to back up your claim if there are so many to choose from.

you've already provided enough on this thread

“
…. and lo and behold, part of that enlightening gesture involves clearly explaining how god does not exist

”
Quit stuffing that straw man.

“
…. people who have never considered the existance of god are atheists”

Yet you spend your time on a religious forum to make this point clear?
seriously?
Give me a break ....

”
You don't seem to understand the terms of the debate, and prefer to argue loaded terms. I'm just trying to keep you honest.

and you're trying to tell me that you have never considered the existence of god on a religious forum?

 

[lightgigantic]

Raithere

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
The only things you indicate that we can control are objects that are physically and/or cognitively inferior to us
”
This is your judgment and assertion, not mine.

if you can assert how cognitively inferior things are just as knowledgeable about the affairs of cognitively superior things (like say,ants knowing just as much about human affairs as humans), I would agree

“
by cognitive reciprocation
”
Cognitive reciprocation? That's an odd term. But I'd be happy to sit down with God and have a conversation with him if you can arrange one.

yes, but on your terms, no doubt

“
well suppose you have a tiny tumor in your intestine (ie something that is beyond your cognitive and physical powers to investigate ... assuming you are not a doctor). How do you propose to investigate it without cognitive reciprocation?
”
Typically I would ask to see the test results, radiographs, ultrasound... whatever it is that lead the Dr. to come to the conclusion that I have a tumor.

If they fail to produce any such evidence, I would indeed tell them they are full of shit.

you couldn't distinguish a printing error from a tumor

 

[Myles]

Why the disappointment?
Primarily the moral and general cognitive relativism espoused by Western Philosophy as a whole. I will not accept such relativism and its consequences, I hold it is immoral, decadent.
Secondly, Western Philosphy promises very little - it doesn't promise Enlightenment, it doesn't promise Liberation from suffering. Any worldview, philosophy, doctrine, teaching that promises less than Enlightenment or Liberation from suffering is not good enough for me.
Thirdly, Western Philosophy directly or indirectly operates on the premise that this one lifetime of about 70 years is all there is to human life. Western Philosophy requires unquestionable faith in death. I've lost that faith long ago.[/QUOTE


You are seeking Enlighenment and a release from suffering which, as you say. cannot be found in Western philosophy. Why did you expect to find it there ? Your approach to knowledge is based on " if I don't like the conclusion , I will reject the premises ".

This suggests that your view of philosophy is that it shoud tell you what you wish to hear. Well, it doesn't work like that. As I said in an earlier post, you are seeking a comfort blanket rather than knowledge.

We have had the Enlightenment or the Age of Reason which denies superstition and "common sense" in favour of reason. This rules out all the religious nonsense with which mankind has been, and continues to burdened.

I know this is not what you mean by enlightenment . You seem to believe that knowledge can be gained other than by reason. I don't believe it can.

I am not convinced by Eastern philosophy/religion which promises what it cannot deliver. In particular, I find the Buddhist definition of suffering totally unacceptable. Suffering is equated with being alive, and certain practices promise release from rebirth at some stage.

I regard all this as nonsense because there is not a shred of evidence to support it.

You are right, therefore, when you say that Western philosophy rejects the notion of rebirtrh. Tell us what evidence you have to show that is a wrong view.

 

[Vkothii]

You seem to believe that knowledge can be gained other than by reason. I don't believe it can.

Define "knowledge".
You can have knowledge of something without understanding it with your intellectual faculties.
There isn't a problem with trying to frame something that can't be framed, or with using empty or other kinds of vessels to convey meaning. But meaning is for our minds, our minds don't do more than contemplate meaning, including the meaning of their own meaningfulness, whatever that is.

What does an elephant see in a Picasso, or hear in a Bizet or Bach?

 

[Myles]

Define "knowledge".
You can have knowledge of something without understanding it with your intellectual faculties.
There isn't a problem with trying to frame something that can't be framed, or with using empty or other kinds of vessels to convey meaning. But meaning is for our minds, our minds don't do more than contemplate meaning, including the meaning of their own meaningfulness, whatever that is.

What does an elephant see in a Picasso, or hear in a Bizet or Bach?

Knowledge: Something most people appear to lack.

 

[greenberg]

You are seeking Enlighenment and a release from suffering which, as you say. cannot be found in Western philosophy. Why did you expect to find it there ?

Did I indicate I expected to find it there?
You are working with a double bind question there.

Your approach to knowledge is based on " if I don't like the conclusion , I will reject the premises ".

This suggests that your view of philosophy is that it shoud tell you what you wish to hear. Well, it doesn't work like that. As I said in an earlier post, you are seeking a comfort blanket rather than knowledge.

Riiight. Says someone who says also:

I know this is not what you mean by enlightenment . You seem to believe that knowledge can be gained other than by reason. I don't believe it can.

I am not convinced by Eastern philosophy/religion which promises what it cannot deliver. In particular, I find the Buddhist definition of suffering totally unacceptable. Suffering is equated with being alive, and certain practices promise release from rebirth at some stage.

I regard all this as nonsense because there is not a shred of evidence to support it.

To what you say above, one could say, "This suggests that your view of philosophy is that it shoud tell you what you wish to hear. Well, it doesn't work like that. As I said in an earlier post, you are seeking a comfort blanket rather than knowledge."
Your demand for "evidence" and that it be provided by external sources, by other people is a comfort blanket. It is so convenient to place the burden of proof on others, isn't it? While your molars rot, as some would say.

 

[greenberg]

The problem with atheism – No rational connection between the methodology and object

Regarding only the title and not the OP, there is another problem with atheism that can be summed up as "No rational connection between the methodology and object". Namely, typically, scientific atheism teaches us to investigate everything but ourselves. Millions are spent on space exploration, nuclear physics, studying animals and plants, studying the human body, behavior and diseases. But in all this, the "who we really are" is taken for granted, not further explored.
Even though that study is usually done with some relation to "us" (how "we" are endangered by pollution, how "we" can benefit from growing a specific kind of plant etc.), it is not clear who or what this "us" actually is. With lacking clarity in these matter, that study is irrational, having no clear connection between the methodology and the object.

 

[Myles]

Did I indicate I expected to find it there?
You are working with a double bind question there.




Riiight. Says someone who says also:



To what you say above, one could say, "This suggests that your view of philosophy is that it shoud tell you what you wish to hear. Well, it doesn't work like that. As I said in an earlier post, you are seeking a comfort blanket rather than knowledge."
Your demand for "evidence" and that it be provided by external sources, by other people is a comfort blanket. It is so convenient to place the burden of proof on others, isn't it? While your molars rot, as some would say.

Talking to you has become futile.

You admit to rejecting Western philosophy because it does not meet your requirements. How is one to interpret such a statement ?

You implicitly state as an aim that you are seeking a philosophical system that will support your personal happiness and not be based on the premise that we have only one life. Go East young man !

You can introspect and meditate as long as you wish but you will discover nothing that will help you in your quest. At best you may achioeve some form of tranquility and insight into your behaviour. You will not find answers to the big questions.

In this context don't forget that people who are high on drugs report similar experience to many of those reported by religious seekers after truth.

You are wrong to assume that I look elsewhere for answers. I did that in my youth but have long since concluded that religion and beliefs of a religious nature are not based on reason. So for most of my life I have stood on my own feed and lived an my reason dictates. I am not prepared to abandon reason.

I enjoy life but have no fear of dying. At the risk of sounding cocky. can I say that I am quite content with things as I see them and feel no need to go looking for answers elsewhere.

I will leave you with a quotation fron Fitzgerald's translation of the Rubiyat of Omar Khayyam. I do so from memory.


" For oftentimes when young did I frequent

Doctor and Saint and heard great argument

About this and about that, but anon

Came out by the same door as in I went"

 

[Raithere]

aka "moral relativism"

Hardly. Philosophy treats all different moral positions. Personally, I tend towards humanism and pragmatism. Of course, I retain Ferris Beuller's codicil "Isms in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an ism he should believe in himself."

~Raithere

 

[Raithere]

if you can assert how cognitively inferior things are just as knowledgeable about the affairs of cognitively superior things (like say,ants knowing just as much about human affairs as humans)

As I've already demonstrated, one does not require complete knowledge or have to be "just as knowledgeable". Partial knowledge is sufficient. People knew of the existence of the Sun, Moon, and Stars long before they had any understanding at all that they were anything more than lights in the sky.

yes, but on your terms, no doubt

No, I'm a flexible guy. I'd be happy to meet on God's terms.

you couldn't distinguish a printing error from a tumor

Actually I can. I have had quite a bit of exposure to medical diagnostics. It's not that difficult really. Anyone of average intelligence can grasp the concepts and understand the indicators. Especially if one compares a normal result to an abnormal one.

~Raithere

 

[Enmos]

LG can you make a list of things you completely understand ?

 

[Raithere]

Primarily the moral and general cognitive relativism espoused by Western Philosophy as a whole. I will not accept such relativism and its consequences, I hold it is immoral, decadent.

That Philosophy is open and honest enough to acknowledge and discuss different ethical positions does not mean that it espouses moral relativism. In fact, moral relativism is a rather narrow view espoused by relatively few.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_basic_philosophy_topics

Secondly, Western Philosphy promises very little - it doesn't promise Enlightenment, it doesn't promise Liberation from suffering. Any worldview, philosophy, doctrine, teaching that promises less than Enlightenment or Liberation from suffering is not good enough for me.

You prefer instead religion which has promised these things for thousands of years and has yet to deliver on a single promise? Sounds like denial to me. Of course, I understand your need to cling to authoritarianism. Particularly one that promises to save you. It's a natural human trait.

Thirdly, Western Philosophy directly or indirectly operates on the premise that this one lifetime of about 70 years is all there is to human life. Western Philosophy requires unquestionable faith in death. I've lost that faith long ago.

You're simply wrong here. There are many philosophical doctrines that presume a spiritual level of existence.

~Raithere

 

[Gustav]

No, I'm a flexible guy. I'd be happy to meet on God's terms.

excellent
gimme your firstborn then go smite someone

 

[Raithere]

excellent
gimme your firstborn then go smite someone

I said I'm flexible. Not retarded and immoral.

~Raithere

 

[phlogistician]

“ Phlogistician


its a visible symbol representing an abstract idea

That's a demonstration. You were using Allegory.

you've already provided enough on this thread

Meaning you cannot find one instance to substantiate your claims. YOu have been dishonest, yet again, making false claims, and now, like every dishonest debater, you want to move on, and forget your lies.

and you're trying to tell me that you have never considered the existence of god on a religious forum?

It's not what I have considered that is important, it's what you claim I have said. Now, substantiate you claims or admit you were lying.

 

[Jan Ardena]

So for most of my life I have stood on my own feed and lived an my reason dictates.

Gold, or silver top.

Jan.

 

[Myles]

Gold, or silver top.

Jan.

Nothing but the best. What else ?

 

[lightgigantic]

“ Raithere

Secondly, Western Philosphy promises very little - it doesn't promise Enlightenment, it doesn't promise Liberation from suffering. Any worldview, philosophy, doctrine, teaching that promises less than Enlightenment or Liberation from suffering is not good enough for me. ”
You prefer instead religion which has promised these things for thousands of years and has yet to deliver on a single promise?

on what grounds do you make that assumption?
By applying an irrational methodology?

Sounds like denial to me. Of course, I understand your need to cling to authoritarianism.

You doubt that you also cling to some sort of authoritarianism?

Particularly one that promises to save you. It's a natural human trait.

actually if you examine society in general the natural human trait seems to be go out and wreck yourself.
People can’t even apply themselves to such elementary notions of self benefit such as not smoking cigarettes … what to speak of wider issues of environmental concern
:shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

Emnos

LG can you make a list of things you completely understand ?

I can make quite an extensive list of things I understand more completely than an ant.

 

[lightgigantic]

“ Phlogistician

its a visible symbol representing an abstract idea ”
That's a demonstration. You were using Allegory.

take the issue up with your local etymologist. It’s a definition from the dictionary
:shrug:

“

you've already provided enough on this thread ”
Meaning you cannot find one instance to substantiate your claims. YOu have been dishonest, yet again, making false claims, and now, like every dishonest debater, you want to move on, and forget your lies.

I can only assume that if you think it’s a difficult task to find you mention either directly or indirectly that there is no proof/evidence behind the claim of god, that you are working with some screwy definition of atheism … I mean particularly if you want to work with the notion that an atheist is someone who has not considered the existence of god (seriously, how do you form a value statement, like “you guys are nuts/deluded/speaking an untruth/following something that has no basis in reality/etc”, without considering their point of view … )

“

and you're trying to tell me that you have never considered the existence of god on a religious forum?
”
It's not what I have considered that is important, it's what you claim I have said. Now, substantiate you claims or admit you were lying.

you just claimed that an atheist is someone who has not considered the existence of god.
If you have to come to a religious forum to peddle that definition, I think your purpose is defeated at the onset ….