Synthesis of Religious Philosophy
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-07-2014, 05:42 PM
Synthesis of Religious Philosophy
Atheism rose as the natural antithesis to theism. Dialectics say that the two must and shall collide violently to form a synthesis that destroys both philosophies by eliminating the bad and leaving only the good. What do you feel that the synthesis is, or will be, and what type of violent collision do you think it will be, or was? I personally feel that the two ideas collided many years ago when Sakyamuni Buddha uttered that the Earth was his witness, because it showed that the true power was the universe itself but also that man can become spiritually elevated. What do you think?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-07-2014, 09:41 AM
RE: Synthesis of Religious Philosophy
(01-07-2014 05:42 PM)Rinpoche Wrote:  Atheism rose as the natural antithesis to theism.

Incorrect. Atheism precedes theism. Atheism is non-belief in any deities.


Quote: Dialectics say that the two must and shall collide violently to form a synthesis that destroys both philosophies by eliminating the bad and leaving only the good.

[citation needed]


Quote:What do you feel

We atheists here don't confuse feelings for rational thought. We don't "think" with our feelings.


Quote: that the synthesis is, or will be, and what type of violent collision do you think it will be, or was?

You have not demonstrated that such an event will happen. You have merely asserted it without any sort of supporting evidence at all.


Quote: I personally feel that the two ideas collided many years ago when Sakyamuni Buddha uttered that the Earth was his witness,

[citation needed]



Quote: because it showed that the true power was the universe itself but also that man can become spiritually elevated. What do you think?

I think that the above statement is meaningless word salad.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
02-07-2014, 10:12 AM
RE: Synthesis of Religious Philosophy
(01-07-2014 05:42 PM)Rinpoche Wrote:  ...
Dialectics say that the two must and shall collide violently to form a synthesis that destroys both philosophies
...

Taq kinda nailed it already but I'd like to add.

I don't think Atheism could really be called a 'philosophy'.

Even using Google's definition:
philosophy, noun
2. a theory or attitude that acts as a guiding principle for behaviour.

It's more like a default position.

I'm a guy, it's my default position, my maleness is not my philosophy.

Either way, yes, I would have to partially agree... destroy theism and atheism would evaporate in a puff of logic.

Drinking Beverage

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-07-2014, 03:17 PM
RE: Synthesis of Religious Philosophy
"Atheism is the default position."

Is there a better term for atheism / theism?

Atheism means "without theism". It presupposes theism as the default. And atheism is something that comes after.

We need something like "naturalist" and "anaturalist"/"supernaturalist". You get what I mean. A term denoting that nature/reality is the default view, and views of supernaturalism are not.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-07-2014, 03:22 PM
RE: Synthesis of Religious Philosophy
It seems like we're getting off topic and Taqqiya Mockingbird is descending into useless semantic nitpicking. Tongue

[Image: dialectic.jpg]

Here's a dialectical diagram, the kind Hegel would've used I think.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-07-2014, 03:34 PM
RE: Synthesis of Religious Philosophy
I disagree with your assertion that if the two collide they will destroy each other.

Furthermore - if such a destruction were to happen - why do you assert that what would result would be good?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-07-2014, 03:41 PM
RE: Synthesis of Religious Philosophy
(02-07-2014 03:34 PM)CiderThinker Wrote:  I disagree with your assertion that if the two collide they will destroy each other.

Furthermore - if such a destruction were to happen - why do you assert that what would result would be good?

It's not an if, it's a when.

The synthesis solves the conflict between the thesis and antithesis by reconciling their common truths and forming a new thesis, starting the process over.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-07-2014, 03:49 PM
RE: Synthesis of Religious Philosophy
It may be a new thesis but how do you define that to be good?

I agree it's not an if but when - and I actually think that the conflict is constant to a greater or lesser degree
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-07-2014, 03:51 PM
RE: Synthesis of Religious Philosophy
(02-07-2014 03:49 PM)CiderThinker Wrote:  It may be a new thesis but how do you define that to be good?

I agree it's not an if but when - and I actually think that the conflict is constant to a greater or lesser degree

Since the new synthesis has no conflicting ideas, everyone will be in agreement to it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-07-2014, 03:52 PM (This post was last modified: 02-07-2014 04:07 PM by Luminon.)
RE: Synthesis of Religious Philosophy
(01-07-2014 05:42 PM)Rinpoche Wrote:  Atheism rose as the natural antithesis to theism. Dialectics say that the two must and shall collide violently to form a synthesis that destroys both philosophies by eliminating the bad and leaving only the good. What do you feel that the synthesis is, or will be, and what type of violent collision do you think it will be, or was? I personally feel that the two ideas collided many years ago when Sakyamuni Buddha uttered that the Earth was his witness, because it showed that the true power was the universe itself but also that man can become spiritually elevated. What do you think?
I think nobody here knows who or what is Sakyamuni Buddha. (Wiki says it was prince Gautama? OK.)

Anyway, I have done some looking into this synthesis. It'd definitely doable and will be done with due (big) expenditure of time, money, expertise, equipment and dying out of old scientists on important positions. In other words, the normal course of history. Right now the history is busy with downfall of democracies and dominant currency, possibly also the ecosystem. Give the history some breathing space and it will synthesize what seems like opposites right now. Hopefully I will be there to help the process.

Yes, as DLJ says, atheism is not a philosophy, it's an application of philosophy to one question, is there a theistic, religious god? (Nope)
I wish atheists were philosophers, they'd be atheists about more things than just gods. They're skeptical, but most of all about natural sciences, not about social sciences. There is a pseudoscience in physics and such, and they hate it. There is however also pseudoscience in social sciences - it's called the culture and they seem mostly happy about it.

If there is anything that deserves to be called God, it's the idea of singularity, of infinity, of this unimaginable paradox that our universe seems to come from. I believe that in some way the original singularity may still exist, even though it's so long after the Big Bang. If the universe is a multiverse, it's a necessity to avoid infinite regression, for which there is not enough energy. But that is more of a Hindu thought, cosmic cycles of God's breath in and breath out. The singularity would also solve the problem of what the universe expands into, or rather it would make the question meaningless, if I get my topology right.
But there is no other way for God to be, if God is not the energy itself, that means also everything that is interchangeable with energy - matter, space and time. Existence would be literally synonymous with energy and energy with universe and universe with God. Everything manifest and unmanifest. Either everything is God, or nothing is. I would lean to the former, because there are some useful conclusions, but the notes are kind of large and not in English.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: