Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 4 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-07-2014, 02:45 PM
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
(11-07-2014 02:39 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(11-07-2014 01:07 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Oh, you mean both less than ever before and less all the time?

Save us from the horrors of modern society.

Dodgy
Modern society didn't end its horrors, it only managed to export them to politically and economically weaker areas and narcotize the domestic voters with Huxleyan pleasures under Orwellian surveillance, thanks to better science. Tax cattle is more productive when not too stressed, but we all live in tax farms called states.

Mother of God. Nobody's that obliviously doctrinaire.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-07-2014, 02:51 PM
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
(11-07-2014 02:45 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(11-07-2014 02:39 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Modern society didn't end its horrors, it only managed to export them to politically and economically weaker areas and narcotize the domestic voters with Huxleyan pleasures under Orwellian surveillance, thanks to better science. Tax cattle is more productive when not too stressed, but we all live in tax farms called states.

Mother of God. Nobody's that obliviously doctrinaire.

He has got to just be trolling us at this point. Nobody could be that fucking stupid.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
11-07-2014, 03:35 PM
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
(11-07-2014 02:51 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(11-07-2014 02:45 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Mother of God. Nobody's that obliviously doctrinaire.

He has got to just be trolling us at this point. Nobody could be that fucking stupid.

He is delusional and obsessive, lacking training in science, and swayed by whatever the latest stuff he's read.

Stupid? No.

Deranged? Yes.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
11-07-2014, 03:42 PM
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
(11-07-2014 07:55 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(11-07-2014 07:32 AM)Chas Wrote:  Your knowledge of philosophy and philosophers is woefully inadequate.

Here's an atheist philosopher of world-class repute.
Well, I'm not a historian of philosophy and I found most of the modern esteemed philosophers full of crap. Even the rather good ones like Kant or old Socrates face pretty serious criticism. And the critical philosophers go chasing shadows of culture, not knowing what culture is. As for your opinion, you don't understand most of what I say, you are a science specialist. Your idea of knowing philosophy is knowing who was who.

Well, that's weird because my B.Sc. is in Mathematics with Philosophy. I was urged to apply to the graduate philosophy program at McGill University by one of my professors. Consider

Quote:Frankly, the world's ability to recognize good philosophers sucks. The culture is so full of crap, that it can only approve of crappy philosophers. Any really good philosophers will be fiercely attacked or forgotten and for sure they will not be on TV or in any high position.

Controversial and good are not related.

Quote:I have a somewhat good opinion of him, I agree with the things he positively says. My problem is, he doesn't say or do all that much. He does a good job attacking some superfluous categories like free will or mind/body dichotomy, but not as radically as I'd like to see. His philosophy is hardly more than an adjunct to science, it's not holistic, cosmological, social or moral.
I'd say that is pretty typical for government-sponsored academical philosophy, it never rocks the boat and it's quite useless for daily life, moral conduct, happiness and wealth. The most important area of daily life (teoria and praxis) was given over to shitty media and Oprah. Where are the times when philosophers attacked the legitimity of governments and lived of voluntary donations?

Government-sponsored? WTAF?

Quote:As usual, he's one of these western philosophers who don't do contemplative practices and do all their cogitation under normal alpha or beta brain waves. He's like a scientist with LHC who only powers it on 220 volts.

What do you think philosophy means or philosophers do? Because contemplative practices aren't a requisite except in woo-woo land.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-07-2014, 03:47 PM
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
Stupid and doctrinaire I may be, because nobody can show where I am actually wrong. Nobody can come up with a counter-argument.

I was never too Christian, I didn't get to see how Christians treat their apostates, so I must experience see how statists treat anarchists, or I wouldn't believe. It doesn't feel real, I mean the true believers in the state authority. I lack experience with the statists. I need to know how easily can people turn hostile, derogatory, dismissive and clueless of arguments - when certain special words are uttered. I'm too used to people having no fuckin' idea what I'm talking about and just nodding in agreement.
With Christians the pain words are clear, it's the atheist curriculum. But the worst thing about social taboo is, it's so ever-present that we can't even imagine things could be any other way, we don't know the explosive words, because they are not overtly forbidden. The second hard thing is to imagine, that some people might not want changes even though the present sucks and might even to discourage changes through threats or violence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-07-2014, 03:51 PM
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
(11-07-2014 03:47 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Stupid and doctrinaire I may be, because nobody can show where I am actually wrong. Nobody can come up with a counter-argument.

I was never too Christian, I didn't get to see how Christians treat their apostates, so I must experience see how statists treat anarchists, or I wouldn't believe. It doesn't feel real, I mean the true believers in the state authority. I lack experience with the statists. I need to know how easily can people turn hostile, derogatory, dismissive and clueless of arguments - when certain special words are uttered. I'm too used to people having no fuckin' idea what I'm talking about and just nodding in agreement.
With Christians the pain words are clear, it's the atheist curriculum. But the worst thing about social taboo is, it's so ever-present that we can't even imagine things could be any other way, we don't know the explosive words, because they are not overtly forbidden. The second hard thing is to imagine, that some people might not want changes even though the present sucks and might even to discourage changes through threats or violence.

You have been shown repeatedly. You chose to ignore criticism and adapt a superior attitude. It is hardly worth debating with you as you do not actually defend you opinions but just go off on weird ad hominem attacks on unrelated subjects.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Revenant77x's post
11-07-2014, 03:52 PM
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
(11-07-2014 03:47 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Stupid and doctrinaire I may be, because nobody can show where I am actually wrong. Nobody can come up with a counter-argument.

I was never too Christian, I didn't get to see how Christians treat their apostates, so I must experience see how statists treat anarchists, or I wouldn't believe. It doesn't feel real, I mean the true believers in the state authority. I lack experience with the statists. I need to know how easily can people turn hostile, derogatory, dismissive and clueless of arguments - when certain special words are uttered. I'm too used to people having no fuckin' idea what I'm talking about and just nodding in agreement.
With Christians the pain words are clear, it's the atheist curriculum. But the worst thing about social taboo is, it's so ever-present that we can't even imagine things could be any other way, we don't know the explosive words, because they are not overtly forbidden. The second hard thing is to imagine, that some people might not want changes even though the present sucks and might even to discourage changes through threats or violence.

Counter-argument to what? You have not presented any cogent or cohesive argument yet. You are all over the place with libertarianism, metaphysical woo, sniping at actual scientists and philosophers, insulting people by assuming you know what they think, and other assorted horseshit.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
11-07-2014, 04:12 PM (This post was last modified: 11-07-2014 04:19 PM by Luminon.)
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
(11-07-2014 03:42 PM)Chas Wrote:  Well, that's weird because my B.Sc. is in Mathematics with Philosophy. I was urged to apply to the graduate philosophy program at McGill University by one of my professors. Consider
Congratulations! Really? That's the problem Consider What if studying Philosophy on a government university does not actually make you good at Philosophy? That is, not good at happiness, virtue, promoting good and truth and fighting evil and lies, through applying logic and reason universally to all questions. I mean all questions, such as how life should be lived, not just religion.
Just like I wasn't good at Economy until I had bought one year at a private university, where the dean had finally taught me the real Economy.

I currently from time to time exchange lengthty messages with a Christian who studies his post-grad in Philosophy. But man, he sucks! He is a typical run of the mill Christian with doubts (i.e. deep ignorance) about evolutionary biology. He is an apologetics hoe. (Josh McDowell and such)
As for Philosophy, I have seen him commit serious crimes against reason and truth. He really got my goat when he ridiculed and misinterpreted a child rights activist, who was a lawyer by trade, but better at logic and ethics than the Christian.
The Christian refuses moral relativism, which is commendable. But only because he arbitrarily chooses Christianity as the moral standard, which is of course a cultural relativism! Facepalm

So you understand, my opinion of government academical Philosophy is pretty low. And it's not much better at my own university.

(11-07-2014 03:52 PM)Chas Wrote:  Counter-argument to what? You have not presented any cogent or cohesive argument yet. You are all over the place with libertarianism, metaphysical woo, sniping at actual scientists and philosophers, insulting people by assuming you know what they think, and other assorted horseshit.
Good question. So to get to the point, if you have a talent for Philosophy, I would love to see your opinion on Plato's Socrates and the subsequent interpretation by my favorite modern philosopher. This dialogue was a recent nail into coffin of my opinion of a government-sponsored Philosophy education. The old philosophy is much about critically evaluating the legitimacy of government and to think that government would pass forward this kind of criticism in a viable form is not very realistic.
Both podcasts are fascinating, but I feel like I'm setting you up - I don't see any mistake that you could point out in there. It's a very compelling interpretation. Knowledge is compelling, you either submit to a rational argument, or you disprove it, or you become irrational or immoral. This kind of philosophy is really like a knife on the neck. I hope you don't work for the government, don't say I haven't warned you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-07-2014, 04:14 PM
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
(11-07-2014 03:47 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Stupid and doctrinaire I may be, because nobody can show where I am actually wrong. Nobody can come up with a counter-argument.

You make factually incorrect statements all the time.

And that's when you bother substantiating anything at all with more than feels because reasons.

(11-07-2014 03:47 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I was never too Christian, I didn't get to see how Christians treat their apostates, so I must experience see how statists treat anarchists, or I wouldn't believe. It doesn't feel real, I mean the true believers in the state authority. I lack experience with the statists. I need to know how easily can people turn hostile, derogatory, dismissive and clueless of arguments - when certain special words are uttered. I'm too used to people having no fuckin' idea what I'm talking about and just nodding in agreement.
With Christians the pain words are clear, it's the atheist curriculum. But the worst thing about social taboo is, it's so ever-present that we can't even imagine things could be any other way, we don't know the explosive words, because they are not overtly forbidden. The second hard thing is to imagine, that some people might not want changes even though the present sucks and might even to discourage changes through threats or violence.

No, see, the difference is that you are crazy and it is tedious to engage with crazy. For some masochistic reason some of us find it of occasional entertainment value.

But no, keep on representing any and all disagreement with any part of your expansive bullshit incoherence as monolithic emotional brainwashed neurotic whining. It's done wonders for your credibility so far.

Sweet noodly appendage, do you ever lack self-awareness.

It's the hilariously unfalsifiable and self-serving bits like this:
(11-07-2014 04:12 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Congratulations! Really? That's the problem Consider What if studying Philosophy on a government university does not actually make you good at Philosophy?
that make you so special. Cognitive dissonance, special pleading, arrogance, condescension, and ignorance that would make an apologist proud.

Shine on, you crazy diamond.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
11-07-2014, 04:30 PM
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
(11-07-2014 04:12 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(11-07-2014 03:42 PM)Chas Wrote:  Well, that's weird because my B.Sc. is in Mathematics with Philosophy. I was urged to apply to the graduate philosophy program at McGill University by one of my professors. Consider
Congratulations! Really? That's the problem Consider What if studying Philosophy on a government university does not actually make you good at Philosophy? That is, not good at happiness, virtue, promoting good and truth and fighting evil and lies, through applying logic and reason universally to all questions. I mean all questions, such as how life should be lived, not just religion.
Just like I wasn't good at Economy until I had bought one year at a private university, where the dean had finally taught me the real Economy.

McGill University is a private institution, not a 'government university', whatever that is.

Quote:I currently from time to time exchange lengthty messages with a Christian who studies his post-grad in Philosophy. But man, he sucks! He is a typical run of the mill Christian with doubts (i.e. deep ignorance) about evolutionary biology. He is an apologetics hoe. (Josh McDowell and such)
As for Philosophy, I have seen him commit serious crimes against reason and truth. He really got my goat when he ridiculed and misinterpreted a child rights activist, who was a lawyer by trade, but better at logic and ethics than the Christian.
The Christian refuses moral relativism, which is commendable. But only because he arbitrarily chooses Christianity as the moral standard, which is of course a cultural relativism! Facepalm

So you understand, my opinion of government academical Philosophy is pretty low. And it's not much better at my own university.

Please enlighten us about 'government academical Philosophy'. I haven't a fucking clue what you're on about.

Quote:
(11-07-2014 03:52 PM)Chas Wrote:  Counter-argument to what? You have not presented any cogent or cohesive argument yet. You are all over the place with libertarianism, metaphysical woo, sniping at actual scientists and philosophers, insulting people by assuming you know what they think, and other assorted horseshit.
Good question. So to get to the point, if you have a talent for Philosophy, I would love to see your opinion on Plato's Socrates and the subsequent interpretation by my favorite modern philosopher. This dialogue was a recent nail into coffin of my opinion of a government-sponsored Philosophy education. The old philosophy is much about critically evaluating the legitimacy of government and to think that government would pass forward this kind of criticism in a viable form is not very realistic.
Both podcasts are fascinating, but I feel like I'm setting you up - I don't see any mistake that you could point out in there. It's a very compelling interpretation. Knowledge is compelling, you either submit to a rational argument, or you disprove it, or you become irrational or immoral. This kind of philosophy is really like a knife on the neck. I hope you don't work for the government, don't say I haven't warned you.

That video doesn't load for me. But I don't care much for Plato or Socrates - they are as obsolete as papyrus, fascinating museum pieces, curiosities that can do no real work in the intellectual world of today.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: