I read your blog, or at least the one or two posts you linked too. Yet I cannot say I recall talk about an "extradimentional" alien. Certainly nothing about some timeless entity.
"We could all be the experiment of an extradimentional alien, that wanted to start a small big bang in his lab. He set up all of the laws of physics because he wanted to study them the way they are in our universe. That's why we can't travel faster than light. It's the max speed he can record data, and he does not want to miss anything."
Now then, there is no time.... I have to say, that makes pretty much zero sense to me. If that universe contained no time, would it not just be a frozen stasis? If he can move forward, then time has advanced.... right? Needless to say, that assumption seems silly on it's face. Did I not already mention how an alien being is not a god in my example?
It makes zero sense to me as well. But before the big bang there would have been "no time." The idea being that these aliens would not follow the physical laws that we do. They would still be bound by logic, just not physics, so they could do things that would be impossible for us to do.
Since nether of us can think of how they could function without time. How about this. In His 'reality' the 'lab' where He made our universe in, lots of things have 'always been.' Its just how they do things there, Himself included.
The deist god would indeed fit my definition of a god, much like the christian one would. That does not mean I advocate or believe in either. (In fact I find deism rather silly)
Why do you find it silly?
(I find lots of things silly, as well, though honestly I like the deists God. Its one of the more sensible ones if you ask me. Well, their starting assumption about God I find sensible. Lots of other things they do I find silly.)
If you find it important to disseminate atheism, to associate with fellow atheists and join atheist communities and websites, then you're creating a self-identity in accordance with a religious belief - such behavior is at the very least quasi-religious.
So are these guys "quasi-religious"?
Or what about these guys?
Or these guys?
Or, perhaps a bit closer to home:
Repeat after me:
Socialization centered around some shared belief, allegiance, activity, etc. is not "religious" in any manner.
Churches, temples, mosques, etc. are social groups centered around a religion.
A religion is a doctrinal system that prescribes moral imperatives and rituals that have some developmental meaning toward a moral ideal, where the value that defines this morality is derived from an a priori philosophical worldview.
There are theistic religions, like Christianity or Islam.
There are atheistic religions, like Juche or La Vey Satanism.
"There are atheistic religions, like Juche or La Vey Satanism."
Wow what an astonishing level of ignorance!!!! To be honest if I was the devil (who does not exist) and I wanted to enslave the world and rob everyone of life, cause tribal confict and pain and suffering and guilt and shame , I would use RELIGION!!!!
Your level of ignorance regarding athiesm is breathtaking! Do you even know what it means??? The Wiki might help you here!
Did you know you are an athiest!!!! Yes you!
I think the name says it all. Do not feed. And do not edit modtext. I can keep this up all night if I have to.
A religion is a doctrinal system that prescribes moral imperatives and rituals that have some developmental meaning toward a moral ideal, where the value that defines this morality is derived from an a priori philosophical worldview.
There are theistic religions, like Christianity or Islam.
There are atheistic religions, like Juche or La Vey Satanism.
What distinguishes what you have defined as an "atheistic religion" from a "philosophy" that determines morality (such as utilitarianism, etc)?
What distinguishes what you have defined as an "atheistic religion" from a "philosophy" that determines morality (such as utilitarianism, etc)?
Athiesm is not a religion!!! It is a point of view or more correctly a rejection of a god, gods, religion or the supernatural. You can be an a-spagetti monstorist or an a-thorist or a-islamist. It tells you nothing more that that. And as for blinking whoever you are, I wear my Troll tag with pride!!!
The simple fact of the matter is that you are affraid to engage in the issue because you need the delusion of an afterlife in order to keep your boat from rocking and you have exceptionally bad manners, something else I find is very common with faith heads!
I'm one of the forum moderators. Hi. The red text means you're doing something we don't like. Trolling, for instance.
...Infraction number three.
'I'm one of the forum moderators. Hi. The red text means you're doing something we don't like. Trolling, for instance.'
Well why don't you put some red writing on the post that suggested I am a SATANIST or EVIL because I am athiestic about the supernatural. BEING CALLED A SATANIST IS OFFENSIVE!!! You as a moderator do not seam to be either fair or keeping the playing field level. So someone can slander me but I cannot reject their assertions because they have protection on the basis of religious belief.
Illegal use of modtext, double posting, completely oblivious troll. I think this one is at least a double.
I have some things to say, and some feedback would be nice.
1. Going right back to the beginning of the thread, Blinky gave a reasonable definition of 'knowledge', and other related terms which suit the threads context well. I will attempt to use these where applicable.
2. Into the good stuff: I have seen things in my life that i simply cannot explain. I can barely process or conceptualize what is going on in these rare circumstances. What am i referring to? Things people would call 'forces of good and evil', UFO related observations, and many [paranormal] type occurrences.
Point? I have not, and will not attribute any 'happening' to something which in itself is [paranormal] or could be regarded as forces of good or evil. Why?
~ Just because i cannot understand/ conceptualize or explain something, does that mean that it is not explainable in a physical sense at all? ~
My answer is no (well, not immediately!). I have a feeling that some things that have happened will never be explainable to a satisfactory level for me, unless i decide how it can be explained by applying it to whatever i see fit. But i would call myself irrational if i did that.
3. Some atheists strike me as odd in there arguments. I have partook in debates where an atheist will present opinions and evidence for the non-existence of God/ gods. What i do not understand is this: No matter how they present evidence, or apply logic, they cannot prove that God/ gods do not exist. This strikes me as similar to when a preacher i regularly talk too is trying to convince me of Gods existence.
4. Often i find discussions about religion, atheism, creationism (even evolution in some cases) to be cyclic, repetitive, and ultimately ... Hollow. Often, people will say, "if you listened to what i have to say, you would understand where i am coming from!". Often, i am presented with this statement, my reply often is, "I do not have to agree with you to understand your point of view". It can be frustrating when people think you are not listening when you have not been converted, or convinced (whatever applies in context).
Me?
Well, i think if i were to categorize myself wholeheartedly, i would call myself Irreligious (but not in most senses or subcategories you would find by definition).
I am a scientist, and run my life using tools, like falsification. If something is credible based on observation and testing for flaws, i will 'run with it'. I do not believe so to speak. I find ignorance abound in people claiming they believe in evolution, when they literally believe in evolution! Some people know nothing of the testing, observations or literature involved in the current theory.
Now that is interesting - people that believe in science.
I do not know where i am going with this anymore, i guess i was just expressing some thoughts.
msun: Knives scoop ice cream.
Highroller: No they don't, knives don't scoop. Spoons scoop.
msun: Well, knives SHOULD scoop icecream.
Highroller: We have spoons that do it. Moreover, the shape of a knife that would scoop ice cream would make it horrible for performing the functions of a knife.
msun: Highroller, you bring up spoons as though they were the utensil used for scooping ice cream.
I am a scientist, and run my life using tools, like falsification. If something is credible based on observation and testing for flaws, i will 'run with it'. I do not believe so to speak. I find ignorance abound in people claiming they believe in evolution, when they literally believe in evolution! Some people know nothing of the testing, observations or literature involved in the current theory.
This is by and large a major failing in the education system, though it's critical to realize that the impact of the education system on society is time-lagged for obvious reasons.
It's also impacted significantly by the truly awful state of what passes for science journalism these days. It essentially boils down to "Some poindexter in a lab coat says that he's done an experiment which confirms evolution", and the ridiculous media paradigm that being "unbiased" means "presenting a conflicting viewpoint as though it were equally valid" results in articles on science which have- for no real reason- two or three lines from a religious figure declaring the science to be false.
This only further perpetuates the misinformation in the minds of the general public that "science and religion are equally valid".
Tossing in the fact that the conservative movement has made it a goal to discredit science (in the USA, at least- I'm not so sure about NZ) and you can clearly see why many of those people who do at least accept science do so on the following line of reasoning:
"hey, scientists figured out how to make my microwave work, I'll trust them on this other stuff"
and they still don't understand what science is really about. They just know a few of the scientific results, and that's it.
This is by and large a major failing in the education system, though it's critical to realize that the impact of the education system on society is time-lagged for obvious reasons.
It's also impacted significantly by the truly awful state of what passes for science journalism these days. It essentially boils down to "Some poindexter in a lab coat says that he's done an experiment which confirms evolution", and the ridiculous media paradigm that being "unbiased" means "presenting a conflicting viewpoint as though it were equally valid" results in articles on science which have- for no real reason- two or three lines from a religious figure declaring the science to be false.
This only further perpetuates the misinformation in the minds of the general public that "science and religion are equally valid".
Tossing in the fact that the conservative movement has made it a goal to discredit science (in the USA, at least- I'm not so sure about NZ) and you can clearly see why many of those people who do at least accept science do so on the following line of reasoning:
"hey, scientists figured out how to make my microwave work, I'll trust them on this other stuff"
and they still don't understand what science is really about. They just know a few of the scientific results, and that's it.
Generally i agree with you.
Some trouble in NZ is evident from a very recent/ ongoing issue that will directly effect my job prospectives:
The political party that is likely to get in power in the next few weeks had information leaked that they were going to scrap a $700 million (NZD) fund for research and development. The fund was only recently approved by the current government, who finally after nearly 12 years figured out that without R&D, economy's die. The fund was for scientific and technological research - and its withdrawal will destroy many businesses who struggle as it is - yet make amazing discoveries that lead to economic gain.
Point being, i have talked to a MP in the party, and he was completely ignorant that the fund would finance R&D, and unaware of R&D's impact on the economy. Absolutely no idea. How can someone who is supposed to be representing me, and my nation have absolutely no grasp of important issues?
My future career prospects are in the process of being destroyed, i will end my ranting.:mad::(
Sorry, i may be getting closer and closer to becoming off-topic.
msun: Knives scoop ice cream.
Highroller: No they don't, knives don't scoop. Spoons scoop.
msun: Well, knives SHOULD scoop icecream.
Highroller: We have spoons that do it. Moreover, the shape of a knife that would scoop ice cream would make it horrible for performing the functions of a knife.
msun: Highroller, you bring up spoons as though they were the utensil used for scooping ice cream.
What distinguishes what you have defined as an "atheistic religion" from a "philosophy" that determines morality (such as utilitarianism, etc)?
Utilitarianism is more metaethical than normative. It doesn't tell you what to value. In other words, utilitarianism does not mandate what utility exactly is... that's not the problem it solves.
Utilitarianism is more metaethical than normative. It doesn't tell you what to value. In other words, utilitarianism does not mandate what utility exactly is... that's not the problem it solves.
The original utilitarians would disagree.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
A religion is a doctrinal system that prescribes moral imperatives and rituals that have some developmental meaning toward a moral ideal, where the value that defines this morality is derived from an a priori philosophical worldview.
Quote from wikipedia »
A religion is a set of tenets and practices, often centered upon specific supernatural and moral claims about reality, the cosmos, and human nature, and often codified as prayer, ritual, or religious law. Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and religious experience. The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction.
To call an atheistic group a religion is to dilute the meaning of the word.
Utilitarianism is more metaethical than normative. It doesn't tell you what to value. In other words, utilitarianism does not mandate what utility exactly is... that's not the problem it solves.
You've dodged the question. What is the difference between what you are calling "atheistic religion" and "philosophy"?
You've dodged the question. What is the difference between what you are calling "atheistic religion" and "philosophy"?
Well...
Quote from Wikipedia »
Philosophy is the study of general problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, truth, beauty, justice, validity, mind, and language. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions (such as mysticism or mythology) by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on reasoned argument.
Religion does the same thing but, as the other Wikipedia quote says, is based on a moral or supernatural basis. Philosophy is based in reasoning. They're two separate ways of tackling the same problem.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Do I Contradict Myself? Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It makes zero sense to me as well. But before the big bang there would have been "no time." The idea being that these aliens would not follow the physical laws that we do. They would still be bound by logic, just not physics, so they could do things that would be impossible for us to do.
Since nether of us can think of how they could function without time. How about this. In His 'reality' the 'lab' where He made our universe in, lots of things have 'always been.' Its just how they do things there, Himself included.
Why do you find it silly?
(I find lots of things silly, as well, though honestly I like the deists God. Its one of the more sensible ones if you ask me. Well, their starting assumption about God I find sensible. Lots of other things they do I find silly.)
So are these guys "quasi-religious"?
Or what about these guys?
Or these guys?
Or, perhaps a bit closer to home:
Repeat after me:
Socialization centered around some shared belief, allegiance, activity, etc. is not "religious" in any manner.
Churches, temples, mosques, etc. are social groups centered around a religion.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Actually, every time I see someone attempt to define religion, I like to apply the Cheesehead test.
To wit:
If your definition of religion would consider Cheeseheadery a religion, you need a new definition of religion.
It applies equally well to serious attempts ("people meeting together for a common belief or cause") or comic ones ("people who wear funny hats").
There are theistic religions, like Christianity or Islam.
There are atheistic religions, like Juche or La Vey Satanism.
Wow what an astonishing level of ignorance!!!! To be honest if I was the devil (who does not exist) and I wanted to enslave the world and rob everyone of life, cause tribal confict and pain and suffering and guilt and shame , I would use RELIGION!!!!
Your level of ignorance regarding athiesm is breathtaking! Do you even know what it means??? The Wiki might help you here!
Did you know you are an athiest!!!! Yes you!
I think the name says it all. Do not feed. And do not edit modtext. I can keep this up all night if I have to.
What distinguishes what you have defined as an "atheistic religion" from a "philosophy" that determines morality (such as utilitarianism, etc)?
Athiesm is not a religion!!! It is a point of view or more correctly a rejection of a god, gods, religion or the supernatural. You can be an a-spagetti monstorist or an a-thorist or a-islamist. It tells you nothing more that that. And as for blinking whoever you are, I wear my Troll tag with pride!!!
The simple fact of the matter is that you are affraid to engage in the issue because you need the delusion of an afterlife in order to keep your boat from rocking and you have exceptionally bad manners, something else I find is very common with faith heads!
I'm one of the forum moderators. Hi. The red text means you're doing something we don't like. Trolling, for instance.
...Infraction number three.
'I'm one of the forum moderators. Hi. The red text means you're doing something we don't like. Trolling, for instance.'
Well why don't you put some red writing on the post that suggested I am a SATANIST or EVIL because I am athiestic about the supernatural. BEING CALLED A SATANIST IS OFFENSIVE!!! You as a moderator do not seam to be either fair or keeping the playing field level. So someone can slander me but I cannot reject their assertions because they have protection on the basis of religious belief.
Illegal use of modtext, double posting, completely oblivious troll. I think this one is at least a double.
My name is Bryan.
I have some things to say, and some feedback would be nice.
1. Going right back to the beginning of the thread, Blinky gave a reasonable definition of 'knowledge', and other related terms which suit the threads context well. I will attempt to use these where applicable.
2. Into the good stuff: I have seen things in my life that i simply cannot explain. I can barely process or conceptualize what is going on in these rare circumstances. What am i referring to? Things people would call 'forces of good and evil', UFO related observations, and many [paranormal] type occurrences.
Point? I have not, and will not attribute any 'happening' to something which in itself is [paranormal] or could be regarded as forces of good or evil. Why?
~ Just because i cannot understand/ conceptualize or explain something, does that mean that it is not explainable in a physical sense at all? ~
My answer is no (well, not immediately!). I have a feeling that some things that have happened will never be explainable to a satisfactory level for me, unless i decide how it can be explained by applying it to whatever i see fit. But i would call myself irrational if i did that.
3. Some atheists strike me as odd in there arguments. I have partook in debates where an atheist will present opinions and evidence for the non-existence of God/ gods. What i do not understand is this: No matter how they present evidence, or apply logic, they cannot prove that God/ gods do not exist. This strikes me as similar to when a preacher i regularly talk too is trying to convince me of Gods existence.
4. Often i find discussions about religion, atheism, creationism (even evolution in some cases) to be cyclic, repetitive, and ultimately ... Hollow. Often, people will say, "if you listened to what i have to say, you would understand where i am coming from!". Often, i am presented with this statement, my reply often is, "I do not have to agree with you to understand your point of view". It can be frustrating when people think you are not listening when you have not been converted, or convinced (whatever applies in context).
Me?
Well, i think if i were to categorize myself wholeheartedly, i would call myself Irreligious (but not in most senses or subcategories you would find by definition).
I am a scientist, and run my life using tools, like falsification. If something is credible based on observation and testing for flaws, i will 'run with it'. I do not believe so to speak. I find ignorance abound in people claiming they believe in evolution, when they literally believe in evolution! Some people know nothing of the testing, observations or literature involved in the current theory.
Now that is interesting - people that believe in science.
I do not know where i am going with this anymore, i guess i was just expressing some thoughts.
Your thoughts?
- B
This is by and large a major failing in the education system, though it's critical to realize that the impact of the education system on society is time-lagged for obvious reasons.
It's also impacted significantly by the truly awful state of what passes for science journalism these days. It essentially boils down to "Some poindexter in a lab coat says that he's done an experiment which confirms evolution", and the ridiculous media paradigm that being "unbiased" means "presenting a conflicting viewpoint as though it were equally valid" results in articles on science which have- for no real reason- two or three lines from a religious figure declaring the science to be false.
This only further perpetuates the misinformation in the minds of the general public that "science and religion are equally valid".
Tossing in the fact that the conservative movement has made it a goal to discredit science (in the USA, at least- I'm not so sure about NZ) and you can clearly see why many of those people who do at least accept science do so on the following line of reasoning:
"hey, scientists figured out how to make my microwave work, I'll trust them on this other stuff"
and they still don't understand what science is really about. They just know a few of the scientific results, and that's it.
Generally i agree with you.
Some trouble in NZ is evident from a very recent/ ongoing issue that will directly effect my job prospectives:
The political party that is likely to get in power in the next few weeks had information leaked that they were going to scrap a $700 million (NZD) fund for research and development. The fund was only recently approved by the current government, who finally after nearly 12 years figured out that without R&D, economy's die. The fund was for scientific and technological research - and its withdrawal will destroy many businesses who struggle as it is - yet make amazing discoveries that lead to economic gain.
Point being, i have talked to a MP in the party, and he was completely ignorant that the fund would finance R&D, and unaware of R&D's impact on the economy. Absolutely no idea. How can someone who is supposed to be representing me, and my nation have absolutely no grasp of important issues?
My future career prospects are in the process of being destroyed, i will end my ranting.:mad::(
Sorry, i may be getting closer and closer to becoming off-topic.
Utilitarianism is more metaethical than normative. It doesn't tell you what to value. In other words, utilitarianism does not mandate what utility exactly is... that's not the problem it solves.
The original utilitarians would disagree.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
To call an atheistic group a religion is to dilute the meaning of the word.
- Enslaught
You've dodged the question. What is the difference between what you are calling "atheistic religion" and "philosophy"?
I would say SOME atheists act like they are in a religion, anyway.
Well...
Religion does the same thing but, as the other Wikipedia quote says, is based on a moral or supernatural basis. Philosophy is based in reasoning. They're two separate ways of tackling the same problem.
Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.