Ethical Atheist vs believer in God
- Thread starter Postmaster
- Start date
- Status
greymare
Well-Known Member
Lol, except I aint laughing....
Paladin
Purchased Bewilderment
Well, okay you have a point there, I guess religion is just as bad as other memes at being totally co-dependent.
OMG, you actually believe what you are saying? You just went in circles swordman...and you have no idea what was going on...Well, okay you have a point there, I guess religion is just as bad as other memes at being totally co-dependent.
It had nothing to do with God, religion r no religion.
Next time read the whole thing before jumping in.
Paladin
Purchased Bewilderment
Actually Q, I did read the whole thing. My response was to Juan, since he seemed to be replying to what I had said earlier. I'm pretty sure both Juan and I understand each other, but perhaps I'm missing something?
T
Tao_Equus
Guest
Careful now Citizen, dont burn your metaphors, you never know when you might need them..... The water is...... Evil......
'Evil water' linked to mysterious drownings - physics-math - 17 December 2008 - New Scientist
'Evil water' linked to mysterious drownings - physics-math - 17 December 2008 - New Scientist
N
Nick_A
Guest
The vibes aren't right for this now but just consider Plato's world of forms and what is meant by water as far as the classic elements: earth, wind, fire, and water.
Also, consider that water is yin. It involves INTO creation. It begins ABOVE and descends towards BELOW manifesting at different vertical levels of reality.
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
That's not what I said...at all.
OK, so what philosophy did the cave dwellers at Lascaux have? Fumane? Cosquer? Chauvet? Lake Mungo? Blombos?
What I will say here for the record since you and others seem to gloss over it without even a casual glance, is that these same cave dwellers *had to have* some real experience to base their moral/ethical and philosophical view on, and I use the term "philosophical" in a very loose understanding of the term.
What I *did* say earlier is that "philosophy as a discipline didn't really exist before" 500BC. Any Humanities book will state that much.
"Good?" Good seems even more arbitrary and subjective in the wild than in our modern age. "Good" seems a rather anthropomorphic and anthropocentric view. Latent teleology at work?
Why is that? Because you say so? Because you desire it? I see nothing in any of the caves to point in this direction...the cart doesn't go before the horse.
Quite the contrary in fact, the horse must go before the cart. If there were no reality, there would be no religion. You keep trying to assert an institutional basis in prehistoric times that simply is not there, the closest you can come to your assertion is the "office" of the shaman. But religion most definitely existed way back when, in the form of private individual pursuit of meaning and understanding of the reality around them and including the unseen spirit realm, often but not exclusively guided by the shaman.
The paintings on cave walls are sympathetic magic to invoke the spirit(s) of the hunt. The paintings would not be there if there was nothing *real* to invoke!
Pedra roliça não cria bolor
Last edited:
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
I understood, Paladin. I'm glad to hear you understood what I was getting at.
T
Tao_Equus
Guest
That's not what I said...at all.
OK, so what philosophy did the cave dwellers at Lascaux have? Fumane? Cosquer? Chauvet? Lake Mungo? Blombos?
What I will say here for the record since you and others seem to gloss over it without even a casual glance, is that these same cave dwellers *had to have* some real experience to base their moral/ethical and philosophical view on, and I use the term "philosophical" in a very loose understanding of the term.
What I *did* say earlier is that "philosophy as a discipline didn't really exist before" 500BC. Any Humanities book will state that much.
"Good?" Good seems even more arbitrary and subjective in the wild than in our modern age. "Good" seems a rather anthropomorphic and anthropocentric view. Latent teleology at work?
Why is that? Because you say so? Because you desire it? I see nothing in any of the caves to point in this direction...the cart doesn't go before the horse.
Quite the contrary in fact, the horse must go before the cart. If there were no reality, there would be no religion. You keep trying to assert an institutional basis in prehistoric times that simply is not there, the closest you can come to your assertion is the "office" of the shaman. But religion most definitely existed way back when, in the form of private individual pursuit of meaning and understanding of the reality around them and including the unseen spirit realm, often but not exclusively guided by the shaman.
The paintings on cave walls are sympathetic magic to invoke the spirit(s) of the hunt. The paintings would not be there if there was nothing *real* to invoke!
Pedra roliça não cria bolor
Religions are evolved philosophies. If you cannot see that.....then I cannot begin to imagine how you justify your thoughts. 500BC... lol
趁熱打鐵
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Typical gloss over...
Paladin
Purchased Bewilderment
Yes Juan, I see your point. Actually, I use the word "outmoded" incorrectly since religion as a meme is still useful. Whether or not is has been superseded by a more complex understanding is a subject for further debate.
You and Tao now have me thinking about pre-Zoroastrian disciplines but I would need to do more research.
Tao's idea of religion coming out of philosophy is intriguing from a simple student's point of view, perhaps the more erudite among us already know.
Still, the individuals relationship with That-Which-Is and the resultant peak experiences are an interesting addition to the mix.
In other words, water becomes more dense the closer it gets to the surface of the planet. But then, the hotter the planet surface, the quicker water heads back to the top of the atmospheric bubble that is wrapped around us, only to re-cycle again.
How about "Philosophies are evolved religions"...
Show me a philosophy, and I'll show you a religion that is behind that philosophy (pro or con).
T
Tao_Equus
Guest
Whatever Juan.
T
Tao_Equus
Guest
How about "Philosophies are evolved religions"...
Show me a philosophy, and I'll show you a religion that is behind that philosophy (pro or con).
Sorry that you cannot differentiate between philosophy and 'a' philosophy. Philosophy is an ability made possible in us because we grew big brains capable of it, not because in some flash of light it was bestowed on us as religion.
Taoism is one of the oldest written philosophies that was developed not as a religion but as a system of good governance. It well pre-dates the Christian doctrine. As it is the oldest copies of Taoist text are dated around the time Juan thinks philosophy developed. I find this very difficult to believe. No, I find it impossible to believe. People started philosophising well back into prehistory and out of them religions were developed. And it is to my mind insanely illogical to suggest anything else.
趁熱打鐵
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
It has long been my experience that when an atheist cannot answer a question or present a viable opposition, they dismiss the challenge with a wave of the hand and a "whatever."
You answered almost none of the points I presented. Whatever indeed.
Paladin
Purchased Bewilderment
I think it hard to continue this line of inquiry without delving into the origin of consciousness. At some point in the development of the species we moved past trying to influence our environment with magical thinking.
If I remember rightly there was a book that outlined the breakdown of the bi-cameral mind?
The premise of philosophy coming from religion might be validated somewhat if we factor in the ancient ideas of trying to influence the environment and thus our fortunes with superstitious rites and rituals.
I contend that nested within us is the same propensity (and probably need) to influence our fate with that same type of thinking.
If I remember rightly there was a book that outlined the breakdown of the bi-cameral mind?
The premise of philosophy coming from religion might be validated somewhat if we factor in the ancient ideas of trying to influence the environment and thus our fortunes with superstitious rites and rituals.
I contend that nested within us is the same propensity (and probably need) to influence our fate with that same type of thinking.
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
OK, but is it valid to presume the two are synonymous? Is the point of "moving past trying to influence our environment with magical thinking" the threshhold of consciousness? Considering there are those among us, even in the first world, even on this very forum, that employ "trying to influence our environment with magical thinking," I would hesitate to say the answer is yes if we can presume all of us here are conscious. With the exception of Tao, of course.
There probably is, but I don't know the name of any off hand. There may even be something within psychology write ups. What is the connection you see?
FWIW, I don't see primitive religion and primitive philosophy as different things, they are essentially and pragmatically the same.
I think as we further developed society and moved into walled cities, we began to specialize. Within this propensity to specialization, Tao Equus has a leg to stand on regarding the institutionalization of religion, but even if one considers *the* Tao and Eastern alchemy as philosophy then similar can be said of that discipline at least in the East. Still we were attempting to influence and control our fortunes against the whims and wiles of nature, with superstitious rites and rituals both religious and philosophical (and I might add this is where I see the infancy of science, and so include that discipline as well).
As our "knowledge" base grew, and we began to unravel some of our superstitions, we began to distance ourselves from some of this. But at root even today of religious and philosophical enterprise seems to me the desire to manipulate and control our destinies. In effect, "I don't want to go to hell, so I will..."; toe the line, disbelieve and dissociate, be a do-gooder, become a hermit, contemplate my navel, or whatever.
Ostensibly, religion and philosophy deal with the development of ethics and morality, but Q did make a pretty good point a little way back in that philosophy generally as I know it deals with the less than favorable attributes of humanity primarily in a thinking way and matters end there. Whereas religion tends to come at such less than favorable attributes with the heart, rolls up their sleeves and gets dirt under their fingernails *trying* to do something about these problems.
Now in fairness I am speaking of ideals, and religion(s) certainly have their share of missteps and mistakes along the way. But the primary difference at least in the West is that religion at least has the balls to *do* something, where philosophy sits back and whines.
Sure. Thats why any of us follow and observe any socially cohesive ritualized institution. Its a matter of self-preservation. Its one more time when being selfish is actually a good thing.
Pedra roliça não cria bolor
- Status