Hi

[Cavebear]

I used to have a buddy who'd go to an all-you-can-eat buffet and eat all he could - then go to the restroom and throw it all up so he could go back and eat all he could a second time. He though he wasn't getting his money's worth otherwise.

Very Romanly orgiastic  of him.  But quite frankly, throwing up is more unpleasant to me than eating again...  I'll stick with what I eat the first time.

[Arik]

Materialism is a part of reductionism.  Reductionism is "over simplification".  So we resort to this often, given that we can't deal with real complexity.  So in that POV, evolution is limited to material concerns ... better and better combinations of atoms, according to some mysterious criteria that says that this combination of atoms is better than that combination of atoms.  Atomic bigotry perhaps?  Darwinian evolution only applied to biology, only at the species level, and only for those types with dimorphic sex.  There is something more general than Darwinian evolution, which is "development".  Even individuals do this, not just species.  That is what you are referring to.  I think development is happening all the time, is unavoidable.  But like death and decay, it can't be called progressive or regressive.  The idea of progress is incredibly bigoted ... usually of the European type of 100 years ago.  Communism is developed out of European capitalism ... and also assumes progress.

Let me see one of your point where you say.................development is happening all the time, is unavoidable..........

It really depend Baruch.

It happen in plants and animals that follow the instinct guided by mother nature but as soon as these lower form of life merge into humanity the free will pop up therefore with development come also the opposite that cause the loss of what people already had.

As far as system in power I can see that a cycle is always followed.
When the exploitation of the dominant class become unbearable then the next system take over.
From the capitalistic exploitation the masses revolt but this revolt is quickly stolen by the warriors class (military) to be follow by the intellectual class (clergy) and again by the new capitalists in a never ending cycle so to call it progress may be a bit of a speculation as the old mistakes are repeated again and again. 

[Arik]

OK, first, "atheism" and "materialism" are not the same.

Let me see.

In atheism there is no any non material entity so what is left is none but matter, isn't it mate?
Unless of course you may indicate to me that beside matter there is something else other than God.

Second, evolution isn't a "belief" any more than "gravity" is.  It is merely the best factual understanding of who existence works.

Time and time again I have seen (read) atheists that when arguing with religious people that believe in creation say that they believe in evolution so where the non believe suppose to be?

Third, "evolution" ends when the cessation of sexual reproduction even if you live past that.

If you put it as physical evolution then I can tell you that this kind of evolution end a lot early than that.
According to science physical evolution end around 33 because after that people stop growing but of course that is your personal understanding of evolution that has got nothing to do with real evolution of the consciousness which is miles and miles more important than physical sort of evolution.

Fourth, there is no "goal"or direction to existence.  All continuing species are genetically successful at perpetuating themselves (viruses to trees to humans) but there is no intent or goal involved.

Again.
Tanks for your personal belief which obviously is not supported by any evidence.
In fact there is evidence on the contrary.
Just read thousand of NDEs and you will see that your personal belief has no place in the reality.

https://www.nderf.org/Archives/exceptional.html

[Cavebear]

Let me see.

In atheism there is no any non material entity so what is left is none but matter, isn't it mate?
Unless of course you may indicate to me that beside matter there is something else other than God.



Time and time again I have seen (read) atheists that when arguing with religious people that believe in creation say that they believe in evolution so where the non believe suppose to be?




If you put it as physical evolution then I can tell you that this kind of evolution end a lot early than that.
According to science physical evolution end around 33 because after that people stop growing but of course that is your personal understanding of evolution that has got nothing to do with real evolution of the consciousness which is miles and miles more important than physical sort of evolution.




Again.
Tanks for your personal belief which obviously is not supported by any evidence.
In fact there is evidence on the contrary.
Just read thousand of NDEs and you will see that your personal belief has no place in the reality.

https://www.nderf.org/Archives/exceptional.html

"In atheism there is no any non material entity so what is left is none but matter".  That is a triple negative, so I won't even bother about that.

If you have seen atheists say that they "believe" in evolution they were either careless in description or you more likely were intuiting it. inaccurately.  Evolution is not a "belief".  It is a fact.

Religion versus evolution is not a logically equal debate between two valid arguments.  There is no equivalency here.  Evolution is factual, religion is a belief.

You posted "If you put it as physical evolution then I can tell you that this kind of evolution end a lot early than that.
According to science physical evolution end around 33 because after that people stop growing but of course that is your personal understanding of evolution that has got nothing to do with real evolution of the consciousness which is miles and miles more important than physical sort of evolution."

That makes no sense whatsoever... 

Cavebear

[Arik]

"In atheism there is no any non material entity so what is left is none but matter".  That is a triple negative, so I won't even bother about that.

If you have seen atheists say that they "believe" in evolution they were either careless in description or you more likely were intuiting it. inaccurately.  Evolution is not a "belief".  It is a fact.

Religion versus evolution is not a logically equal debate between two valid arguments.  There is no equivalency here.  Evolution is factual, religion is a belief.

You posted "If you put it as physical evolution then I can tell you that this kind of evolution end a lot early than that.
According to science physical evolution end around 33 because after that people stop growing but of course that is your personal understanding of evolution that has got nothing to do with real evolution of the consciousness which is miles and miles more important than physical sort of evolution."

That makes no sense whatsoever... 

Cavebear

I suppose nothing that I say make sense to you CB but don't you worry, one day it will.

I also went through most of those fantasies in the past but I did change when I realized that I was not getting anywhere.

[Cavebear]

I suppose nothing that I say make sense to you CB but don't you worry, one day it will.

I also went through most of those fantasies in the past but I did change when I realized that I was not getting anywhere.

I will certainly agree that nothing you are saying HERE makes any sense

[Baruch]

Let me see one of your point where you say.................development is happening all the time, is unavoidable..........

It really depend Baruch.

It happen in plants and animals that follow the instinct guided by mother nature but as soon as these lower form of life merge into humanity the free will pop up therefore with development come also the opposite that cause the loss of what people already had.

As far as system in power I can see that a cycle is always followed.
When the exploitation of the dominant class become unbearable then the next system take over.
From the capitalistic exploitation the masses revolt but this revolt is quickly stolen by the warriors class (military) to be follow by the intellectual class (clergy) and again by the new capitalists in a never ending cycle so to call it progress may be a bit of a speculation as the old mistakes are repeated again and again.

Development isn't necessarily what people call improvement.  A cheese left out will grow mold and rot.  As it should.  But that isn't an improvement for the cheese seller.

[Baruch]

I suppose nothing that I say make sense to you CB but don't you worry, one day it will.

I also went through most of those fantasies in the past but I did change when I realized that I was not getting anywhere.

For materialists, ideas aren't non-material.  They are as material as the ink on paper.  But I think this view is entirely inadequate.  Ideas also exist in spoken words and in thoughts.  More than one medium can host them.  Moreover, they are from living things .. non-living have no ideas.  So the problem is .. what is life?

[Mike Cl]

For materialists, ideas aren't non-material.  They are as material as the ink on paper.  But I think this view is entirely inadequate.  Ideas also exist in spoken words and in thoughts.  More than one medium can host them.  Moreover, they are from living things .. non-living have no ideas.  So the problem is .. what is life?

there is only nature--no such thing as supernatural or unnatural.  There is only material--so such thing as unmaterial.  Ideas are not visible yet we know they come from our material brains.  Which come from nature.  Humans are limited in their senses.  Other animals are also limited in their senses, yet they can sense different things than humans can.  (dog whistles, infrared and a host of other things, for example)  Simply because we cannot see infrared does not make them unnatural.  All that is, is natural.  Unnatural is simply fantasy or fairy tale stuff---wishful thinking. 

What is life?  I has not been defined precisely yet.  Is fire alive?  Are virus'?  Big debate.  But because I cannot define it I do know that I am alive and I know what my purpose is.  As Joseph Campbell suggested--the purpose of life is life.  And that is why life can be found in almost every layer of this planet--in ice, in boiling water and chemicals, in places where we did not even know there were places in days gone past. 

[Cavebear]

As Joseph Campbell suggested--the purpose of life is life. 

One of the few things he ever said that made much sense...

[Baruch]

there is only nature--no such thing as supernatural or unnatural.  There is only material--so such thing as unmaterial.  Ideas are not visible yet we know they come from our material brains.  Which come from nature.  Humans are limited in their senses.  Other animals are also limited in their senses, yet they can sense different things than humans can.  (dog whistles, infrared and a host of other things, for example)  Simply because we cannot see infrared does not make them unnatural.  All that is, is natural.  Unnatural is simply fantasy or fairy tale stuff---wishful thinking. 

What is life?  I has not been defined precisely yet.  Is fire alive?  Are virus'?  Big debate.  But because I cannot define it I do know that I am alive and I know what my purpose is.  As Joseph Campbell suggested--the purpose of life is life.  And that is why life can be found in almost every layer of this planet--in ice, in boiling water and chemicals, in places where we did not even know there were places in days gone past.

There is only beef jerky.  Anyone says different, they are jerky ;-)

[Baruch]

One of the few things he ever said that made much sense...

But rocks and atheists have no life.  At least, I don't invite them to parties ...

[Mike Cl]

One of the few things he ever said that made much sense...

He  said more than that.  I liked his view of the meaning of myth for societies--he did not regard them as being supernatural but were simply stories to pass wisdom along.  He also said that to be happy one must follow your bliss.  He did not say what that was, for each of us has to figure that out.  He said to find it and then follow it.  He even indicated to not worry about how you would make your living for if you really do follow your bliss that will happen.  I don't see Campbell as a pusher for god.

[Cavebear]

He  said more than that.  I liked his view of the meaning of myth for societies--he did not regard them as being supernatural but were simply stories to pass wisdom along.  He also said that to be happy one must follow your bliss.  He did not say what that was, for each of us has to figure that out.  He said to find it and then follow it.  He even indicated to not worry about how you would make your living for if you really do follow your bliss that will happen.  I don't see Campbell as a pusher for god.

You have to listen to Campbell carefully.  I think he gets rather over-excited in combining various myths and cultural beliefs. Don't get me wrong; he has some interesting ideas.  But he lacks specificity, and details are not his "thing". 

I'll admit that his personality sets me off a bit.  But even when I just read him, I don't find a lot of rigorous thought there.  Enthusiastic thought, to be sure and we need that sometimes.  But not much I would consider "scientific".

[Baruch]

You have to listen to Campbell carefully.  I think he gets rather over-excited in combining various myths and cultural beliefs. Don't get me wrong; he has some interesting ideas.  But he lacks specificity, and details are not his "thing". 

I'll admit that his personality sets me off a bit.  But even when I just read him, I don't find a lot of rigorous thought there.  Enthusiastic thought, to be sure and we need that sometimes.  But not much I would consider "scientific".

Campbell wrote a lot.  Was mostly interested Native Americans.  His psychology came from Jung, same as Jordan Peterson.

There isn't much people here would call scientific.  Ohm's law.  Arithmetic.  Arik is using a Medieval definition of science, still current in S Asian culture.