News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

Atheism and agnosticism

Started by Jannabear, January 23, 2016, 07:56:55 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Jannabear

Quote from: drunkenshoe on January 24, 2016, 10:51:15 AM
It's not a matter of belief. These are two seperate things. The fact that science can explain what religion claimed to know for absolute, doesn't change the fact that the concept of god and belief evolved through linguistics from the same practical root.
-How it evolved is fucking irrelevant to the idea of a god in general, this isn't an argument for rather or not falsifiability should be a factor for being an atheist agnostic towards something or not.

Popper and Kuhn have nothing to do with this. Science has nohing to do with this. Science is not what curious people read in popular books, it is a world of its own. The knowledge that is used, produced has no direct relation to life without the applicable results.
-And?

The belief that a creator exists; that he intervenes human life is about human reality and human narrative which has changed very little in millions of years. That's what and where people have belief. Not because science can explain how planets form or the star that warms us.
-Alright, what the fuck is your point, this is irrelevant to rather or not falsifiability should be a factor in rather or not you're an atheist agnostic.

You guys keep confusing two very different seperate things.
-You literally haven't made a point for your position yet, unless I'm missing it.

Solomon Zorn

#31
Quote from: drunkenshoe on January 24, 2016, 08:56:58 AM
Objection!

We do possess the knowledge that proves that a creator cannot exist. It's called linguistics.
The origins of myths about gods, are relevant only to the gods in question. They do NOT prove that a "creator cannot exist." They only prove that humans made up the ideas of gods, including creator beings.

The beginning of wisdom, is saying "I don't know." Agnosticism is simply that.

I have no knowledge of the existence of a creator. But I'm just a pretentious little speck of matter, and it seems like hubris to me to proclaim with certainty that there is not now, nor ever was a creator (Still, I'm pretty sure of it.).
If God Exists, Why Does He Pretend Not to Exist?
Poetry and Proverbs of the Uneducated Hick

http://www.solomonzorn.com

drunkenshoe

#32
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on January 24, 2016, 12:00:39 PM
The origins of myths about gods, are relevant only to the gods in question. They do NOT prove that a "creator cannot exist." They only prove that humans made up the ideas of gods, including creator beings.

The beginning of wisdom, is saying "I don't know." Agnosticism is simply that.

I have no knowledge of the existence of a creator. But I'm just a pretentious little speck of matter, and it seems like hubris to me to proclaim with certainty that there is not now, nor ever was a creator (Still, I'm pretty sure of it.).

I wasn't talking about myths or what the myths are telling about. I was talking about the link between thought and language. Thought doesn't come before language, it evolved/s through language and made an accumulation through history. We don't just speak what we think, we mostly think what we are thaught to speak -in modern world; standardised education also what we write. Every day socio-linguistics proves more that language rules over human, NOT human over language and we have little power to influence that while it has the power to shape us.

And I was saying all that as a tiny speck of matter. The manner of the tiny speck of matter really doesn't matter. It's not hubris. It's a tiny speck of matter with an opinion. 

You are so hung up on how I say it, you don't pay attention to what I am saying. May be you just don't want to, I have no idea.







"science is not about building a body of known 'facts'. ıt is a method for asking awkward questions and subjecting them to a reality-check, thus avoiding the human tendency to believe whatever makes us feel good." - tp

SoldierofFortune

i define myself as agnostic-atheist...yes...there is something like agtostic-atheism...
positive-atheists claims strictly that there is no god ''for sure''... agnostic-atheism claims that quran or bible can't have been sent by any kind of kind god who can be thought of...but there may be god we can't identify...

drunkenshoe

#34
Atheism has little to nothing to do with religion. It's a position of lack of belief in gods and deities. The opposite position of atheism is theism. A theist can be without religion.

Religions are set of rules and conditions offered what cannot be coped/tolerated in a society level, because they are NOT beneficial or profitable for the society. They have been labeled as 'sin' and 'evil' in time. And moved on by mythic narratives (so they could easily be conveyed to other generations and everyone) became traditional norms that have been determined to keep order in a given society before any organised religion, let alone Abrahamic ones.

They are basically an accumulation of a very crude interpretation of basic primitive anthropological traits of human culture; life experience. That's why they are functional. The more the demography grew, they became more functional. And their evolution depended on constant re-defining of these traits of human culture, esp. after the written culture started to have its toll. This is still happening today. Some sects of religions adjust to what was unacceptable before, because it is beneficial to their existence and the society they live in. 

People should marry! Why? Can't we just fuck around? No, because we need to know who are the parents, esp. the father. Why? Somebody needs to protect and take care of women and children. OK, but I don't like women, I like men, why can't I fuck men? Because you cannot have kids and if we let men marry men, who will impregnate women? Someone else. No. They can hardly give birth and live and most of the babies don't even survive. It's pointless, we need people and we need them to obey rules. We'll kill you if you fuck a man.

This has nothing to do with the belief of god or religion. Religion comes with ceremony, gathering of the parables to spread around ; rules and laws to standardise the ways to provide for these needs 'safely' and they constantly changed into stories and pass that to the other generations to guarantee they will do the same.

Pagan cults were as strong as Judism or Islam or Christianity not to mention much older. They had the same basic, they had the same guarantee logic. Gods and the ceremonies got upgraded to adapt to the changes.

This is not different than the death punishment for cutting down a tree from the 'holly forest' 30 000 years ago. It doesn't start with "oh this is sacred forest! We should kill anyone who cuts a tree." It starts with that forest providing nuts and fruits and the necessary food to feed the people of the clan and people learning that it takes a long time for trees to grow and give their fruit. So if you cut them down uncontrollably everybody starves. This is the experience. How are you going to make that experience last for generations? By explaining every men and women and child that how important that is for their nurture in a time that 'knowledge' didn't exist as knowledge? You cannot do that. You need a guarantee. Then the forest becomes 'sacred' and if you harm a tree, you die.

Every other accumulation of texts are just 'expanding' human narrartive through development of language. Thousands of years later it is huge and every bullshit, disgusting thing in it has/had some function. They are not 'evidence' for disproving or proving a creator. The idea of a creator as we understand today is much younger than those traditions, rules and norms. Therefore, in a way, religion is older than god(s).







"science is not about building a body of known 'facts'. ıt is a method for asking awkward questions and subjecting them to a reality-check, thus avoiding the human tendency to believe whatever makes us feel good." - tp

Solomon Zorn

Quote from: drunkenshoeI wasn't talking about myths or what the myths are telling about. I was talking about the link between thought and language. Thought doesn't come before language, it evolved/s through language and made an accumulation through history. We don't just speak what we think, we mostly think what we are thaught to speak -in modern world; standardised education also what we write. Every day socio-linguistics proves more that language rules over human, NOT human over language and we have little power to influence that while it has the power to shape us.
Be that true or not, I don't catch what it really has to do with agnosticism, as a position or a label.

Quote from: drunkenshoeAnd I was saying all that as a tiny speck of matter. The manner of the tiny speck of matter really doesn't matter. It's not hubris. It's a tiny speck of matter with an opinion.
An opinion, with the limited perspective of a speck of matter, nonetheless. Just like me.

Quote from: drunkenshoeYou are so hung up on how I say it, you don't pay attention to what I am saying. May be you just don't want to, I have no idea.
I do pay attention, I just don't agree with you on the relevance of language/thought, to whether agnostic atheism is a more honest position than gnostic atheism, from the frame of reference of a speck of matter.
If God Exists, Why Does He Pretend Not to Exist?
Poetry and Proverbs of the Uneducated Hick

http://www.solomonzorn.com

drunkenshoe

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on January 25, 2016, 07:28:26 AM
Be that true or not, I don't catch what it really has to do with agnosticism, as a position or a label.

Everything.

QuoteAn opinion, with the limited perspective of a speck of matter, nonetheless. Just like me.

Of course. Where did you get the impression that it was something different? See, again you are treating me as if I called you stupid or found your opinion less than mine.  The first thing you see is someone being an arrogant smart ass rather than offering an opinion, because you percieve it as some 'big talk' as a result of hubris.

QuoteI do pay attention, I just don't agree with you on the relevance of language/thought, to whether agnostic atheism is a more honest position than gnostic atheism, from the frame of reference of a speck of matter.

This is not a home cooked idea. I am just expressing it according to the forum lingo and how new wave atheists handle the subject and these labels.

Also, at what point you disagree with me and you think there is no link? (Just so you know the link between thought and language and the dictating role of the language is a linguistic principle)
You are not engaging with anything I write and tell me, 'this doesn't make sense because of this'. Or if you are not interested in the subject you really do not need to asnwer as you know.








"science is not about building a body of known 'facts'. ıt is a method for asking awkward questions and subjecting them to a reality-check, thus avoiding the human tendency to believe whatever makes us feel good." - tp

Hakurei Reimu

Linguistics has fuck-all to do with ontology. The universe is not required to conform to the patterns of human thought, or for that matter, linguistics. This is philosophy 101 â€" the basics. Why is this an argument?

Drunkie, it's quite obvious to me that Solomon is failing to make the connection you're trying to make between the question of whether a creator exists and your linguistics/thought, and quite frankly, I don't see your point either. This is not out of spite or lack of engagement or not being interested, but rather lack of common ground and genuine confusion: you're assuming far too many prior assumptions before going ahead, and as a result you have lost him and me in your rush to get ahead. Take a step back and think about where Solomon (and myself) may not be making that connection, and then work to build your argument from firmer ground.
Warning: Don't Tease The Miko!
(she bites!)
Spinny Miko Avatar shamelessly ripped off from Iosys' Neko Miko Reimu

drunkenshoe

#38
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on January 25, 2016, 08:02:19 PM
The universe is not required to conform to the patterns of human thought, or for that matter, linguistics. This is philosophy 101 â€" the basics. Why is this an argument?

Agreed. But there is no 'Universe' in my conversation. That's exactly what I am talking about.

QuoteDrunkie,
It's drunkenshoe.

QuoteIt's quite obvious to me that Solomon is failing to make the connection you're trying to make between the question of whether a creator exists and your linguistics/thought, and quite frankly, I don't see your point either.

It's really not your position to evaluate what Solomon and I are talking about. Esp. without engaging what I have to say. If you manage to act like human, my reaction is "Oh, OK".  But then we are not even fighting on anything, I am just saying that he is paying too much attention on the cultural difference. 

QuoteThis is not out of spite or lack of engagement or not being interested, but rather lack of common ground and genuine confusion: you're assuming far too many prior assumptions before going ahead, and as a result you have lost him and me in your rush to get ahead. Take a step back and think about where Solomon (and myself) may not be making that connection, and then work to build your argument from firmer ground.

It seems you are drunk. Hope you are having fun.



"science is not about building a body of known 'facts'. ıt is a method for asking awkward questions and subjecting them to a reality-check, thus avoiding the human tendency to believe whatever makes us feel good." - tp

drunkenshoe

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on January 25, 2016, 08:02:19 PM
It's quite obvious to me that Solomon is failing to make the connection you're trying to make between the question of whether a creator exists and your linguistics/thought, and quite frankly, I don't see your point either. This is not out of spite or lack of engagement or not being interested, but rather lack of common ground and genuine confusion: you're assuming far too many prior assumptions before going ahead, and as a result you have lost him and me in your rush to get ahead. Take a step back and think about where Solomon (and myself) may not be making that connection, and then work to build your argument from firmer ground.

OK. Sorry about that. I was the drunk one. I don't like your way of communication or Solomon's constant addressing what he thinks of me rather than my opinion. I'd do much better if you guys try to get close to me -I'm not your opponent- and remembered that I am trying to express something very complicated in a foreign language and stop thinking that I am a smart ass being arrogant for kicks and giggles, but just trying to tell something. 

The connection is not my argument. (Seriously, what do you think I am? LOL )The link between thought and language is always severely underrated and underestimated. But it is the basic ground here, because everything that is loaded to the concept of god today developed/evolved through that link. Concepts like metaphysics, transcendence, omnipresence, omnipotence, omniscience are invented by the development of abstract thought that came with written culture. They are from myths, because myths are the narratives people 'think' in. I assume your recognise this. I'm not talking about the specific myth in the Abrahamic scripture. But the logic, the narrative; the very material of myth. The story line.

Are you interested in doxography? You know that the ancient philosophy is resulted from fairy tales and myths which are glorified tales of human narrative. The language (every language, but especially the written culture ones) we use today developed through this. Yes, it looks very different today, but it is not. We are thinking in Homer categories with a much better vocabulary.

The link between language and thought has been an issue for a long time. Even in ancient Rome, we know that people thought about the words they speak and write AND their 'accuracy' and relation in meaning to the reality of what they are expressing. The question on that link has always been a great issue. I am talking about something beyond the basic idea that 'philosophy is a development of language'.

There has been a lot going on this and finally from the beginning of 20th century a few people claimed that this link is so powerful, humans can't rule over or shape their language to express thought, but only language and the way that they express their thoughts rule over and shape their thoughts.

Naturally, these opinions were labeled as extreme, however after the school of comparative history took his toll -which owes its root to linguistics- in the last several decades socio-linguistics keeps validating them. Men like Benjamin Whorf, Basil Bernstein...and I am afraid at the end of the road there is Heidegger who asserts language is the only real undefeatable tyrant.

What I am trying to say in a big picture sounds confusing, because I am trying to accomplish an impossible task. I am trying to connect a few huge fundamental fields to describe why humans ended up inventing a concept of god. I am trying to make a philosophy of anthropology through cognitive limits of our species which I think only determined by language and the categories that came along with.

So this is not just about the labels stated by the topic or the absolute nonexistence of god I defend, but also why the big majority of people tend to believe in one, doesn't matter how reasonable and rational the explanations get.









"science is not about building a body of known 'facts'. ıt is a method for asking awkward questions and subjecting them to a reality-check, thus avoiding the human tendency to believe whatever makes us feel good." - tp

josephpalazzo

“I am afraid we are not rid of God because we still have faith in grammar”?

- Nietzsche

Baruch

#41
Heidegger's ultimate enemy is defeated easily by my silence - Bodhidharma

For Shoe - or perhaps, having invented not just one, but two distinct philosophies, it is time for Wittgenstein to shut up?
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

drunkenshoe

:lol: Great, now they are having fun with me. :sad2:

"science is not about building a body of known 'facts'. ıt is a method for asking awkward questions and subjecting them to a reality-check, thus avoiding the human tendency to believe whatever makes us feel good." - tp

josephpalazzo

Quote from: drunkenshoe on January 26, 2016, 07:07:04 AM
:lol: Great, now they are having fun with me. :sad2:



Well not to be picky, there's a difference between "having fun with" and "making fun of". By your second smiley, it indicates you meant the latter. Some men (hint: aitm) would rather do the former... ;-)

drunkenshoe

Quote from: josephpalazzo on January 26, 2016, 08:51:45 AM
Well not to be picky, there's a difference between "having fun with" and "making fun of". By your second smiley, it indicates you meant the latter. Some men (hint: aitm) would rather do the former... ;-)

aitm having fun:

"science is not about building a body of known 'facts'. ıt is a method for asking awkward questions and subjecting them to a reality-check, thus avoiding the human tendency to believe whatever makes us feel good." - tp