User Tag List

First 4445253545556 Last

Results 531 to 540 of 573

  1. #531
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,133

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    Today it is true that in some sense everybody believes they construct their own meaning. However, that is not natural, but rather is a result of culture.
    Then nothing is natural. Culture is as old as humanity.

    Let us, for the sake of argument, assume that the premise you seem to aim for, namely that the religions atheists construct for themselves are just as unfounded in reality as your own, were true. Where would you go from there?
    Likes Hard liked this post

  2. #532
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,810

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    Then nothing is natural. Culture is as old as humanity.
    "Natural" was a poor choice of words.

    Let us, for the sake of argument, assume that the premise you seem to aim for, namely that the religions atheists construct for themselves are just as unfounded in reality as your own, were true. Where would you go from there?
    The hope is that would be enough for them to stop acting like superior asses. I'm worried that the "ass-ness" might be inherent, though.
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

  3. #533
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,133

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    The hope is that would be enough for them to stop acting like superior asses. I'm worried that the "ass-ness" might be inherent, though.
    But all you can hope to pin on atheists is that they too construct meaning for their lives (I am somewhat surprised that you admit this about yourself) while religion, yours in particular, comes with so much more than a mere construct of meaning, and with historical variation to pretty much all of it at that. Thus equal in some regards, they are obviously and significantly different in others. Atheists, for instace, are usually careful to construct meaning that is compatible with what we can safely assume to be true about the world we live in, resulting in a more plausible 'religion' which would be less susceptible to fail its believers in their hopes the way your god continuously does. That, (un)fortunately, leaves plenty of room for acting like superior asses.

  4. #534
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,810

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    But all you can hope to pin on atheists is that they too construct meaning for their lives (I am somewhat surprised that you admit this about yourself) while religion, yours in particular, comes with so much more than a mere construct of meaning, and with historical variation to pretty much all of it at that. Thus equal in some regards, they are obviously and significantly different in others.
    There's still a matter of internal consistency and I think any system of belief that is based on creating meaning out of thin air inevitably runs into internal consistency issues because all claims are, at their bottom, baseless.

    I'm not saying I believe all meaning is constructed, but rather that I'm not totally immune to the secular milieu I find myself in.

    Atheists, for instace, are usually careful to construct meaning that is compatible with what we can safely assume to be true about the world we live in, resulting in a more plausible 'religion' which would be less susceptible to fail its believers in their hopes the way your god continuously does.
    1. I don't think you can safely assume anything. I think all knowledge begins with a leap of faith and I think you take that for granted.
    2. Even if we do assume you are using "hard facts" the fact that you construct your religion out of hard facts and imaginary meaning does not change the fact that the meaning is still imaginary.
    3. What exactly do you mean by plausibility?
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

  5. #535
    Senior Member Passacaglia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    647

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chrysanthea View Post
    What I stated before is ONLY true if Atheism is what I understand it is. That is: God doesn't exist. And once you become aware of the idea that there might be a God, you can either abstain, which is Agnosticism to me, accept, like Christianity, and deny, which is Atheism.
    We just finished explaining to Frosty6226 what atheism is; I suggest that you read our conversation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frosty6226 View Post
    While atheism might not be a 'religion' in the strictest sense, it abides by the same principles.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    Perhaps, but atheists have a religion. You still have to construct a sense of meaning which, for all intents and purposes, is indistinguishable from religion since whatever meaning you construct is just as unprovable as God.
    If atheism is a religion, then the antarctic ice sheets are a forest. It may not be a forest in the strictest sense, but it's still got life. So it's a forest for all intents and purposes since it's governed by the same natural laws.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    The hope is that would be enough for them to stop acting like superior asses. I'm worried that the "ass-ness" might be inherent, though.
    Careful, you almost made a gross over-generalization there. Wouldn't want to be a superior ass, would you?
    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    If you do believe that significance is inherent in reality then guess what? You're not an atheist.
    I'd think that atheists would be in the best position to know what an atheist is. But then I'm just a superior ass, so what do I know?

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    I also recognize that I am a product of a secular society so my natural inclination is to maintain a "buffered self." That is, we all in the modern era put a distance between ourselves and reality so that we control the meaning. I want as much as possible to align my perception with reality apart from my own natural desires.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    I should better clarify my position. I believe in an enchanted reality where significance is inherent in reality. If you are an atheist and believe in a disenchanted reality by definition you can't believe that significance can be proven because you don't believe significance exists outside of human construction.
    You've mentioned these terms before, but I'm not familiar with them. Would you elaborate a bit on this distance between ourselves and reality, the dis/enchanted reality, and the way that you're using 'significance'?
    Likes Hard liked this post

  6. #536
    Senior Member Frosty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    2w5 sx
    Posts
    5,782

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Passacaglia View Post
    We just finished explaining to Frosty6226 what atheism is; I suggest that you read our conversation.
    Before I get into anything else... No. You did not 'explain to me what atheism is', as I still hold predominently the same general viewpoint that I did before-I just tweaked it to allow for more individual distinction.

    There was no explaining, there was discussion yes, but 'explaining' sounds incredibly condesending, and is just extremely inaccurate.

    There actually was very little to the 'arguments' against what I was saying except for throwing around veiled insults(whatever), insinuations, and repeating the same point over and over again hoping that I eventually bowed down to your answer-and through both the merits of my own fucked up thought processes and a few good trigger points here and there, I expanded upon my original and very solid definition of atheism and religion 'religions' to include both groups and individually distinct subgroups.

    I listened, tried to respond-repeatedly-, to what you asked, tried to understand your viewpoints, all the while pretty much not going any deeper into what I was trying to say (and yes, it was a bit oddly written so I can get it), but do not think that you 'won'. So yeah, no. Anyways, do not want to derail this thread into a personal argument, but that just had to be said.

  7. #537
    I could do things Hard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Enneagram
    1w2 sp/so
    Socionics
    EIE Fe
    Posts
    7,989

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    @Hard

    I should better clarify my position. I believe in an enchanted reality where significance is inherent in reality. If you are an atheist and believe in a disenchanted reality by definition you can't believe that significance can be proven because you don't believe significance exists outside of human construction.

    This isn't a slam on atheists, but rather just an explanation of what atheists believe. If you do believe that significance is inherent in reality then guess what? You're not an atheist.

    Quite frankly, as Charles Taylor has noted, it's quite a marvel that within modern disenchanted secularism people have found ways to construct meaning. Though, I would argue it has only allowed humans to subsist rather than flourish.
    Others already said more or less what I was going to say. To sum it up, it sounds to me like you are trying to re-definine what religion and meaning is so that atheism is included under that bubble. Why I have no idea. Doing so dilutes it down and broadens what it means to the point of it could include anything, and really causes meaning and disinction to what religions and things possibly like it are. Further making it so it validates every view point so nothing can be critiqued or invalidated.

    In essence, its semantics and improper definition twisting to make something fit a model. As such, I don't agree with your assertions as I disagree with the foundation.
    MBTI: ExxJ tetramer
    Functions: Fe > Te > Ni > Se > Si > Ti > Fi > Ne
    Enneagram: 1w2 - 3w4 - 6w5 (The Taskmaster) | sp/so
    Socionics: β-E dimer | -
    Big 5: slOaI
    Temperament: Choleric/Melancholic
    Alignment: Lawful Neutral
    External Perception: Nohari and Johari


  8. #538
    Senior Member Passacaglia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    647

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frosty6226 View Post
    Before I get into anything else... No. You did not 'explain to me what atheism is', as I still hold predominently the same general viewpoint that I did before-I just tweaked it to allow for more individual distinction.
    Not only did I explain atheism to you:
    Quote Originally Posted by Frosty6226 View Post
    So basically atheism is just questioning questions?
    Quote Originally Posted by Passacaglia View Post
    You're halfway there.
    Quote Originally Posted by Frosty6226 View Post
    Short answer, I cannot disprove it and any answer will just lead to another question. I suppose the less likely something is the less weight I would give it, but I do not think I would be capable of completely letting it go.
    Quote Originally Posted by Passacaglia View Post
    You're one step away from atheism then; atheists are simply capable of letting go of sufficiently empty claims. And religion falls into that category.

    And that's atheism in a nutshell.

    So did Nicodemus:
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    Perhaps I am strange that way, but I do not hold beliefs for the sake of their appeal. I hold beliefs that I think reflect reality. Thus, my atheism is no more a system of belief than my belief that I am not a ringworm.

    And Coriolis explained why moral and metaphysical issues cannot have scientific explanations:
    Quote Originally Posted by Frosty6226 View Post
    Anything can have a spiritual meaning if you look to find one, as anything can have a scientific explanation as well.
    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    No, it cannot. Scientific explanations are reserved for objective matters of the natual world that are falsifiable. Questions of morality and the meaning of life, on the other hand, cannot be answered by science. One may attach spiritual value to scientific matters, say the cycle of the year with its solstices and equinoxes, but this is symbolic rather than an actual explanation of why it works that way and how it came to be.

    And you even did your own academic research into the subject:
    Quote Originally Posted by Frosty6226 View Post
    Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief that there is no God."

    And at the end, you even seemed to have gained some understanding of atheism, even if you couldn't let go of your beliefs regarding its nature:
    Quote Originally Posted by Frosty6226 View Post
    But alright, I guess I can sort of concede that beliefs are hard to argue if they are not your own, but unfortunately my opinion still stands, though I can sort of understand where the atheistic veiwpoint comes from.
    Your choice to reject these explanations has no bearing on their existence. They're right there, and you can reread them any time you want to.


    Quote Originally Posted by Frosty6226 View Post
    There was no explaining, there was discussion yes, but 'explaining' sounds incredibly condesending, and is just extremely inaccurate.
    Quote Originally Posted by Frosty6226 View Post
    There actually was very little to the 'arguments' against what I was saying except for throwing around veiled insults(whatever), insinuations, and repeating the same point over and over again hoping that I eventually bowed down to your answer-and through both the merits of my own fucked up thought processes and a few good trigger points here and there, I expanded upon my original and very solid definition of atheism and religion 'religions' to include both groups and individually distinct subgroups.
    Quote Originally Posted by Frosty6226 View Post
    I listened, tried to respond-repeatedly-, to what you asked, tried to understand your viewpoints, all the while pretty much not going any deeper into what I was trying to say (and yes, it was a bit oddly written so I can get it), but do not think that you 'won'. So yeah, no. Anyways, do not want to derail this thread into a personal argument, but that just had to be said.
    For my part, I am sorry for whatever offense you've taken to our conversation. I didn't mean to come off as condescending, I didn't mean to insinuate anything, and I didn't intend to 'win' anything. That said, I've found it very difficult to not take offense at your insistence in mislabeling atheism as a religion:

    Quote Originally Posted by Passacaglia View Post
    This is why you've never understood atheism. Atheism is not about answers, and it is not a religion. FYI protip: calling atheism a religion or referring to atheism as a belief is one of the fastest ways to get an atheist into the argument mindset, and to ruin any chance you might have at an amiable discussion with him or her.
    Quote Originally Posted by Frosty6226 View Post
    It is atheism, not atheists, that I have issue with. Though I have issues with traditional religions as well.
    Quote Originally Posted by Frosty6226 View Post
    I suppose religion-and I DO include atheism...
    Even after I told you the likely result of voicing the mislabel, you not only continue to use it; you also insist on emphasizing it. I can only assume that you're very intentionally trying to ruffle feathers here. Thus, you're in no position to complain about offense taken, and I take no responsibility for what you feel. I suspect that you brought certain preconceptions and attitudes to this thread that are shading all of your discussions here in an ugly shade.
    Likes Hard liked this post

  9. #539
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,133

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    There's still a matter of internal consistency and I think any system of belief that is based on creating meaning out of thin air inevitably runs into internal consistency issues because all claims are, at their bottom, baseless.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    1. I don't think you can safely assume anything. I think all knowledge begins with a leap of faith and I think you take that for granted.
    2. Even if we do assume you are using "hard facts" the fact that you construct your religion out of hard facts and imaginary meaning does not change the fact that the meaning is still imaginary.
    Internal consistency a concern to you, a Christian? Come on!

    The fact that meaning is not rooted in something supernatural does not mean that it is created out of thin air. There are several recurrent and inescapable factors to human life that can and do function as a framework from which to derive meaning. Obviously, in its variety of forms and contents, it is all earthly, this-wordly and transient meaning, but, contrary to your view, that is enough for most.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    3. What exactly do you mean by plausibility?
    Basically the ease with which it fits in with common knowledge, scientific facts, intelligent hypothesis about the yet unknown.

  10. #540
    Senior Member Frosty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    2w5 sx
    Posts
    5,782

    Default

    Alright, we obviously have very different interpretations of what went on. So in the way that you did, I give you the following.

    Quote Originally Posted by Passacaglia View Post
    I can understand this attitude.

    Personally, I'm not 100% for-sure certain that there's no god, gods, or supernatural forces in the universe. How could I be? Nobody can prove a negative like that. And I think that many atheists, if asked in a private setting by a friendly personality, would agree.

    However, an atheist might also ask you a question like "How do you know that your shadow doesn't come alive at night and whisper dreams into your ears as you sleep?" Or "How do you know there isn't a ceramic teapot with a gothic motif orbiting the sun?" Or "How do you know that falling stars aren't the tears of Surtr?" And then politely await your response.
    You seem to be operating under the assumption that religion is something that needs to be proven using only one measure, and that measure, 'your religion', (If the term bothers you I will use 'construct', as I believe the terms to be interchangeable; but the original meaning of 'religion' is still implied-in all honesty), and that what does not fit into your construct, using all the tools you have to measure, is just dismissible. There are things that you cannot grasp, that no one is capable of grasping, and while some turn to atheism and some turn to traditional religion, in the end both attempt to take, in their own specific way, what they can relate to in the world, and build an understanding around it. Yes you are not 100% certain that there is no god, gods, or supernatural forces, in the same way a Buddhist is not 100% certain that maybe what they are understanding as proof of reincarnation/past lives, isn't just media hype or caused by subconscious psychological misidentification. It is called doubt, and it permeates every individual construct, but no, that does not mean that the construct is not there. This is just me still stating the view I have held SINCE the BEGINNING.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frosty6226 View Post
    So basically atheism is just questioning questions? Nothing is absolute sure, and who knows maybe rain is just the remnants of a wet dog? But it could also be Jesus crying tears of forgiveness to wash away our sins. Or the souls of the recently dead coming back to earth to reincarnate into whatever they touch. Anything can have a spiritual meaning if you look to find one, as anything can have a scientific explanation as well. Personally, I think that the main problem with any deep set religion, and I include atheism, is that they attempt to set standards of what are acceptable interpretations and what do not jive. Arbitrary definitions are shoved together, packaged up, and passed through the family line, and for any member to be dissatisfied with their ratty distilled 90000medowns either have to grin and bear it or go without. Anyways, in theory I have no more issue with atheism than I do any other religion. But often times it seems as if atheists are trying to fight fire with fire, all the while ignoring whats crumbling down around them. Atheism to me doesn't mean questioning, it just provides a different set of answers, ones that can be sort of bleak. Though yeah, I do not think that anyone is 100% resolute on anything ever otherwise we would have a pretty mechanical world.
    Explaining my viewpoint on how constructs can become a bit too well defined, leading to people oftentimes looking at a problem one way and neglecting to devise original explanations. Although I will here admit that scientific atheism does go a bit further and can draw more absolutes than traditional religion, it can only go so far. As I mention further down.

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    No, it cannot. Scientific explanations are reserved for objective matters of the natual world that are falsifiable. Questions of morality and the meaning of life, on the other hand, cannot be answered by science. One may attach spiritual value to scientific matters, say the cycle of the year with its solstices and equinoxes, but this is symbolic rather than an actual explanation of why it works that way and how it came to be.
    Coriolis offers her viewpoint, which did lead me to the admittance I made above. I try to expand on it further, how there are points between anything that cannot be bridged by one understanding or another. I might have been confusing I will admit, but the message that, yes, alternative explanations can be applied, in more of an uphill battle kind of way, is there. I added my own interpretation to Coriolis's explanation, explaining more to myself-below.

    May have been a bit of an over-generalization, yes, but most things at their simplest most superficial level can be interpreted easily using multiple different methods. As you get deeper and deeper into something, especially something technical and/or tangible, I would suspect that it would be easier to create an understanding that parallels. Could you atribute the scientific to the spiritual, yes, but you would be fighting harder and harder against the grain and more than likely you would reach a point where you give up or it becomes beyond individual or human capacity to continue. And vice-versa. And at some point I would think they would start to sound a bit ridiculous.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    All you need to do to sound less stupid is look up the definition of atheism.
    This. I will explain later.

    Fine fast definition

    Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief that there is no God."

    As I said it is hard to argue beliefs, as they are very individualized. But no matter how you slice it, I just do not understand the appeal. I get that it exists and is just as fully a system of belief as anything else, and if you derive what you are looking for with it than fine, but while I accept it as a valid interpretation it is just not something I particularly get. Agnosticism might be a bit too fluid, and maybe I am afraid of being wrong, but unicorns are much less pressing to me than the wholeness of the possible beyond.
    It is super easy to look up a definition on Google, accept it, and roll over. Yes atheism is OBVIOUSLY a belief that there is no God. I mean seriously, this definition proves nothing, it only serves to add onto what was already there. Outside explanation requires an outside force to shape an external belief into an internal one. Explanations are one sided and generally automatically assume the superior knowledge of one party to the inferior or lack of another. They are non-participatory, or at least the ones that you assume. A belief that there is no God requires there to be belief, which requires construct (this time I am only semi associating this word with religion).

    Skip ahead a bit, as the discussion in the next few posts was decent, if a bit antagonistic on both sides.

    Quote Originally Posted by Passacaglia View Post
    You're halfway there. As a follow up question, what would you think if someone insisted that there is indeed a ceramic teapot with a gothic motif orbiting the sun, or that we're all living inside of the Matrix? Or any other claim you can think of which is patently absurd and unlikely, but ultimately not disprovable?
    Answered this.

    This is why you've never understood atheism. Atheism is not about answers, and it is not a religion. FYI protip: calling atheism a religion or referring to atheism as a belief is one of the fastest ways to get an atheist into the argument mindset, and to ruin any chance you might have at an amiable discussion with him or her.
    This seems to me to be an either: drop your argument all together, any point or any understanding you are trying to draw, and let us inform you of our irrefutable unquestionable interpretation of fact (aka drink the kool-aid unquestionably) or continue to try to bounce off ideas but be prepared to get attacked if you do not bounce where or how we say you should. It is a bit difficult to discuss something when you are not allowed to reference your viewpoint.

    Quote Originally Posted by Passacaglia View Post
    Certainly not.


    So if some guy showed you The Book of Zion, an old tome filled with claims that the machines have us enslaved inside the Matrix and parables about Neo fighting the Father of the Matrix, backed it up with screenshots from the films, and were utterly sincere in his belief in The Book of Zion, you'd believe it too?


    I'm going to go out on a limb, and guess that you've known some aggressive/argumentative atheists in your life. Am I off the mark?
    And then this. I am going to give my honest opinion on this type of thing- forewarning it might be offensive. These sort of statements are an easy way out of trying to justify reasoning. Instead of adding to your own case, these are attempts to undermine and discredit. These are one of my absolute biggest pet peeves, because while some might be sincere in their desire to understand where a particular stance is coming from, these can be innocent looking fronts for slippery motivations. I answered this in the way that I did because I did not know your motivations for sure, but the insistence later on has me on definitely has me questioning. I have no issue admitting if I have particular emotional biases, if they affect me in any way I will say so, if they do not then I do not appreciate everything I say being cast into doubt because of them. I am done for now, and no, offense was not my intention, though I could see where it could be derived. My 'feelings' are not hurt, but yes I am annoyed that they had to be assumed to exist and brought in as a distraction in the first place

Similar Threads

  1. Which type(s) do you think are the most reluctant (desinterested in) to talk about
    By Halfjillhalfjack in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 02-22-2010, 02:35 PM
  2. Fox: The Most Trusted Name in News
    By Gamine in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-28-2010, 04:35 AM
  3. Which types recognize the most strategic value in which types?
    By simulatedworld in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 07-19-2009, 05:22 PM
  4. The most beautiful songs in the world...
    By maliafee in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 07-03-2009, 04:31 AM
  5. The most members online in one day was 360, Today
    By INTJMom in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-15-2008, 03:45 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO