• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Beating A Dead Horse, vol. 345: Atheism, Theism, Agnosticism and Sheep

LEGERdeMAIN

New member
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Messages
2,516
Or, Debunking those (A)theists/(A)gnostics the really dumb way.


As I all know, Atheists, Agnostics, Theists and Gnostics of every race, creed, breed and sexual orientation have taken over the Philosophy and Spirituality forum. As I all also know, it's less a philosophical debate on the questions that have puzzled you and your ancestors for centuries, nay, millennia and more of a primate shit-slinging match.

Unfortunately for the mature, responsible members of these forums(such as myself), trolls and nazi's with reagan masks saturate even the rare intelligent threads almost immediately. I might think you may be wondering why I'm bringing it. I bring it, I always bring it. But that is beside the point.

According to the Flat Earth Society, they are :

....not in any way responsible for the failure of the French to repel the Germans at the Maginot Line during WWII. Nor is the Flat Earth Society responsible for the recent yeti sightings outside the Vatican, or for the unfortunate enslavement of the Nabisco Inc. factory employees by a rogue hamster insurrectionist group. Furthermore, we are not responsible for the loss of one or more of the following, which may possibly occur as the result of exposing one's self to the dogmatic and dangerously subversive statements made within: life, limb, vision, Francois Mitterand, hearing, taste, smell, touch, thumb, Aunt Mildred, citizenship, spleen, bedrock, cloves, I Love Lucy reruns, toaster, pine derby racer, toy duck, antelope, horseradish, prosthetic ankle, double-cheeseburger, tin foil, limestone, watermelon-scented air freshner, sanity, paprika, German to Pig Latin dictionary, dish towel, pet Chihuahua, pogo stick, Golf Digest subscription, floor tile, upper torso or halibut.

Which brings me to my knees and to my point:

Sheep fall in to two categories, unless they fall off of a cliff, in which case they are lamb chops.

In the first category, sheep are:

-Domesticated

-Kept in a pasture, surrounded by a fence.

-Protected by their owners from predators.

-Fed in the winter.

-Sheltered by a barn or other structure.

-Slaughtered

In the second category, sheep are:

-Wild.

-Roam free.

-Find their own shelter.

-Protect themselves.

-Find their own food in winter or face starvation.

-Die of old age, disease or physical confrontations from within the herd or with other wild animals.

My Question is, if all of the above is true, what associations, relevant to the thread title, can you make between Theists, Atheists, Agnostics, Gnostics and Wild Sheep, Domesticated Sheep?
 

Risen

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
3,185
MBTI Type
ISTP
Enneagram
9w8
Karl Marx borrowed from Darwin's research on natural selection to affirm his philosophy of dialectical materialism. He described Darwinism as being "the basis and natural history for our view", talking to Angles. Basically, they believed that humans were nothing more than animals, and the driving force behind change and evolution in the universe, animals, and therefore humans, is conflict. It's an atheistic philosophy. Then from this basic philosophy/ideology birthed many... ugly movements in history.

Horray for humans being bloody animals.
 

reason

New member
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
1,209
MBTI Type
ESFJ
Marx's diatectical materialism isn't like Darwin's natural selection. If he described it as "the basis and natural history of our view," then he was simply didn't understand natural selection. And his friend was Engles, not Angles.
 

Risen

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
3,185
MBTI Type
ISTP
Enneagram
9w8
And his friend was Engles, not Angles.

Yes, thank you.

Marx used Dawin's theories as support for his philosophy, as the idea of creatures evolving through survival of the fittest and the strongest varieties of animal dominating the weaker ones fits in nicely with dialectic materialism philosophy. It was the "scientific" support and basis for the philosophy.
 

Feops

New member
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
829
MBTI Type
INTx
My Question is, if all of the above is true, what associations, relevant to the thread title, can you make between Theists, Atheists, Agnostics, Gnostics and Wild Sheep, Domesticated Sheep?

Well you see it's really a ma-

:sleeping:
 

Blank

.
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
1,201
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Why is there so much focus on "debunking" non-theists all of a sudden?

As far as I knew, these groups weren't making claims to debunk.
 

reason

New member
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
1,209
MBTI Type
ESFJ
Yes, thank you.

Marx used Dawin's theories as support for his philosophy, as the idea of creatures evolving through survival of the fittest and the strongest varieties of animal dominating the weaker ones fits in nicely with dialectic materialism philosophy. It was the "scientific" support and basis for the philosophy.
Except that Marx's dialectic materialism, while a kind of evolutionary process, is not like natural selection. Check out Thomas Sowell's Marxism: Philosophy and Economics for more details; Marx's philosophy is actually incompatible with natural selection. The development of Marx's philosophy and the vast majority of his writings predated Darwin and Wallace's original paper on natural selection, so it couldn't have been the "basis" for Marx's philosophy until at least 1860.
 

Risen

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
3,185
MBTI Type
ISTP
Enneagram
9w8
Except that Marx's dialectic materialism, while a kind of evolutionary process, is not like natural selection. Check out Thomas Sowell's Marxism: Philosophy and Economics for more details; Marx's philosophy is actually incompatible with natural selection. The development of Marx's philosophy and the vast majority of his writings predated Darwin and Wallace's original paper on natural selection, so it couldn't have been the "basis" for Marx's philosophy until at least 1860.

Yes, it was late in 1860, after the origin of species was released and read by Marx.

I'm not arguing with you over the similarities of their views which i think are both flawed as a a 5 legged frog, but that Marx had reverence for Darwin's scientific research and incorporated that perspective as support for his philosophical views.

International Socialist Review

“The basis for our view”

Only 1,250 copies of the first edition of On the Origin of Species were printed, and they all sold in one day. One of those who obtained a copy was Friedrich Engels, then living in Manchester. Three weeks later, he wrote to Karl Marx:

Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished, and that has now been done. Never before has so grandiose an attempt been made to demonstrate historical evolution in Nature, and certainly never to such good effect.1

When Marx read Origin a year later, he was just as enthusiastic, calling it “the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view.”2 In a letter to the German socialist Ferdinand Lasalle, he wrote:

Darwin’s work is most important and suits my purpose in that it provides a basis in natural science for the historical class struggle… Despite all shortcomings, it is here that, for the first time, “teleology” in natural science is not only dealt a mortal blow but its rational meaning is empirically explained.3

In 1862 Marx made a point of attending the public lectures on evolution given by Darwin’s supporter Thomas Huxley, and encouraged his political associates to join him. Wilhelm Liebknecht, a friend and comrade who often visited the Marx family in London, later recalled, “when Darwin drew the conclusions from his research work and brought them to the knowledge of the public, we spoke of nothing else for months but Darwin and the enormous significance of his scientific discoveries.”4

Although Marx and Engels criticized various aspects of his “clumsy English style of argument,” they retained the highest regard for Darwin’s scientific work for the rest of their lives.5 In his own masterwork, Marx described On the Origin of Species as an “epoch-making work.”6 In 1872 Marx sent a copy of Capital to Darwin, inscribing it “on the part of his sincere admirer, Karl Marx.”7

And in 1883, at Marx’s funeral, Engels said, “Just as Darwin discovered the law of development of organic nature, so Marx discovered the law of development of human history.”8

If I'm wrong in how Marx viewed Darwinism, then please let me know, preferably with statements from Marx. And If these statements/quotes of Marx are false (I first heard them in historical documentary form), then please feel free to give evidence.
 

reason

New member
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
1,209
MBTI Type
ESFJ
Marx would have appreciated Darwin's theory of natural selection, because it provided an account of "design" in nature which didn't require a God-like designer. However, the process of natural selection that Darwin described is distinct from Marx's process of dialectic materialism. In fact, Marx's "labour theory of value" runs in flat contradiction to Darwin's theory of natural selection. Or to put it another way, if Marx's economics were right, then life could not have evolved as Darwin described. I presume that Marx simply didn't understand the implications of Darwin's theory, because I doubt he would have such nice things to say about it if he did.
 

Athenian200

Protocol Droid
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
8,828
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
My Question is, if all of the above is true, what associations, relevant to the thread title, can you make between Theists, Atheists, Agnostics, Gnostics and Wild Sheep, Domesticated Sheep?

Theists/Gnostics = Domisticated Sheep

Atheists/Agnostics = Wild Sheep

Right?
 

Venom

Babylon Candle
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
2,126
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
1w9
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
MaybeLogic said:
... stuff...

Theists/Gnostics = Domisticated Sheep

Atheists/Agnostics = Wild Sheep

Right?


Its almost too close to be coincidence. You must be referencing Slave Morality and Master Morality. I swear that I'm not shoving down this subforums throat! It just keeps coming up on its own... Its hardly systematic (Nietzsche was more of a literary man than a purely philosophical man), but it sure captures the debate. A key point is that neither is absolutely necessarily metaphysically prescriptively more right for everyone than the other...

Master Morality in this instance i guess is being applied to the nihilistic atheists who aren't domesticated by any moral code other than their personal moral code. Slave Morality in this instance seems to be applied to the theists who are tamed and thus heroically tame the wild animals who wont submit to the morals of the weak...


????????????????
 

Risen

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
3,185
MBTI Type
ISTP
Enneagram
9w8
Its almost too close to be coincidence. You must be referencing Slave Morality and Master Morality. I swear that I'm not shoving down this subforums throat! It just keeps coming up on its own... Its hardly systematic (Nietzsche was more of a literary man than a purely philosophical man), but it sure captures the debate. A key point is that neither is absolutely necessarily metaphysically prescriptively more right for everyone than the other...

Master Morality in this instance i guess is being applied to the nihilistic atheists who aren't domesticated by any moral code other than their personal moral code. Slave Morality in this instance seems to be applied to the theists who are tamed and thus heroically tame the wild animals who wont submit to the morals of the weak...


????????????????

I think atheists are equally, if not more, prone to being controlled by people of power with attractive personalities, organizations, and movements that give them the same sense of belonging and purpose in life that all humans have a psychological NEED for, and is filled by religion for others as opposed to government, personalities, etc. It's part of the reason why fascism and communism succeed in capturing people ideologically, with communism in particular being very atheistic historically. Servitude to the state and to a central power figure/personality fits that need. Since all people have the same basic needs and urges, they succumb to the same traps. It's why those systems can REPLACE religion in societies.
 

antireconciler

it's a nuclear device
Joined
Apr 29, 2007
Messages
866
MBTI Type
Intj
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
so
-Slaughtered

Almost unequivocally negative. Yet for the rest of domestication, the various points could be considered positive. Living in a pasture surrounded by a fence even is not necessarily bad, if ... if it turns out that there is nothing on the other side with value, so the domestic life can be defended. Now, the natural thought is to say that of course there is something valuable on the other side because we are so used to the idea that others are trying to restrict our thoughts and we are always trying to get out and be free. The idea here though is that there exists the possibility that the reasonable thing to do at some point is to rein in your thoughts yourself (or with the help of an "owner", if ... if the owners agenda can be recognized as your own.

But it does seem that the particular associations you have chosen bait the responses and set up a dichotomy which cannot well inform you. The wild and untame is not necessarily free, so be judicious and discerning and scrutinize carefully your longings.
 

LEGERdeMAIN

New member
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Messages
2,516
Almost unequivocally negative. Yet for the rest of domestication, the various points could be considered positive.

Sheep are also kept for their wool and milk. My socks are made of wool, actually. But even shearing and pumping aren't pleasant for Sheep.

Living in a pasture surrounded by a fence even is not necessarily bad, if ... if it turns out that there is nothing on the other side with value, so the domestic life can be defended. Now, the natural thought is to say that of course there is something valuable on the other side because we are so used to the idea that others are trying to restrict our thoughts and we are always trying to get out and be free. The idea here though is that there exists the possibility that the reasonable thing to do at some point is to rein in your thoughts yourself (or with the help of an "owner", if ... if the owners agenda can be recognized as your own.

As domesticated sheep go, they often attempt to break out of their pastures. Their owners often attribute this behavior to "curiosity", but rarely to dissatisfaction.

But it does seem that the particular associations you have chosen bait the responses and set up a dichotomy which cannot well inform you. The wild and untame is not necessarily free, so be judicious and discerning and scrutinize carefully your longings.

Once you've beaten a dead horse for a few hundred years, you realize there aren't any new ways to beat it.
 

LEGERdeMAIN

New member
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Messages
2,516
I think atheists are equally, if not more, prone to being controlled by people of power with attractive personalities, organizations, and movements that give them the same sense of belonging and purpose in life that all humans have a psychological NEED for, and is filled by religion for others as opposed to government, personalities, etc. It's part of the reason why fascism and communism succeed in capturing people ideologically, with communism in particular being very atheistic historically. Servitude to the state and to a central power figure/personality fits that need. Since all people have the same basic needs and urges, they succumb to the same traps. It's why those systems can REPLACE religion in societies.

I would agree that most people have a psychological need that seems to be filled by religion. I have seen that same need filled by any number of things. I don't think it's a need to have a higher authority to protect them, as you seem be inferring with your Religion vs. State proposition.
It could be any person, place, thing or idea to which an individual could apply his "passion". I know a handful of people who belong to the Church of American Football and a few others who belong to the Church of Cheesecake and those churches seem to fill their needs as well as any political or religious system could. It might actually be a bit more realistic to worship something that can be tasted, something that can be proven with a high degree of certainty.
 
S

Sniffles

Guest
Its almost too close to be coincidence. You must be referencing Slave Morality and Master Morality. I swear that I'm not shoving down this subforums throat! It just keeps coming up on its own... Its hardly systematic (Nietzsche was more of a literary man than a purely philosophical man), but it sure captures the debate. A key point is that neither is absolutely necessarily metaphysically prescriptively more right for everyone than the other...

Master Morality in this instance i guess is being applied to the nihilistic atheists who aren't domesticated by any moral code other than their personal moral code. Slave Morality in this instance seems to be applied to the theists who are tamed and thus heroically tame the wild animals who wont submit to the morals of the weak...


????????????????

Kierkegaard's distinction between Aesthetic, Ethical, and Religious modes of thought is far superior to Nietzsche's concepts of Slave and Master morality.
 

sLiPpY

New member
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
2,003
MBTI Type
ISTP
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Religion is the "answer" to having too much time on one's hands. :headphne:
 

LEGERdeMAIN

New member
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Messages
2,516
A key point is that neither is absolutely necessarily metaphysically prescriptively more right for everyone than the other...

Master Morality in this instance i guess is being applied to the nihilistic atheists who aren't domesticated by any moral code other than their personal moral code. Slave Morality in this instance seems to be applied to the theists who are tamed and thus heroically tame the wild animals who wont submit to the morals of the weak...

That's basically what I was getting at: But you could say that there are wild theists and domesticated atheists, as well. This is probably a little more confusing, but no less true than the example you presented.
 

Venom

Babylon Candle
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
2,126
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
1w9
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I think atheists are equally, if not more, prone to being controlled by people of power with attractive personalities, organizations, and movements that give them the same sense of belonging and purpose in life that all humans have a psychological NEED for, and is filled by religion for others as opposed to government, personalities, etc. It's part of the reason why fascism and communism succeed in capturing people ideologically, with communism in particular being very atheistic historically. Servitude to the state and to a central power figure/personality fits that need. Since all people have the same basic needs and urges, they succumb to the same traps. It's why those systems can REPLACE religion in societies.

Nietzsche's ideas arent exaclty systematic. I think i pretty much agree with you. The communists, socialists would fall into slave morality, because they function like other slave morality systems do. A master morality religion would be like the Roman religion/empire where might pretty much made right at all levels of society (including their religious stories).
 
Top