Philosophy Now Forum

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:The problem is that there are consequences both to atheism as a modern trend, and just as much to unexamined religiousness and religious obsessiveness.

What are the consequences of being an atheist regarding Vishnu? What are the consequences of being an atheist regarding Allah?

Briancrc wrote:What are the consequences of being an atheist regarding Vishnu? What are the consequences of being an atheist regarding Allah?

This could be considered a 'good question' except for a large problem that immediately shows itself and - as I say - among the 'philosophers' here on PN (or in any case those who descend to the Philosophy of Religion section to rehearse and to buddy-up in their attacks against Dread Religion). The problem is that no one of them has enough information to understand the issue in its larger sense and so each seems to be valiantly fighting what looks to be a minor, personal battle against the object of their contempt. They rarely respond in full, independent essays (Sthita is an exception, overall) which elucidate a coherent position, and all that they seem to do is to perpetually exclaim 'No!' and to engage in blocking manoeuvres. But there is no larger, and certainly no interesting, discourse.

Essentially, it is exactly like in this dEvAsTatInG 20-word post, above. This is a question of a 10 year-old. It operates at such a low and basic level, and indicates such a low grasp of the magnitude of the problem (of religious, of belief, of metaphysics, of grasp of intellectual history and essentially everything) that one senses one is dealing with some form of intellectual retard: a person who cannot be said to have even begun to tread a path of analysis of ideas, who never will.

So, I ask you Uwot (and I know you are an intelligent person and I know that you are engaged in relevant work, and I don't at all mean this to be ingratiating or patronising) to understand my glossary statement - designed to challenge, intended as polemic - that philosophy has here been failed. If one is going to take up a position against the possibility of attempting to define a conceptual route to the divine, to meaning and value of a transcendent order, or one that is in some way part-and-parcel and an expression of the Creation (my basic position), should one not actually have engaged in a bona fide study of the issues? Should one not be able to clearly identify the dimension of the problem? Should one not be capable and interested in writing out, or even linking to, or including some pages of writing, by those who hold cogent, well thought-out positions?

We know beyond any doubt that there has been a transition from platforms of belief (Erasmus, Milton, Locke) and then toward 'man-centered humanism' of Hume and the Encyclopaedists, and we also know that this general movement begins to take the form of the positivism of Comte, Mill and Mark where divinity is absolutely denied. And we also are aware of direct consequences of all this, not only in the large and obvious state-atheistic enterprises but in a whole host of different ways, and I do not say this is exclusively 'bad'. Shouldn't one who is defending the elimination of the possibility of understanding, even in new and radically renovated ideas, the idea of God, shouldn't that project be taken much more seriously? Should one not have much more to say than mere forum-sniping and nay-saying?

Myself, I am somewhat in a difficult position because though I do share Willey's view of 'nihilism', yet I am also aware that scientific modernism has offered astounding opportunities, not all of them fully taken advantage of, to we moderns. However, is it not a good observation, a sound one, to make a reference to and to focus on 'totalitarian creeds'? and then to spend some times looking in to them? and no only to the Soviet or Chinese communist examples (which have also produced the largest intended massacres in history, and 'you' always bring up murder, misery and oppression as 'your' prime reason for opposing the Horror of Religious Belief)(in contradistinction to the 'pedophile priests'), but should we not also note other consequences, pervasive but less severe, that operate in our present and among us? Shouldn't 'you' have something to say about some of this?

But you see you don't. You have nothing to say. All that you have said, Uwot, is that the domain of scientific activity should be free of theological presuppositions.

I am inclined to focus on this:

• 'The significant thing to notice, I think, is precisely that 'self-destructive dialectic' mentioned by Berdyaev: humanism, beginning with lofty claims for human individuality and dignity, for liberty and fulfilment, ends by robbing man of all these values, and reducing him to a mere atom or unit in a world of matter and force.'

How does this happen? You have only to look at, to question, to examine, the vacuousness of every person who is writing in this section right now with an 'anti' position. Their intellectual substructure is limited, so inhibited, so distorted, that they cannot even form a cogent and sensible question. One speaks, one articulates, and there is no response at all. The have all the language of 'jackdaws'.

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:One speaks, one articulates, and there is no response at all. The have all the language of 'jackdaws'.

U WOT M8. It's an egocentric position that others' beliefs do not matter. What are the consequences when you deny the value of someone else's belief? On what ground does your belief matter more than another's? Being flip about it or beating one's chest with ill-placed sactimony is hardly virtuous.

______________________________________

Sthita, I thought you might appreciate the intense bigotry of the position Willey is attempting to bring forward. In actual point of fact he is very aware of the intense difficulty of holding to an unexamined religious position in the face of a terrifically powerful assault. It has to be remembered that the men who took a stand against the false-positions of the religious viewpoint were mostly from religious backgrounds themselves. There is a strange Nietzschean twist on '...and the truth shall set you free'.

In your case you have no intellectual background here, no cultural understanding, and no ability nor interest in defining 'consequences' at any level. Ah yes, the pedophile priests. Did you have interactions with any?

______________________________________

Briancrc wrote:It's an egocentric position that others' beliefs do not matter.

What are the consequences when you deny the value of someone else's belief?

Would this hold if one were to take a stand against a specific god-form, say of Vishnu or Allah? Or, is your reaction more that you feel that I have negated your belief, whatever it might be? You implied that atheism was a necessary position given the vast discrepancy between one visualisation and another. If both are accurate, we live in a topsy-turvy and lunatic universe, no?

On what ground does your belief matter more than another's?

How would you answer this question? I can think of a thousand different things I can state as 'belief' that I am 100% sure you will take issue with. Defining the ground is what it is all about. What ground do you defend? And on what basis?

Being flip about it or beating one's chest with ill-placed sanctimony is hardly virtuous.

Is 'virtue' your main valuation? How do you define 'intellectual virtue'? It is a good question ...

I had nothing to say about a superior moral position and do not assume I have one. I was speaking of intellectual integrity. You will find that 'flippancy', 'chest-beating', sarcasm, rudeness, and name-calling is part-and-parcel of the field here. Take it in stride but do not hold back from articulating your ideas ...

That is my definition of 'virtue'!

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:I had nothing to say about a superior moral position and do not assume I have one. I was speaking of intellectual integrity. You will find that 'flippancy', 'chest-beating', sarcasm, rudeness, and name-calling is part-and-parcel of the field here. Take it in stride but do not hold back from articulating your ideas ...

That is my definition of 'virtue'!

If ad hominem and incivility inform your discourse, then there is little to nothing to be gained.

First Lesson: Never depend on others to achieve 'gain'. Go into all interchanges decisively to 'gain' by your own effort and choice. Gain despite others. If that is not a prime lesson on a philosophically corrupt forum as this one often seems, I know not what would be ...

The Inglorious One wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:
do you think heaven is real or is it actually make believe and childish escapism

I realize that this is a sarcastic assault on a presumed desire on my part for a reward

I was aware you might interpret it as so but was actually a genuine question on my part

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:First Lesson: Never depend on others to achieve 'gain'. Go into all interchanges decisively to 'gain' by your own effort and choice. Gain despite others. If that is not a prime lesson on a philosophically corrupt forum as this one often seems, I know not what would be ...

Are those the teachings of Jesus?

Actually, part of it came from the celestial mouth of Vishnu when incarnated as a Pig he battled a demon, and the rest of it was Muhammad talking shit. Any other questions, son?

Yes...do you live near people and do you have any weapons? I'm concerned if the answer to either of those questions is yes.

''One very remarkable thing about Mary is that she would almost certainly have been 12-14 years old when the angel Gabriel appeared to her. We know this because the common custom at that time was for girls to marry early, at that age. The Bible never gives Mary’s age when she got pregnant or gave birth to Jesus, and that is because when something happened that was common in the culture, nothing was said about it. We write the same way today, leaving out any details that everyone knows by custom and culture. If we read in the newspaper that a thief drove down the road for miles while being chased by police, we do not think, “Drove? What is ‘drove?’ I wonder how he got down the road all that distance?” We all know what “drove down the road” means, so we exclude the details when we write about it.''

So god the paedophile raped Mary, ensuring that she was likely to be stoned unless she leaves town, only to have the resulting offspring die hideously in front of her. Offspring wanders around as a zombie for a while before disappearing under dubious circumstances.
Hmm, your religion is so much more normal than all the others.

Interesting contribution Vegetable Taxi. But Mary sort if asked for it, didn't she? Also she was given notice. It's not as if He crept up on her or sneaked in through a window by night.

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:Interesting contribution Vegetable Taxi. But Mary sort if asked for it, didn't she? Also she was given notice. It's not as if He crept up on her or sneaked in through a window by night.

'Asked her' AFTER the fact.

Au contaire ma petite chou:

• "And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be. And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren. For with God nothing shall be impossible. And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her."

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:Au contaire ma petite chou:

• "And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be. And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren. For with God nothing shall be impossible. And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her."

What a crock of shit.