Philosophy Now Forum

Reflex wrote:...take a look at Lacewing's posts -- all sweet and mushy, but dare touch her candy and it's all tempermental shrew.

What are you talking about... I share my candy!

You may not like my observations and challenges for you, but it's your big baby ego having a tantrum and lashing out at me... rather than clarifying and connecting in any valuable way at all. You receive a lot of the same kind of feedback from various people... which you ignore. I'm honored that mine irritates you so. Still, it remains that you have demonstrated continually that you are a self-important dick who cannot engage in meaningful and respectful exchanges with others -- that's what I see -- so you're one of the people I avoid. That means I'm smart... not hateful or evil. You will think what you must to continue stroking yourself as that's clearly your favorite thing to do.

Wow. And I thought I was taking too many pain pills. I think Hobbes lost it.

Lacewing wrote:

Reflex wrote:...take a look at Lacewing's posts -- all sweet and mushy, but dare touch her candy and it's all tempermental shrew.

What are you talking about... I share my candy!

And addicts share needles.

Reflex wrote:Wow. And I thought I was taking too many pain pills. I think Hobbes lost it.

I am going to assume that your inability to address my last two carefully consider posts means that you are just one more ignorant twat lurking on the Forum.
On the other hand, you might not be a complete idiot so take another look:

POST 1.
Spinoza was an atheist, who feared assassination, murder and had to flee his own religious community and live in obscurity writing clandestine tracts published sub-rosa.

He was keen to talk about the deterministic nature of the universe, but rather than declare for god, he declared for nature. Rather than assigning god as nature, he was in fact declaring nature as god. Nature what was determined, disinterested, without needs, fears or desires or personality.

He's been mistakenly called a pantheist, and that tends to help the theist accept that a man of such enormous intellect was capable of dismissing the usual god, but the theist cannot clings to some comfort in the thought that he still has some kinda god, when this was not the case.
There is no doubt that for his time Spinoza was publicly denounced as an atheist had had no time for religion or blind faith. All religion is organised superstition.

As for "Pantheism", Spinoza's "god" does not really conform to either definition;
1.
a doctrine which identifies God with the universe, or regards the universe as a manifestation of God.
2.
the worship or tolerance of many gods.

Don't take my word for it. Consult the world's authority. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZPzivgc7aQ

You've only to glance through Ethics and his 'proof of God" to know clearly that he is talking about something else entirely.
As for scripture the chain of command for such writings does not lead to god but wholly to the mind of men; and there is stops. God is neutral morally. God has no plan, nor any rules. All events happen necessarily.

POST 2.
Indeed, and what do you think "truth" has to do with reality? And what do you think Philosophy can add to that which natural philosophy has already spoken on?

What makes you think that you can do anything more than describe the universe? In what way is it possible that it contains 'truth" - or do you have a more mature view on what truth is?

Assume whatever you want, Hobbes, but maybe you should watch the video you linked to. "God is numerically identical with nature...God is nature" is pantheism.

As for "part 2," scientism is a laughably inane ideology. (Strangely enough, I just purchased and began reading The Science Delusion. Maybe you should pick it up. (Don't worry. The author calls himself an atheist -- at least, in the same sense I'm an atheist.)

Reflex wrote:Assume what, Hobbes, but maybe you should watch the video you linked to. "God is numerically identical with nature...God is nature" is pantheism.

As for "part 2," scientism is a laughably inane ideology. (Strangely enough, I just purchased and began reading The Science Delusion. Maybe you should pick it up. (Don't worry. The author calls himself an atheist -- at least, in the same sense I'm an atheist.)

I suggest you keep watching. Nadler specifically calls Spinoza an atheist, and says exactly why, and also rejects that Spinoza is a pantheist.

Given your weak-minded responses, I correctly conclude that you are just another idiot.
At least I gave you two chances.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Reflex wrote:Assume what, Hobbes, but maybe you should watch the video you linked to. "God is numerically identical with nature...God is nature" is pantheism.

As for "part 2," scientism is a laughably inane ideology. (Strangely enough, I just purchased and began reading The Science Delusion. Maybe you should pick it up. (Don't worry. The author calls himself an atheist -- at least, in the same sense I'm an atheist.)

I suggest you keep watching. Nadler specifically calls Spinoza an atheist, and says exactly why, and also rejects that Spinoza is a pantheist.

Given your weak-minded responses, I correctly conclude that you are just another idiot.
At least I gave you two chances.

Spinoza wouldn’t call himself an atheist, so who do you think is the most credible witness? Spinoza himself (who knew nothing about quantum mechanics) or some weirdo 300 years removed?

And am I to assume you prefer an aggressive indifference to the possibility your love of science is possibly misplaced? I can provide you with arguments against scientism, but what good will that do if you're not willing to pick up a book? Would you rather that I post links to YouTube?

(Been to any protests at funerals, lately? You seem to be their kind people.)

Reflex wrote: Spinoza wouldn’t call himself an atheist, so who do you think is the most credible witness? )

No people do not usually say things that would mean their immediate arrest and execution.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Reflex wrote: Spinoza wouldn’t call himself an atheist, so who do you think is the most credible witness? )

No people do not usually say things that would mean their immediate arrest and execution.

Ah, so you can get into his mind after 300 years, eh? Prove it. What you're saying is no different that what critics said about Sartre and Flew when they showed a change of heart.

How pathetic!

In a nutshell, scientism (which you seem to enthusiastically advocate) presumes that the only meaningful truths are empirically verifiable truths. However, it undermines itself because it is a philosophy, a belief, that is not itself empirically verifiable. It doesn't rise to its own standard of what's meaningful.

Think about it. If what you say about science is true, then what you say about Spinoza or his philosophy is meaningless. Deal with it. This is, after all, a philosophy forum. You said so yourself.

BTW, calling pantheism a doctrine which "regards the universe as a manifestation of God" is an error. Hinduism and panentheism regard the universe as a manifestation of God, but neither are pantheism.

Reflex wrote:Does color exist in the 'real' world, or is it some kind of trick the mind plays on us?

Are you now saying your 'God' is a trick of the mind?

Still not hearing an answer to my question about how you self-consciously disbelieve in Santa.

Or these,
What is it you actually do if you haven't used your senses nor your intellect?

"By discarding baggage." Such as?

Reflex wrote:The ways of pointing to the moon are many, varied and of greater and lesser value. ...

Not really, there's pretty much only one way to point at anything.

But whatever the method, it is up to the student to ignore the finger and turn their gaze to the moon. There's no other way. ...

Barring babies and children, who the hell stares at the finger in the first place?

Reflex wrote:Spinoza was a pantheist. For him, nature and God were the same. 'Panentheism,' on the other hand, literally means 'nature in God.' The difference is subtle but important. Many Christians think it's blasphemy to say so, but some parts of the Bible are in accord with panentheism: i.e., "For in him we live and move and have our being" to cite just one example. Or think of it as meaning that God is the light on the other side of a cosmic prism -- mind, perhaps. ...

Spinoza is a hard read but mine has him as this panentheist has his 'God' has more attributes than Nature.

Using this model, comparing disbelief in God to disbelief in Santa is demeaning not to the believer, but to the non-believer, whose only excuse is lack of insight with respect to he's or her own nature.

Have you ever been an atheist?

Still awaiting your reply to how or what you mean by self-consciously disbelieving in Santa?

Arising_uk wrote:Spinoza is a hard read but mine has him as this panentheist has his 'God' has more attributes than Nature.

He was also a determinist, which probably adds to the confusion as to what category he should be placed.

Have you ever been an atheist?

Yes.

Still awaiting your reply to how or what you mean by self-consciously disbelieving in Santa?

Thanks for the reminder.

Self-conscious disbelieving in Santa posits an argument as to why there is disbelief; it's not the same kind of disbelief that a rock has or the kind of disbelief atheists claim so as to avoid the difficulty that comes with having to explain their disbelief. Clearly, I have no respect for that kind of atheism and no reason to.

Arising_uk wrote:Not really, there's pretty much only one way to point at anything.

When my wife gives directions it's "turn left on this street, then right, then this, and then that." When I give directions, it's turn left here and make a right there. Honest to God! This really happened as we were giving conflicting directions to a cemetery!

Barring babies and children, who the hell stares at the finger in the first place?

Every atheist I've seen in this forum, including, if not especially, the author of the OP.

Reflex wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Reflex wrote: Spinoza wouldn’t call himself an atheist, so who do you think is the most credible witness? )

No people do not usually say things that would mean their immediate arrest and execution.

Ah, so you can get into his mind after 300 years, eh? Prove it..

I'm a student of history. I've no need to "prove it" to an ignorant cur.