The common thread that weaves through Atheism,Objectivism and Reductionism is the belief that reality can and must only be rationalized purely on the basis of its material or physical form.
Atheism posits that anything that is not sensed in any physical way (seen, smelled, tasted, heard and touched) do not exist in reality, specifically, the spiritual or mystical.
Atheism found recognition in a wide variety of other concepts including Objectivism and Reductionism.
Objectivism, alhtough humanistic in its basic axiom, posists that human kowledge and values are objective, i.e.they are not creation of his thoughts, but are determined by the nature of the physical reality (to be discovered, but not interpreted) by his mind. Objectivism rejects all forms of spiritualism or mysticism because they are "not rational", i.e. without evidence or proof either apart from or against the evidence of his senses.
Reductionism is the belief that reality is composed of a minimum number of kinds of entities. It occasionally goes to the extreme of proposing that all objects are reducible to a single substance, thus rejecting the notion that reality could in fact be composed of "matter" and "spirit"
What in effect these three lexicologic concepts do is divest man with his ability to conceptualize "realities" well beyond what is simply physical or material.
During the long evolutionary process (from Homo Robustus and our other hominid precursors) Homo Sapiens developed a brain that allowed him to be sensient, volitional and emotional....three qualities that separated him from all the other living objects on earth.
Atheism, Objectivism, and Reductionism aim to eliminate these three qualities that give Homo Sapiens his unique perspective on reality that is not merely grounded on the material. When that ultimately happens, it would start the devolution of Homo Sapiens to Homo Roboticus.
Please explain....am a little confused as to what "three" you were referring to.
reductionism, atheism and objectivism -- this is what science is--
Interesting thought... I never considered Atheism as having any basis in scientific fact.....
reductionism is when for example you know the ailments because of several symptoms
objectivism is experiential - to see is to believe?
atheism - in my own honest opinion, you can't reconcile science with the idea of theism, share what you think ...
False claim. Science is a method for understanding the world around us and has nothing to do with atheism, objectivism or reductionism.
Yeh, I got a belly laugh out of this too!
what makes you say "devolution"....people becoming more "thinking" is evolution, not devolution (did you make that word up?)
Nah, it means to go backwards in essential qualities, but you got the meaning anyway.
we're becoming more investigative & rational thinkers (well at least some of us are) and less superstitious. People used to believe that diseases were from curses etc (some people still believe this, even after microbes were discovered). People used to believe that those with epilepsy were possessed (hopefully that belief and associated stigma has gone).
I don't see how superstition for example, is an "essential quality".
Rumor on the street has it that Jefferson and Paine put a damper on superstition, or attempted to.
Baileybear: you are right... superstition is not part of the essential quality of being human.Being sensient, volitional, emotional ... and may I say being creative because of his sensient, volitional, and emotional nature is what separates humans from other earthly life forms. bECOMING A ROBOTICIZED VERSION OF HIS OLD "SELF" is what I would term devolution because I think that is regressing to an inferior lfe form.
I still don't know why you'd think that creating a "transhuman" would be regression?
I still don't buy the word "devolution." Regression? yes.
Hello Qwark: Thaks for dropping by. Finally a rationalist that I could have a rational discussion with. I suppose it's just a matter of semantics. You're right in that devolution might be too inaptly applied to what I was proposing.
If you tell me that in the process of being a "transhuman"(Homo Roboticus in my lexicon), Homo Sapiens does not lose his essential, basic, core "humanity" with the ability to put emotional value on the physical objects around him, then I would call that evolution, and not devolution(regression in your lexicon). I do remember you saying in a previous post that humans becoming extinct is the more probable outcome. Aren't you being a little bit pessimistic ?
"[A] Homo Sapien does not lose his essential, basic, core "humanity" with the ability to put emotional value on the physical objects around him"
...am wondering if you have read Platonic Realism...
If yes, what is your solution to the platonic picture?
I've never said that the human species will become extinct. I don't believe it will.
There will be a necessary, massive reduction in our numbers.
With the advent of "nano" technology and genetic engineering, I believe that a new species of man (transhuman) can be, will be created, IF we can last long enuf to produce it.
There is no problem, as I view it, in maintaining social skills and civility and there exists the possibility of deleting those genes which control predation. All of this would be considered to be man evolving according to his abilites.
I believe that there is no limit to the human capacity for learning.
I believe that man can, eventually, control his environment and ergo his evolution.
In ref to the future of we human animals, I am a pessimist...lol
this "necessary, massive reduction" - because of competition for resources? A culling by war, disease or similar?
"social skills" are more about manipulation than genuine concern for others IMO
If I knew that I'd be a real prophet.
Beats me how it's gonna happen, but it's bound to.
Take a good long look around this world and tell me that the majority of humanity isn't suffering, barely eking out a living. Many living as they did 6000 yrs ago. Now project this situation about 50 yrs into the future when human population has increased by about 3 billion. Add to that the fact that man is so fragmented in thought and nature that he can never function in a synergistic effort to guarantee the viability of the human species. Then add to that, universal ignorance and religious fanaticism....and what do ya have?
Ya have a species that cannot be controlled, cannot adapt and will wither on the vine.
Convince me otherwise.....:-)
It's a scary concept (to cull deliberately - is that what you mean - by war, bioterror or similar, or by a govt that decides to kill off large amts of people).
Yes, it does get harder for people to get by, there is more pollution, people are in other people's faces more and some people still churn out 10 kids. I have one child, that is really hard with with his tantrums etc, and I really was concerned about bringing a child into this world of madness. Guess people put their head in the sand, try to make their own life meaningful and hope they're dead before anything like this happens
I have a son and 2 grandkids. I hope they can live out their lives without pain and suffering.
The next 50 yrs look bad.
Things only look bad from where you stand - from the other side of the world here things look great. Outside of the great depression that western economies have constructed for themselves life goes on in a generally upward way.
Questions like the OP of this thread are irrelevant to life outside the oppressive bubble of psychosis that is the cesspit of religious and anti-religious thinking. Making complexities of detail just plays with the nonsense of making a metaphorical god real.
China man: Do you live in China?
"...from the other side of the world here things look great."
If you do live in China, things may look great to you but you constitute only 1/6th of the human population and your internal problems are great.
What effects the other 5/6th of humanity will also effect you.
You are enjoying a period in Chinese progress that is unequaled by any other time in your history. That progress, tho, is dependant upon the health of the USA and all other countries which trade with you.
If world economy is jeopardized, the future of China will suffer just like every other nation on this planet.
If there is a planned reduction in the human population, China will be involved.
Communist China takes full advantage of "capitalism." Those who rule in your country wish to remain in power and enjoy a wonderful quality of life just as your people are enjoying now.
If the world hurts, China will hurt.
Thanks for the reply.
I do live in China. And things here are on the up and will continue to go on and upward with or without the US. The western economic model that is set to punish low wage earners by keeping them scraping their @sses along the rough edge of poverty is deeply flawed - but the Chinese are not working to quite the same model.
I would guess that China can go on expanding its economy at around the curent rate for the next twenty years without the US; the internal market here is vast and also developing quickly - and then there are those people who the US pretty much ignores who could benefit from linking with China, and who are starting to rely on China - many African countries and all of Asia.
The idea that if the US goes we all do is just an internally propogated myth for you, along with the myth of unrest among the Chinese people.
Time certainly has the answers doesn't it.
I seem to remember chairman Mao grinning and saying (paraphrase) We welcome a war with the western world. When the smoke rises,only Chinese will be left. Helluva guy Mao.
Anyway, the world has shrunk in every way imaginable so that when 1 major economic giant is hurt, all the rest suffer.
I agree, China is a "giant" that has been awakened, but she is not a country immune to failure. If world economy fails, China will suffer along with the rest.
China is the only country on this planet that I would like to visit. I may do that 1 day.
I seem to remember that time as a period of threat and counter threat also - funny how a confident smile and a cocky reply can be worth a thousand missiles isn't it
Of course China is not immune to the effects - but they are doing things in a different way and this bypasses those failing economies and some of the rules the US has constructed for its own trade protection. Western economies rely on their own 'model' and construction of hte rules in it - if you throw a few of the rules away you get fair trade and new markets opening up.
You should visit China whilst the last few ancient bits are still here to be seen, development is making it all look much the same everywhere more and more each day. The people are lovely and it is still relatively cheap.
We are in the final stages of setting up a summer camp for 2011 here in Guilin Uni for learning Chinese in the mornings and out and about with Chinese opposite learning English in the afternoons and evenings - cheap as chips and living in the Uni in Guilin - you wanna be the first to sign up just email me I would recommend the four week stay, with trips to Beijing, Shanghai, Xi'an and a coipel other stops along the way, buy two weeks - get two weeks free !
Hello Baileybear: Excellent observation"....because of competition for resources......" Resources that I might add will become scarcier because of overpopulation. So add that to war, disease etc.
Qwark: Again another thought provoking post.. see you already have 5 replies on this alone. Thanks to an honest contribution to my original post.
Qwark: i agree with the idea that religious fanaticsm, as well as pure simple human vanity, could become a contributuing factor to man's eventual regression and extinction.
how are more and more people thinking for themselves becoming robots? My son has asperger's syndrome (as do I, but not as obvious), and we are both independent thinkers. Maybe AS is an evolved trait?
why not? Asperger's syndome is one of the milder forms of Autism.. I have several kids with AS in my practice and they are fully functional sensient, volitional, emotional and creative human beings with good social and interpersonal skills. Independent thinking has nothing to do with being a robot. It's the lack of empathy for and emotional ties to the objects one finds in his environment that robots cetainly are known for ... and that's the whole point of my post. If you become too objective, too material, too nihilistic... you lose your connectednes to your environment
the whole "lack of empathy" thing is not the same as the lack of empathy of a psychopath. We still have feelings - we just aren't all gushy about displaying them. Plus, I know that feelings are subjective and temporary. My son and I have sensory issues which means we get overwhelmed by our environment eg smells etc. It's not nice having a sense of smell that rivals a sniffer dog. I am naturally very creative, and I have acquired social skills, but social interactions are very draining for me.
Being not too emotionally tied can be a survival mechanism - it's how I cope with my parents never approving of me because I rejected the religion I was indoctrinated with. It also helps me not to worry about what people think.
Baileybear:: I certainly empathize and sympathasize with your daily predicaments occasioned by you having AS. And you expresses your feelings and emotions the way I would expect a member of Homo Sapiens would... not a member of Homo Robotibus.
I've heard many parents on AS forums say that the world would be a better place if people could be more direct and honest like those with AS. It took me years to cotton on to work politics and other forms of manipulation. The dishonesty and trickery people use to their own advantage both saddens and baffles me
In other words, that which is not of the alleged supernatural realm believers claim to exist.
False claim. First of all, atheism is a non-acceptance of the ideals of theism and does not posit anything other than that. As well, you cannot see, smell, taste, hear or touch gravity.
Considering no one has ever shown spiritualism and mysticism to have any relevancy or existence, there is no problem with the concept of Objectivism.
False claim, reality is in fact composed of matter.
"Conceptualizing" alternative realities does not mean they exist.
False claim, dolphins exhibit all three of those characteristics, for example.
You are fallaciously making a claim but have not made any connection therein and have not provided an explanation or evidence to support the claim other than base them on other false claims.
You of all people should know better than to use reductionist methodologies to try to deconstruct my arguments. You could use reductionistic logisms if you find that my arguments are non sequiturs.. ie the statement is not adequately prefaced by the statement before it, and not supported by the statement that follows it.
The point of my post should never be interpreted by its component parts. It should be taken as a whole. In case you missed what I was trying to say.. here it is. In the headlong rush towards rationalism and its tendency to NOT assign any meaning( which by definition is always subjective) to the objects that man perceives in the material world, are we not then building a society populated by "humanrobots"? Robots who are not capable of applying emotions to the objects they sense imemdiately in front of them.?
If I'm not mistaken, it was Socrates who said the immortal words: "The whole is not the sum of its parts". A robot "sees" an apple and would realistically conclude that is has form,shape, mass, color etc. etc.. all the physical attributes that make an apple an apple , and NOTHING else. A human sees an apple, and aside from sensing its physicality will occasionally invest in that apple some individualistic/emotionalistic interpretation of it... hhhm everytime I bite into an apple, I visualize the valley where my father used to grow apple trees, and I smell the hunger provoking odor from my mom's kithchen where she bakes her wonderful apple pies.
I don't know about you, but I'd rather continue to be a member of that flawed specie Homo Sapiens, than be a perfect specimen of the specie Homo Roboticus.
who said anything about evolutions making anything perfect? Things evolve regardless of your personal preferences. There are things that are good and things that aren't. For example, I can't keep up with all the changes of technology; there have been more changes in the last 50-odd years than the last 100-odd years. My guess is the ones that can keep up with the pace will survive and reproduce. This is despite modern medicine keeping more people alive nowadays that would have died a century ago (from complications of childbirth, depression, diabetes, infections etc - people still die from these things, but not as much now).
I fully agree with your conclusions. The human form is certainly not the apex of anatomical and physiological perfection. There are other life forms on earth whose anatomical construct and physiologic compositon are much better suited for survival in perpetuity, than humans, but we have the biggest brains comparative to our size, and our complex brains are what makes us unique in all of creation.
"The human form is certainly not the apex of anatomical and physiological perfection"...
Really? So, what life form on this planet exceeds the human characteristic of thought and transcending of thought into action?
And since when does "size" matter? The human brain encompasses a space the size of a large grapefruit, yet has the ability to sense and engage the universal limitations of the universe itself...
I'll post this from another thread and see if you can solve it:
I think you just made my point. You actually agreed that what makes humans unique are their brains.... now the rest of human anatomy and physiology are another matter.
as a doctor, do you accept evolution as well as creation? Humans are just animals with bigger brains who think they are superior to the other animals.
Of course I believe in Evolution... the earth's fossil record is more than enough to sway me to the evolutionary aspect of man's existence. That however, does not mean that I believe that man is pure matter and nothing else...I believe that man's nature also includes the spiritual, the mystical and the transcendental. If that doesn't jive with your rationalist view that anything that is not material does not exist... well so be it.
I can go my merry way believing "this"... and you can go your merry way believeing "that".
tell me more about the extent you believe in evolution - so macro and micro, but you believe a supernatural being brought it about? Just interested, because so many christians are in denial about everything to do with evolution
Baileybear: Unlike the rather cartoonish picture atheist paint "believers" in this forum on HubPages, I do not subscribe to all that was taught (brainwash in your lexicon) me in catechism.. My belief in the evolutionary process is total and complete, but it does not mean that I have to disregard my deepest perception( and thus a personal... not a religious belief) that there is more to humans than just the material, that all natural objects, animate and inanimate, (i.e not man-made) on earth project their own non-physical content that jives with man's calculation of them.
I think that the reason why I believe this way and not your way is because my neuronal connections took a different pathway from yours, thus my perecption is different from yours. It does not make your belief systems any more "true" or "untrue", rational or irrational, than my belief systems.
well, you sound a lot more open-minded than the majority of people that believe in the supernatural.
I don't rule out the supernatural completely - I've heard some things that are intriguing and have possible substance.
But I don't think the god in the bible was responsible for it all - not unless he's a god that enjoys death
Nonsense, if the component parts are based on false claims, the whole will be invalid, regardless.
Quite the contrary, it is religions that make robots out of humans. They all follow one program without question, never allowing any other data to break the programming, no capacity for individual thought, rationale of reason. Believers are the robots.
The fact that you are able to visualize and imagine does not preclude that fact that anyone, including atheists are able to visualize or imagine themselves.
As a believer, you are a robot following a program. In fact, your program dictates that Homo Sapiens are evil and corrupt, not worthy of the robotic program.
Belzeedad: I fully agree with your first and second paragraph. The second and fourth paragraphs are all jibberish...something Einstein(your avatar) would never be caught in.
I'm sure you'd like to believe atheists have no imaginations and are not able to visualize if it helps you to prop up your belief system and give you some sort of self-satisfaction of superiority. As I'm also sure you'd like to believe that the indoctrination programming believers receive does not make them anything other than robots.
Yes, I'm sure it does help you to believe you can just blow it off as gibberish without explaining yourself.
Beelzedad: If you believe that I believe what you are ascribing to me.. then you have not really understood the point of my posts. I do not believe that Atheist have no imagination, any more than I believe that I am superior to you or any one else. I have not been indoctrinated.. I have been educated, and as such I am free to believe that what I have been taught are not necessarily paradigmatic of all that is true... or untrue.
Then, it is obvious you have not explained yourself very well. I've pointed out the obvious flaws in your OP. If you feel others are not understanding you, this could be the reason.
Yes, I have heard that before from believers. For some reason, they feel it necessary to make sure we are under that impression.
In my world, jibberish means not contributing anything of substance to the discussion at hand. I did not mean to say that your statements are idiocies or lunacies.... although in some quarters your statements could be considered as such.
Yes, I do understand how believers often consider the representation of reality as idiocies and lunacies and how they also consider contributions to the discussion as gibberish if it does not coincide with their belief system. This is common a occurrence for believers who are unable to grasp concepts that do not include gods.
Of course there are flaws in my OP,,, but I don't believe they are fatal ones.
Just one small detail
If you had no imagination you would be a part of someone’s vegetable garden, or not on line.
What is it, exactly, that you mean by "devolution?"
This has no meaning for me. TY...:-)
evolve... move forward. devolve...move backward.
I wrote an "open" comment regarding "devolution."
Pls read it and respond. Ty :-)
"Evolve" means to become more fit for the prevailing environment. So IMHO devolve would mean to become less fit for the prevailing environment. Something can, and generally does, evolve without becoming 'better' in some absolute sense like complexity or morality.
Also, a great many Atheists are very holistic. Not subscribing to one kind of meta theory doesn't mean the rejection of all meta-theories.
evolve is to do with small changes, not just changes you rate as "better"
Okay, there are some very simple things wrong with this post. The first is that Atheism does not mean that something has to be sensed, Atheism is first and foremost the denial of religious and spiritual entities. It works on the basis of scientific exploration rather than the simple belief in things which cannot be proven.
I don't like it when it is postulated that atheism involves things such as 'the lack of emotion' since if anything, Atheism tries to make a person deal with their emotions, rather than something such as religion, which dissociates you from emotion, shifts blame and so forth.
The next part is sensient, volitional and emotional.
By Sensient, I assume you meant Sentient. Sentience is something that is if anything glorified by atheism, the whole point of Atheism is about self awareness and thinking about the world around you.
Volitional is about the power to make choices, choice is something which religion cracks down on, heavily, but something which atheism is all about, since it is about you using rational and logic, rather than following a cult.
And Emotional, well I kind of went over this earlier. If you are atheist you have to deal with your own emotions, you can't pass your emotions off on to an invisible being.
A different point of view but one that is well reasoned, well seasoned, and well positioned. Now if only all the atheist on HubPages will have the same talent for lacerating wit and evisecrating grit.... I'd be very happy indeed.
And about the spelling...sorry I'm a flawed member of that flawed specie Homo Sapiens.
Having said the above I still do not fully agree with some of your assertions. You are of course correct in saying that Atheism rejects OUTRIGHT the concept of and therefore the existence of God, without being burdened by any evidence to the contrary; other wise if they do contemplate any "evidence" then they are not being true Atheist, but rather Agnostics. Pure semantics you might say... but not to the true Atheist out there. ASSERTION#1 "It works on the basis of scientific exploration...." To this I say, Atheist have never presented any scientific evidence that God does not exist, because by definition Atheist believe that God does not exist irrespective of whether scientific evidence proves or disproves his existence. I have not read or seen any scientific journal (via proven scientific methodologies) that absolutely disprove God's existence. If you have please share it with me.
Assertion#2:"... atheism involves things such as the "lack of emotion....". My reading of Atheism, and this is more than adequately supported by the Atheist on HubPages, is that they equate emotionalism with irrationalism, and the absolute rationalist that Atheist pride themselves to be, they believe that anything that smacks of emotionalism, spiritualism, mysticism are irrational... thus the belief in God is irrational, and not believing in God is rational.
Assertion#3:"... the whole point of Atheism is is self-awareness and thinking..." .. To his I say You do not have to be an Atheist to be self-aware and thinking...you just have to be human ( and to be dolphin, as Belzeedad would argue).
Assertion#4: ... volitional is the power to make choices...which Atheism is all a bout. Of course being an Atheist is a choice, in the same way that being a believer is a choice. To equate religion solely with the belief that God exist is really being truly restricive of the real definition of that term. I know of a lot of people with "religious" beliefs but do not necessarily beileve in God. I also see a lot of believers in God who who do not necessarily follow any one particular or specific religious belief.
Assertion#5:"....you can't pass your emotions off on to an invisible being." I say, that is one of our more endearing traits as human beings... our ability to project our emotions to almost anything. Projection, as our Psychologist friends would say is one of many of our more developed defense mechanism in dealing with the "real" and "unreal" world.
Atheist have given me a grounding in many topics and areas in life.
Thank you for your post.
What's so laughable, guys? Care to share? This thread was certainly started for the purpose of a discussion, not to be disrespectfully laughed at.
Please don't take anyone starting a discussion about religion and spirituality for a troll without looking first.
This thread has such sweeping generalizations, implying and applying traits like this just looks like another religious apologist doing a soft sell to me, which it will soon prove up to be.
Dang.... and I was not even thinking of religion when I wrote the post. Persecution complex earnest hub?
Thanks for the insult, but time is on my side. It will show up if the thread doesn't just die.
Earnestshub: Your Freudian psyche is doing a number on you again. I am not in the business of insulting people.....like your own little deity, Mr. Knowles.
There you go with the freudian thing again. Another insult.
I don't do Freud any more than you do amputations with a stone axe.
Why mention Mr. Knowles? I think I know what is showing here.
Calling an "avowed" Jungian, a Freudian is, I must admit a terrible thing to do. Sorry.
I can see the meaning you are trying to insinuate, but what I also see is that you know very little about either Jung or Freud.
There ya go.
As I said earlier, a religionist with an agenda is what I see.
Of course I would have to post it under the religious topic... otherwise I would miss earnestshub's and bailybear's lacerating wit, and eviscerating grit. Anytime now, Mr Knowles and his band of merry atheist would emerge from their labyrinthine lair to pronounce that I am an insane, iditioc, irrational spritualist. Party time!!!!!!!!!!.
Bring out the slings and arrows, the vapid insinuations, the tortured rationaliztion, the rapid-fire castigations.
so you're a glutton for punishment then, just like we are, to visit these forums
AV, I will take that as a compliment - lacerating wit & eviscerating grit - must mean my writing is effective
No, just an observation on the human condition and how people miss their own intent.
To you, you didn't find anything funny. However, I am not you and found something funny in the OP. Do you ask everyone who laughs, why they are laughing? If not, then you have no need to be asking me.
Just a thought.
P.S.- I seem to have had this conversation with someone else just recently. And, now it seems to be occurring even more, since you have now questioned my reasons for laughing at something.
I am curious...what made you feel the need to say that? I mean, of all the things, you looked at it from a negative perspective, as if I was laughing at the person. If I find something funny, then I find something funny. Regardless, of who said it.
And, the fact that you took the tact you did here- is directly related to a lot of people's problems today. They don't know when to mind their business. They always have to be in to whatever someone does. I find it appalling and very offensive that people feel the "need" to know, what they really don't need to know.
I hope I cleared up my position on this topic and your post. Either way, do enjoy.
Cagsil, he wrote a long post in all seriousness. What did you find funny?
What made me say what I said? You know, it's totally anger. Anger that this forum is so stupid. That serious discussions can't live here. It's not about you. Don't tell me you're not bothered when your posts that mean something to you never really take off while silly games and stupid fights abound. I would've reacted the same if it had happened on your thread yesterday.
I figured I just settled that question. I guess if you missed the answer..um..oh well.
You might consider doing something about that. Just a suggestion.
What is stupid about it? Other than irrationality?
That's not true. A serious discussions can live anywhere as long as you have two rational thinking people talking to one another. However, you put a rational thinker together with an irrational thinker, then you're in for a spectacle.
I didn't think it was.
My other thread, from yesterday was an experiment. That's all. I am forever conducting experiments, whenever I post. It is how I learn about people. It doesn't bother me if someone doesn't understand the words I use, I am used to that happening. Many times I am forced over and over to repeat myself, because people are too busy reading things INTO what I say, and not reading the words themselves. It's an emotional knee-jerk reaction brought on less consciously active people.
Actually, Cagsil buddy, when you talk in forum, it's everybody's business. Sometimes people are genuine when they ask a question like 'what's funny'? They are curious not confrontational. Just an observation.
Actually, even in a public forum, not everything is public knowledge. Duh!
If I found something funny, I am under no obligation to tell anyone. Therefore, no one should have the need to ask.
On a side note- people need to know their place and what is for them to know and what is not. Ignorance is not or never justified.
Then laugh your laughter and don't type it. Otherwise someone might ask what's so funny. Especially if they have a preconceived notion about what that might be.
Anyway, I hope you do appreciate I don't give you the knee-jerk reaction. Don't take it personally. You're not the first one.
It shouldn't make any difference whether I type in a response. I am still under no obligation to reveal why, nor is there a need, even if the question arises.
It would be better if people were more consciously active about their own life and not worry so much about others.
another long forum post that should have been turned into a hub. that's just me.
I just hear how pretty the intelectuality of the words sound and then loose track of what was being said. But this is just a hilbilly saying that. Excuse my accent.
Nevermind. This is just a medical doctor blabbering something about life having a higher purpose and how atheism, objectivism and reductionism work to the effect that this be concealed.
Higher purpose for life? Yes, there happens to be one.
And You think he is referencing what?
I already know the correct answer to the question, but do you?
What on earth could be the higher purpose if there is no existence beyond life and beyond what's physical? That's what I can't comprehend.
The highest purpose you can have for your life is the betterment of humanity and/or it's survival.
If you set your purpose to anything other than that, such as a god, then you become selfish.
If you set your purpose of life, for only yourself, then you are selfish.
Therefore, it concludes that the only rational place to establish a purpose would be on the behalf of humanity's survival.
To set your purpose for humanity's survival, it's a selfless action.
Thank you. I'll tell you what I believe.
I believe that humans are non-physical beings. Souls. We have come to earth and received our body, because it is the trials and tribulations that we are exposed to in our lives that allow us to become better. In other words, we need to get physical in order to make the spiritual part of us stronger.
I see the further corroboration of this in the fact that the best people I know are the once that have taken the most pain in life. We can't fight abstract concepts. We can't know that something is wrong until we have experienced it. At least, we wouldn't fight it as vehemently. I know, you'll not agree. But I find that most people are this way.
You may encounter situations in life when your friend or loved one does something wrong. You have to decide which is more important, your love or your feeling of righteousness. Most people will say for instance that family comes first. He is my blood and no matter what he does I will defend him to the end. But this is not the right thing to do. This is how people get advantage over others and become corrupt and selfish.
In a religious book that has been around and respected for thousands of years (not the Bible or the Koran), God says righteousness comes first. In fact he urges his follower to kill his family members and friends in a battle, because they became corrupt and the nation suffers from this. He says that no harm is done to them this way, because there is nothing lost only their sins. Because the soul has eternal life. Do you know why the Japanese samurai could commit seppuku after losing their dignity? Because they thought that nothing was lost. They would live for ever. Same goes for world war kamikaze pilots and present day muslim suicide bombers.
Of course, we're not thinking in such drastic terms, but in a way religion helps you reconcile what you'd like to do and what feels right to do. It's an anchor for some to be able to stick to their values. It helps to accept the death or loss of a loved one, to face death yourself. It helps to be more 'selfless' in facing dangerous situations when it comes to having to defend what you believe in. All in all, it helps me lots of ways, and therefore whenever it strikes me that one attacks another's faith / belief in spiritual existence, call it what you will, with no grounds whatsoever in any way, shape or form - be it but a perceived mocking laughter - I will ask why. I'm not talking about those religious instigators who purposefully seek such a confrontation. I know it makes one sick to approach every situation with respect for the other person and then find that they have ulterior motives, but I think without this effort no intelligent discussion is possible. Sorry for the long reply. This was my vengeance.
Cagsill... so what do you think am I referencing at?
The purpose of the post was as you said, to initiiate debate. Thanks for being so perceptive. If some people find the post funny or inane so be it.
Most often I find truth funnier than fiction; I must say I laugh out loud when I read this.
Atheism posits that anything that is not sensed in any physical way (seen, smelled, tasted, heard and touched) do not exist in reality, specifically, the spiritual or mystical.
How I can tell about deep truths about my grandma is by what topics or issues she would avoid discussing. Same with many atheists in area of spiritual or mystical and often enough imagination,
If I said love is when two people are stronger together than apart.
Often an atheist would answer back and say, love is an emotion.
I'm spiritual sided. Rather than religious
Often an atheist would no your religious. (Lump me in)
Many good details, over all its maybe a little rigid, stereotype and too serious.
Yet who would want an MD to joke about their death.
This whole discussion is extremely pointless due to your lack of true knowledge. I think that this describes the original point quite nicely: "temporary constructs of a feeble human intellect trying desperately to justify an existence that is without meaning or purpose."
Not believing that fiction is fact or myth is reality does not require a lack of imagination or capacity to imagine, create or understand life. Quite the opposite in fact. An open mind has room for all sorts of responses to any given situation.
No person should be labeled an atheist with all it's negative (to religionists) connotations simply because they do not believe a 2000 year old tale is the meaning of life.
I did not label all atheists, I did say often by my own experience. Some atheists do surprise me with original and sometimes unique thoughts. The proof of reality is that Religion runs the world and leads crusade. Imagination (negative or positive) leads and skepticism follows. Spiritual leads and science follows. Heart leads mind follows and so on…
I would laugh a lot more , if religious fiction was not so much of our reality.
I too have a stronger disagreements with ancients’ spirituality dictatorship than with Atheists. It’s not spiritual to blame its just the great lack of science and skeptical to shortly follow every step. Spiritual, I mean by the 99% of the unknown World and Universe. Spiritual and evolution are the greatest unknowns for both spirit and science. Imagine if spirit and science married, they would be much stronger together than apart
Really ? I beg to differ. Being overly emotional and religiously deluded you are restricting yourself to social needs and the personal growth that doesn't leads to exploration of the universe. You can feel good and happy by assuming you own these qualities but that's just one more step to delusion. Masking reality makes you go back to age when there was homo-sapien's great grand family used to burn scientists, love to preach and make chaos against skepticism.
Leaving Religion out of this.
Can you imagine Science leading and spirituality following into the near future, reality
No. I see facts as is.
Spirituality and fantasy world only consume your imagination cells time.
If only you could only use your ego self, mind and all you’re other senses.
If you could get funded from 8/10 or 9/10 spiritual believer to financial physical space ship
If you could travel in your spaceship to every part of the 99% unknown world and universe.
If you could then check all fact checks, under every rock on every planet and every star.
If you check every fact finding possiblity to check out if God or spiritual exist
After all done. Then tell me God and spirituality realty can’t possibility manifest in to your ego self or conscious
Word Play #1
and why is that added in this #1 ?
We can check all the facts that we approve, if some people come out of laziness and take pain to search for details.
Did you checked it before making claims ?
After all word salad and claim for the sake of priest style preaching, have you took any pains to come up with proof ?
A.Villarasa assuming Atheism, is Objectivism, Reductionism- is an oxymoron of words and a big conflict with the atheist on this thread.
Science co exists with spiritual. Spirit Leads our curious into that 99% unknown World and Universe, shortly followed by science. Imagination leads our perspective of reality and logic. Knowledge has limits but your imagination does not. Imagination is an act not of reason but of intuition, and daring.
Science is too lame to lead with. People hungry to know, in which is to know the human world history and how the Universe works, it turn makes us into a blind over ego world. Without enough back up of science, it brainwashes us into following a super nature, med evil times out dated spirituality and the translations is often wrong. Regardless; it’s designed to keep us in order by the powers of control by the Religion darkness.
Their Religion God lives in the dark.
Before that prove the existence of spirit and spiritual medium. Anyone can claim any random utopia and claims its coexistence with science. Prove your base first.
really ? i have never seen you backing up your claims.
Imagination has to link up with something that exists in order to make further dissection a part of reality.
Contradiction. Your imagination has limits as it is based on your knowledge -stored inside brain.
Imagination for the sake of it is childish. For example, life in medium where pink invisible unicorns live happily with humans and guided by yeshua.
If you were 1% strong enough in logic and reasoning, i could have chosen to agreed with this statement.
people who worship science have their god in darkness and that's why they use communication equipment instead of communicating with spiritual medium, eh ? yup.
My life is 50% about myself and 50% about everyone else, my closest thing to utopia to be able to serve myself well first to enable to serve others well. The world will change its self; I just see it slowly moving to a spiritual age.
My proof-I’m a Co creator with God as Science technology is indistinguishable from magic. Its by my own experience being successful in life and is my claim to reality. In the order of desire, attitude, focus and natural talent, talent being the least important of the four, to many religion talent is most important from their God.
Every thing major produced in my life was all onced imagined, first. Like reaching for the stars from the unlimited spiritual unknown and what ever comes down to earth, is what been achieved. Your based knowledge is the known within your ego self conscious, that 1% compared to the 99% unknown world and Universe.
Your imagination is the daring to explore that 99% spiritual unknown world or Universe (or what ever you want to call it) Science backs it up. I prefer ethic rather than morals; and have a high degree of disagreements with Religions ethic toward humanitarian and natural environment issues.
Good questions, It made me think about it deeper.
God, spirit and evolution live much in darkness.
Your view towards universe and relationship with our own species has nothing to do with proof for spiritual medium or spirit.
Yeah sure, and Cheryl cole is my wife. it feels good when we claim something without proof isn't it ?
Your claim from personal experience, emotions and fantasy has nothing to do with reality and facts about universe. You have to come out from this and see it from skeptical angle.
Okay for a change i want to explore spiritual media in order to explore universe. what you can suggest me ?
The most common thread to master any field or area, like spirituality is investing 10,000 hours into it; I already have 80,000 hours invested in the art and entertainment. In which has been the greatest perceptive and persuasive tool since arts and culture began 30,000 years ago. Where different countries languages of words do not express as well as visual do of one’s culture. One of my own studies is 90% of the people I meet do not like their job for most waking hours of their life. You can not master life unless you love what you do. This is one form of spiritual enlightenment I’m working on.
I can’t imagine leading skepticism over imagination or science leading over spirituality. I guess your aware there is 3 times the books on spirituality than science, that one area to start. Einstein said, studying the world and Universe is like a three year old in the largest library in the world. He also said without religion the world is lame, without science the world is blind
If your attitude toward the vast majority of other people view of spirituality is negative, I don’t how much these books can help with an open mind to boot.
A newly recognized demographic phenomena has come to the fore. Known as the Cultural Creatives, These are the people who are concerned about the sustainability of the planet, about creating and maintaining harmonious relationships, who are active in peace and social justice causes, as well as engaging in personally meaningful spiritual practices and healthy self-expressive lives.
The reason there are more spiritual books than science is because people avoid complexity and in depth discussions. I'm from a country where you can see 7 out of 10 spiritualists every 100 mts. I can assure you that i'm aware of more gibberish spiritual talks than you do. Be it osho, buddha, ravishankar or many others from this land.
I don't go with Einstein's quote or in fact anyone's personal quote when it comes to facts. Just because he said that world will be lame without religion doesn't make it a fact, i'm happy person living without religion, rituals.
My attitude is skeptical towards universe and if people throw some BS in air claiming it as facts, you know how much i've to invest my time. If we talk in terms of results, i'm yet to see any from spiritual practices. If you think i need to put some light on any book, feel free to let me know.
People are like the Universe, always contracting and expanding because we are all connected. Its seem your in the expanding mode.
For most part I don't need self help books, I just help myself. Most notes comes from everywhere, did some moves into the beyond from Dr Wayne Dryer books.
It’s funny; the greatest advances to my new levels came from the greatest traumatic times. From the most horrible people I’ve ever met. They show me where my greatest weakest are, where my skeptic friends fear to tread. By working more on my greatest weakness than my strength, it makes me stronger over all and better to serve other.
Don't rule out the horrible people of the religious right, it took them a lot of imagination to rule and lead the world. Just don't climb into bed with them, continue to sort out the BS and the unethical parts that don’t relate to you. You are in the same boat (the world) like it or not anyways.
You became strong because you relate your weakness to the events and from there you try to fill the gap for it. It has no spiritualistic connection. For example, i'm doing exactly like you to concentrate on few weakness to avoid getting stagnated on some points of my life. Point is here you're not skeptic, spiritualistic, theist or atheist when you do this process. Because getting over your fears, re-learning, adjusting is how our feedback mechanism in brain works,it just needs a trigger to get back on track.
On many occasions, imagination stops people from making progress. You need to relate imagination with reality in order for it to work. For example, i came across many theist people who think we are not supposed to worry about environment, fuel sources because they assume god will take care of it. But when i mentioned that natural oil reserves took million years to get into the form as they are now and none of the empty mines or oil wells are re-filled again by god. Then their imagination comes on ground of reality. Then they just try to reconnect their delusion of god to justify the cause. You know, sometimes imagination takes us nowhere if we fail to relate it with reality. We're free to imagine spiritual world, god or whatever we want but if we're unable to give proof for it then we have no right to force our delusion on others. Because no matter what happens there is stroke of reality, it hurts bad.
No way, imagination stops people from making progress. Yet do think their many people who have sick or negative imagination and on top of that they do not shortly followed by skepticism. Skepticism is part of your conscious or I say to them always consider.
Here is thread I wrote earlier
WARS HELL ON MOTHER EARTH
Since religion works hand and hand with world politics and tools militarily. Is it a central belief amongst the religion that nature was created by God and for an example the Bible as presenting human dominance over nature? Are the attitudes not regarding nature as a central importance, among our historical cultures. We are crippling ourselves by War budgets over poverty budget. In North America a CEO in the 1970s made 25 times more than the average person wage, today its 350 times greater.
Both my daughter and I as artists and deeply care for future generations. Not so long ago, half my art business was in the USA. One project I refused a war project for GW Bush, based on my ground rule of not to harm or promote harm. Since then, the USA refused all my work permits into the USA. Are humans considered superior to other forms of life based on how we treat the environment by human carelessness and greed? Iraq since 1970s has become an environmental cesspool as other environmental crisis now encompasses the entire Earth.
Not one Iraqi person has been known to attack an American on USA soil. Yet Iraq claims 900,000 have been killed on their soil. USA has half the military budget of the world combined. USA combined with Russia has 90% of the Nuke war heads in the world. Making the greatest threat to mankind is nuclear war and natural environment crises.
Will capitalist production be first over nature always? Wail the rich and media prefer war, wail most people do not?
You have no idea about how some people are imaginative on particular concept and paranoid about another. And that's not skepticism but fear that makes them restless about getting their comfort disturbed. For example, people who opposed LHC and praised religious BS are not new to you and me. People who stagnate development in the name of god are not new to us, we see them all around.
In most countries Religion does not lead anymore. Science - does! We are immortal because we live in our children, that's why we have to protect them and their children. That's why we have to save our Planet from distruction for our eternity - for life and happiness of our children and their children. A person can be an atheist and spiritual at the same time. Spirituality is not equal to religiousness.
I think Mr.A.Villarasa is very immature and needs to learn some things and he will, I am sure, he is not stupid.
I will protect MY FAMILY no matter what in front of the whole world whether they right or wrong till the day I die. And I think it's the only right thing to do.
What Mark Knowles has to do with all of it?
And I know why Cagsil laughts.
Today somebody stepped on the toe of my temporary on this Earth entity - oh, boy, it hurts!
Science is like a branch on the tree of life. To some degree it is incorporated into everything. The most Government is science base, but the true leader in history are the people that change things by 80% consciousness.
Who are those 80% ????
Homegirl: Sorry but try as hard as I could, I really did not get what you were saying on your post. Roving thoughts of a disjointed mind?
IF!!! ...man were to "succeed" as a species, there isn't a doubt in MY mind that he will also "succeed" in genetically engineering a new species of "human."
This "human" could fit the definition of "transhumanism."
I find no problem in this concept. It, in fact would, could be referred to as "roboticus." Again, in fact, would just be "man" being profoundly involved in his EVOLUTION. It would be caused by "conscious necessity."
The word "devolution" has no meaning for me.
Evolution does not reverse.
An inability to "adapt," has but 1 consequence i.e. "extinction." Evolution ceases for the extinct, that's an obvious conclusion.
As we are going, we will not reach the "tranhumanism" state of our evolution.
Mankind will not become extinct, but there will be a massive reduction in human population and, consequently, a regression to the "stone age" level of life, where man may be mutated into unrecognizable creatures.
Qwark: I did answer your question on a post above... i certainly have no arguments with what you are proposing except the part about humans regressing into a "stone age" level of life. I think that might be too pessimistic.... it does not mean that it could not happen though.
Unless some kind of virus will come and sweep us out like a mold on the face of Earth, I do not see any reason in regression. We are smarter than that.
...lol I said "IF" we exist.
There are, obviously, so, many extant reasons why we may not make it past the next 50 yrs, that it seems to me that they should be obvious to any student of human evolution. Not one (1) of them is a "virus."
As a species, Homegirl, we are in very great jeopardy of a very real human reduction within the next 50 yrs. :-)
Qwark!!!...You're back...greetings from your fans...
ahhhh...be more specific please...
Yes! I was banned again for 3 days.
I, evidently, am not allowed to express myself freely. I never cuss anyone out! I express my thoughts BLUNTLY and honestly. I NEVER denigrate a persons character, but, it seems that if I disagree, passionately and express myself, passionately, the "sensitive" consider this to be "insulting."
I am seriously considering quitting the forum....although, it is entertaining.
Should I just consider the source and continue?
Thanks for the WB....:-)
Yeah…consider the source and swallow hard…I looked back on you’re comments and detected the incident that got you disconnected…It was you’re use of the word “stupid” while referring to religionist or Christians, which ever.
...really? lol...golly! That's how I feel! Stupidity is expressed by so many!
Is the the USA? I can get banned for saying some folks express themselves "stupidly?"
Ok! I'll "tippytoe" around from this point forward and be sure not to use the vile word "stupid."
Ty my friend...lol
I'll grit my teeth and continue on for a while. :-)
Oooops! I used the "foul" word in this response! Am I gonna get banned again?....:-)
I'm off to the gym. If I'm not banned when I get back, I'll come back on...lol :-O)
It has to be personal, qwark. If you say "so many" or "some folks" are stupid, it's not good enough to get you banned.
I just used the word as a "general" term. I never EVER, EVER, get personal with those kinds of words.
I can't imagine what I said to get banned and "the office" doesn't tell ya why, so I'm just guessing.
Appreciate the info.....:-)
I get repeatedly told I'm bitter/angry/hate god etc - these are wrong and I see these as attacks on my character. Are these enough to complain about? I think if it's good enough to pick on earnest and quark over petty things, it may as well go both ways. I hope those that say "all atheists are evil" and "all atheists follow satan" get banned too if that's the case. People are much to oversensitive if someone says something they disagree with, but if they're going to gang up on people, they may as well as get a taste of their own medicine
I think I'm being targeted - haven't been banned yet, but I'm being accused of "ridiculing and mocking" for putting forth my opinions (which don't involve personal attacks). Oh, well, take it as a compliment that your writing is effective and it scares them - all they do is attempt to "gag" those who don't agree with them
I have to keep in mind that small minds are chronically paranoid.
I'll hang in for a while longer.
I hope ya make it ok...:-)
I must seriously be a glutton for punishment. I wrote a hub a few weeks back about what I thought of these forums. I didn't think I'd be back, but I can't stay away! Guess it's because the things people say on here are so funny I nearly split my sides laughing (and I'm a rather serious person!)
What concerns me is that you can be reported when there is no reason, yet report a religionist for a real personal attack and guess what? NO ban.
I guess it's because they claim their fairy said it not them and that's a valid excuse.
Maybe we should start sentences with "My fairy told me" then go on to say "You are a low-life nutter who should be taken away from your children and family so that you don't indoctrinate them with a pile of old myths that make no more sense than claiming you have Jack's beanstalk in the bottom of your garden."
do you actually get told what your "crime" is, or do they just believe the tell-tales?
They kindly sent me a link to the offending post. It was not abusive, and a simple response. I queried it and heard nothing.
After my ban I saw several abusive comments, flagged 2 of them, and these angels are still here. Something smells!
maybe one of the moderators is in on their gang. I've been told by someone here that the extremists have their own little group
I sincerely hope not. I have real reservations now, and even considered writing elsewhere from now on. The funny thing is that those who succeed in getting others banned are often new, with one hub on the lord jeebus, write a new thread every other day and only live for one forum. The religious forum naturally, so they can flog the fairytale again and again. Nauseating!
Hardly enhancing the experience for those who came here to write, or helping hubpages to make any money.
...I have never been told why I was banned.
Just told I couldn't post for a certain number of days,
Did you do that Earn?
if ya did, did they tell ya or did ya just get a run-around?
They answered the first email with the link to the post I was banned for, then .....nothing. No reply to my query as to why what I said got me banned. I still can't understand how this works. Someone suggested they get together to get us banned. If so, why can't hubpages ban them for doing that?
oh well, time to give them a taste of their own medicine. I haven't reported anyone before (apart from spammers). I've warned one that if they carry on with the personal insults (which they deny), then I will report them
...good question Earn and I couldn't agree more!
This is HubPages, you get banned for breaking the terms of service.
"As a species, Homegirl, we are in very great jeopardy of a very real human reduction within the next 50 yrs. :-)
Or am I talking to myself?
You claim you did not even think of religion when you started this topic!
Then you indicate that you were hoping to bait people on what you said was a non-religious thread by placing it here.
Mark and others are smart enough to see that you expose your intent, and others have taken you to task for the same apparent deception. Did you miss seeing your own agenda or did you lie about it?
As I prognosticated, this thread exposed itself for what it is.
It does seem that to disagree is to abuse religious zealots!
I guess that's how they start all their wars. Same reasoning. No need to take in any new information once you know goddunnit.
Stop it already earnestshub....As i said, your paranoia is getting tiresome.
I find your conversations inane and full of self aggrandizement myself!
except we aren't being paranoid - just happen to be aware of the lengths some people go to in order to "gag" others that speak sense
"Finally a rationalist that I could have a rational discussion with."
Can't help yourself eh doc?
Earnestshub: The obsessive-compulsive in me I guess. You know all about that psychopathology don't you? being a Jungian and all...
Post Jungian please! The good thing about being able to read what he wrote is that we can move forward.
Carl Gustaf got a lot of things nailed down with empirical evidence, but as in most areas of understanding, the students outgrow the teacher.
Even Jung was not a Jungian!
We can all know more than Jung or even Einstein now that we have their work and that of others who have built on it.
I actually like the topic. It fits well with my experience of consciousness being beyond the ordinary mind - which I have no doubt is correct. Plus the knowledge of subtle bodies - ie separating the physical body from our life force, then life force from the layer of thoughts and emotions, and going into other states of consciousness that are beyond our 'physicalness'
It's unfortunate that anything that is not black and which for the mind is labelled "god". I don't give a rats tail about this 'god' with arms and legs. This discussion does not have to lead into the topic of god just because the subject of evolution and de-evolution is brought up. Just because you currently don't understand it, doesn't mean the default answer is god. That is a cop out.
Anything that is not understood by the rational mind is also labeled bullshit. I call this closed mind syndrome. The ability to not get out of the box (the little mind) and blindly follow science because it's supposedly has all the answers (which it does not) is laziness and a lack of knowledge. Knowledge by the way is about experience, not just text book knowledge.
Having an experience that is metaphysical but not understood/comprehended by the rational mind does not by default mean the answer is God.
The topic of materialistic reductionism is in essence a topic for the rational mind. And the rational mind is very limiting.
Right on Jewels... finally someone who understands that the post was not to expose Atheism,Objectivism and Reductionism as invalid belief systems. They are not.
The post only tries to initiate debate about man's true nature, the point being that even if one does not believe in a God or gods, one must also sense that there are something more about humans and the objects in their sorrounding that are purely material.
Initiating debate is usually done by leaving a few questions open, or God forbid, even asking them in an overt manner. You delivered your argument and then made a conclusion condemning the above three as something that would ultimately lead to the de-evolution of humankind. You can provoke a discussion this way, but it's far better to ask a straight question that doesn't invite misunderstanding. This is my opinion and this is also how it's by convention.
yeah, I sort of thought the question was expecting a particular response, not open to see what crops up
Hi Haunty: I do agree, but I found out that provocateurs are better at inviting passionate discussions than questioners.(is there such a word?, I don't want to be caught inventing a word that is not in Webster's)
"Rational mind is very limiting"??? That's strange. I feel like my cat when he swallows too many hair balls...
I read all the comments.
There is no such thing as an atheist.
There are those who haven't thought this out to a logical conclusion and proclaim themselves to be atheists. Their conclusion is illogical and unreasoned.
Even if you were right about the logic - and you are not - a person who does not believe in gods is an atheist, whether you think they should be or not.
I am an atheist and have been since birth.
Being born an atheist is that anything likes being born gay? You are born with your first fears, fear of loud sound and fear of falling, everything else is learned.
It is not logical or reasonable to prove god dose not exist. You can not be 100% sure, so your mind will over focus on that doubt.
On the other hand God can not be proven in physical forum, only manifest into our ego self or ego group or lead to worst, an over ego world
An atheist, by definition, denies the existence of god/s...period.
When you can define, in terms other than opinion and conjecture, whatever this "god thing" is, that you deny the existence of, I'll go along with ya. Until then all you are is an "aconcepttheist."
There is nothing to deny the existence of, other than a concept.
There are no "Atheists."
Maybe its uncommon sense due to only 3% is self proclaim atheists.
The closest thing to an atheist is when one claims they are an atheist. Most of these long lists of great atheist’s in world history I see are less than half self proclaim atheist.
Self proclaim atheist is as committed as hard core Christians are.
I get along better with people some where in he middle.
It must be thirty years since I last heard THAT nonsense.
I am not interested in sophomoric word play.
Hey! Yo, brotha man. Pc, hows this for word play. No U-turns on this highway, you should take the next exit and get on the northbound. That's where the truth is found, good buddy.
Evidently you have no desire to accept reason when it's offered.
Pls Tell me what this god thing you deny is. Don't offer me a dictionary definition because it offers nothing but opinion.
I called myself a very "strong" atheist for years until I finally understood there's nothing to "deny" but the concept.
If you wish to refer to yourself as an atheist, NP. It just relates to me that logic and reason founded upon "fact" doesn't impress ya.
Please enlighten us, show which parts are nonsense.
I agree qwark, not believing in a god does not mean one is an atheist.
It requires nothing more than common sense.
Common sense would make most of us agnostic.
What about good sense?
Good sense may be better, as there is nothing common about sense, in fact it is very uncommon. What about uncommon sense?
Good sense - sound practical judgment or good sense can reach beyond. I learn and live with common sense along the way.
Common sense is not so common like Religions has common sense due to the number of 8/10 of the people.
Uncommon Sense provides uncommon thoughts from uncommon people to help develop conceptual thought skills sufficient to challenge common sense.
Maybe you have uncommon sense; you do have a good sense of humor, which is important dealing with on this forum. I don’t know to what degree you have good sense.
I don't know how much good sense I have either, but I have been paid US$1,600 a day for my capacity to sort fact from fiction.
What blows me away about religion is it's denial of it's own words, and the mass of contradictions in the NT and OT that go unchallenged, un examined and ignored by those who propagate their religious beliefs from it.
Beelzedad: If you believe that I believe what you are ascribing to me.. then you have not really understood the point of my posts.
ascribing to ..... I've been wanting to say this to a few folks on here. I'm bad, and probably outta line.
does anyone really use this and other terminology that I have seen on this and some other threads? while having a real conversation??
Maybe its just my upbringing from up in the hills.
No offence meant. BUT .. Sounds like you are talking in front of the professor and down on the common folk.
but maybe I'm too sensitive. Goard head on wiff it!
if ya please.
From my prospective ... If ya wanta get a point across to everyone ... need to keep it simple.
Talk on my level and I might want to talk back. And be more inclined to hear what ya got to say.
Sorry if I am outa line and am not your target for whatcha got to say. I be gone now!
I reckon believing in a god is self evidently insane.
If there were any "gods" they certainly would not be the neurotic little loser in the bible!
Omni-everything, yet so insecure that it demands to be worshiped and threatens one and all who disagree with it!
Does that sound like a god to you?
From the beginning, man has put all his faith in man. The truth of this is entirely clear. Do those who laugh at the changeling understand what a changeling is. A CHANGELING is: First. The ILLUSIONIST comes second, and last of all? Grail Knight. Is there hidden meaning here? No.
Do I believe in some strange thing? No. Is my truth where truth begins and ends? No. Time. Time explains the changeling. Evolution explains the illusionist, because truth begins and ends with LOVE.
Clear to who?
I hate to burst your bubble Druid Dude, but people have been putting faith in a god, much more than they have put faith in humanity.
I'll agree with Love as a crucial element, but it's not the only factor.
There is no love in religious tomes, only hate and "conditional love" which is not love at all!
Earnest. Can you read? If you can't, I can suggest a good tutor. Obviously, you can't. TOMES. TOMES Hmmmm. You do know, of course, that the only reason a person substitutes a word for a word with the same number of letters, that person is trying to sound like he has actually read a book. Besides, your statement says that anyways. Not trying to be insulting, but I do think you are an intelligent guy. I'm just trying to be honest for your own edification.
What are you on about? I doubt you could suggest a good tutor or anything else that was good.
I said religious tome and that is exactly what I meant to say.
I'd suggest you buy yourself a dictionary.
If you want to be insulting find something worthwhile.
This is pathetic!
In Australia being well insulted is a sign of great friendship.
I know I live in Perth for 6 months. Mate.
I would be happy to see a decent insult, this one sucks!
My twin sister lives in Perth, I have trouble with the number of yobbos Perth seems to attract myself!
I was there in the 70s, I do remember a lot of beer. A lot of danceing because back then the men did'nt dance in Perch, where I love it.
Lots of fun.
I was there in the 70s, I do remember a lot of beer. A lot of danceing because back then the men did'nt dance in Perch, where I love it.
Lots of fun.
From the beginning of man, where most of us believe it was 180,000 years ago or less.
Your partly right, love has been the most important behavior.
The bible of the value body of many people today is over 2000 years old. Religion, Military and more recent Politics, I have little faith and trust in as they have protected every known evil known to mankind. I do have trust in 80% of the consciousness of the people, in which are the true leader of mankind.
Castle, my MAN! Hi ya! Here, let me take me helmet off. SEE? Tis I, the King, and I have returned with the GRAIL! You do remember the Grail, do you not? I have returned, for I have it in my hand.
Oh Lord of the Grail. "Precious, precious, precious!" cried. "My Precious! O my Precious!"
For that, you take one step back. What makes you think masturbation is a sin? That statue of the three monkeys? That's what they caught the fourth monkey doing. They had never seen that trick before!
It not a sin anymore, there is website call jerk off for Jesus.
You can do it, but you must be thinking about Jesus, it makes it OK
Considering 98% of men do it, it just too gay for me to imagine
I prefer the story about immortal jellyfish that lived a 100 time longer than Genesis. The Bible has no record of the 95% of the species missing before or after the time of the Ark.
In known reality in my eco village community in Belize. The average age here lives three times longer than Jesus did.
To me, that’s proof of a higher consciousness on earth, living today.
Where can I find out more about the jellyfish please? I would be very keen to know more about this.
I thought you wanted this post to end sooner than later. You posting so many of your inanities just keeps it going. Counterintuitive?
Or do you just love the first OP to death? HHmmmmmm which should make you a bonafide religionist.
Did you call earnestshub a Scientologist?
If you did
That make as much sense as saying atheist are Objectivism,Reductionism.
Just Google immortal jellyfish will you find dozens of sites
earnestshub are you Scientologist in disguise?
I was not addressing you, your comment is pointless to me.
A very interesting topic you have started here. Your position seems to be associated with the idea that philosophical materialism or reductionism necessitate the ending of human purpose, meaning and imagination. Hence the transition from "Homo Sapiens" to "Homo Roboticus." This is a total non-sequitur, common though it is among many religious believers.
Deepak Chopra expressed this sentiment in a debate I saw between him and atheist Michael Shermer. He could not deny the obvious correctness of scientific findings, but nevertheless expressed discomfort and dissatisfaction with an approach that sought to "make everything into graphs." The idea being, if love and imagination and creativity can be reduced to "numbers, charts and graphs" then they cease to have any deeper meaning, and thus we become robots.
This is a non-sequitur because just because we can measure and predict something does not mean it loses its purpose. The cardinal flaw countless theists (and many non-theists) make is associating purpose/ meaning with God or the supernatural.
You must understand, a godless universe is not a purposeless universe. Purpose/ meaning still exist but they simply have a different origin. They originate with us. In other words, it is human beings who create and identify purpose in life. We attach meaning and purpose to various things that make us happy, more fulfilled, satisfied, etc. That does not mean we cannot reduce those things. It does not mean we cannot pull back the curtain and see what's happening behind the scenes. Indeed, our purpose becomes STRONGER in the absence of God.
Does a theater performance become any less satisfying or meaningful to you when you realize the actors and producers and lighting crew are working behind the scenes, and paid for their work in the context of an economic system? No, to the contrary, avid theater lovers become MORE impressed and enjoy the experience even more when they understand the effort, dedication and philosophies that lie behind the actors, singers, dancers, writers and patrons.
"What in effect these three lexicologic concepts do is divest man with his ability to conceptualize "realities" well beyond what is simply physical or material."
How do they divest man of any such thing? Is the modern man LESS able to conceive new realities than the medieval man was? To the contrary, my friend, our imaginations are yet MORE fertile than they have ever been, thanks to our massive understanding of material reality, brought to us by the rigorous reason and skepticism of the scientific approach.
"Atheism, Objectivism, and Reductionism aim to eliminate these three qualities [sensient, volitional and emotional]"
This is a complete misreading of these ideas. They do not seek to "eliminate" any such thing. Rather, they seek to put them in their proper place. Emotions, imagination, desire, passion--these things are very important for the human experience. But their place is not in the realm of understanding the physical universe. The proper way to read a science textbook is not to recite it as poetry, any more than the proper way to read a poem is to reduce it to its literal parts!
The scientific method, objectivism, materialism, reductionism--these things have their place in expanding our understanding of the universe and ourselves. Emotions, passions, desires--these things have THEIR place in understanding ourselves, and especially pushing our dreams and our goals to higher levels. The two groups feed off of one another, they do not contradict each other or negate each other. Atheism, objectivism and reductionism have contributed to the *evolution* of Homo Sapiens, not the devolution.
Your post is an absolutely enthralling read. Since I need to go back to work right now and take care of those darn kids with snotty noses and pesky cough ( 11/9/10 0945hr. California time), I will have to re-read and re-read your post and come up with similarly well constructed digressions..... in the hope of trying to de-construct your lacerating and eviscerating debating points.
Wish me luck.... and my kids will be crossing their fingers too.
Thank you, sir! I look forward to your response.
I'm back, and if you must ask... my patients are doing quite well. Nothing than an excellent( I'm allowed to toot my horn ain't I?) pediatrician could not deal with.
As a point of clarification...I am assuming that you have read not only my original post ( OP), but also the succeeding posts, written during my discussions with various hubbers who cared to comment about the OP's laughability, inanity, and non sequitur-ity.
If you have not, kindly humor me by reading all of my more substantive posts as I don't want to be reduntant. If after doing so, you still find fatal flaws in my arguments, then do say so and I will post my counter-arguments to your post.
Thanks.,,, and Hasta luego.
Glad to hear your patients are well. I rechecked the earlier posts, and after deftly avoiding the off-topic and at times hilarious digressions (ernestshub seems to have figured prominently in this area), I don't see much in the substantive posts that address my points.
Good Evening Secularist10:
Allow me to be a reductionist (for a little while at least) in answering your more substantive assertions, in their "stand alone" components.
Point #1: "your position seems to be associated with the idea that materialism and reductionism necessitates the ending of human purpose, meaning, and imagination"
What I said was that rationalism in its headlong lurch towards a materialist and reductionist construct, will,( if they do become the ONLY accepted norms of evaluating reality) EVENTUALLY and ULTIMATELY remove from humans their ability/desire/affinity (because they are sentient, volitional, emotonal, and creative) to apply more than just the physical meaning, purpose, and formulation to the material/physical objects ( both animate and inanimate) in their natural environment., thus NOT INVESTING on these objects his mystical and spiritual interpretation.
Humans, because of their vanity and willfulness, will always find specific purpose, meaning, imagination to their daily existence, EVEN IF, Atheism, Objectivism, and Reductionism becomes the trifecta that FINALLY interprets/arbitrates, what is "true" or "untrue", "rational" or "
Point#2: "Depak Chopra......would not deny the obvious correctedness of scientific findings..."
The correctedness of scientific findings have never been and will never be the axiomatic grounding of these 3 belief systems. The fact is, atheists/agnostics are the major proponents of Objectivism (Ayn Rand comes to mind) and Reductionism(Epicurus was in the forefront) because these supported the atheist's "rational" certainty that God does not exist. by: (a) Objectifying human existence to the degree that whatever humans do not feel objectively and physically, and that do not "feel" them back in any physical way, CAN NOT EXIST in reality, and therefore, irrational.
(b) Reducing human existence to its purely physical attributes, thus denying man's spiritual and mystical bearings, as he applies them to himself and the natural objects in his environment.
Point#3: "The cardnal flaw countless theists (and many non-theists) make is associating purpose/meaning with God or the supernatural. "Associating" is a word that I would not use in this context. The word "projecting" is more apt.
Projection, as our psychologist friends would remind us, is one of the many "defense mecahnisms" that man has devised in trying to cope with the harsh, brutal and nasty realities of his pre-historic existence.
Point#4: "You must understand a godless universe is not (sic, necessarily) a purposeless universe. True enough, but how does the absence of God make our purpose "stronger"?
The analogy to a theatre performance, I find peripheral in the context of what we are debating here. Now if you analogized God to the Wizard of Oz, who in the end was unmasked as a doddering old fool, and not the "superbeing"controller of everything that happens in OZ, then perhaps your argument would be more lacerating and eviscerating.
Point#5: "... how do these 3 concepts divest man of his ability to conceptualize realities well beyond what is simply physical and material.." The key words here are " what is simply physical and material"
You are right when you stated that the scientific approach has contributed to our massive understanding of material reality. Science loses this utility when applied to the emotional, spiritual and mystical. Science could neither add nor subtract from them, anymore than atheism, objectivisn, and reductionism could add or subtract from our perception of what is rational or irrational.
You waxed poetic in the last two paragraphs, but hit a rough spot in the last sentence. " Atheism, Objectivism, and Reductionism have CONTRIBUTED to the EVOLUTION of Homo Sapiens, not the DEVOLUTION". That statement is quite a stretch, in the same way that my converse contention was a stretch. I should have used the word "DEVALUATION", not Devolution
1.) Aside from the obvious problems with predicting the future, which you seem to be attempting, let me say this. Reductionism says everything can be reduced, including purpose. How does that diminish the value of purpose? Purpose is still there, it's just understood in a different way. "Value" and "purpose" are largely determined by what humans make of them, in a godless/ spiritless universe. But the assertion that therefore godless/ spiritless/ non-mystic purpose is an *inferior* purpose is a subjective opinion or normative interpretation, not a necessary outcome demanded by deduction.
I agree that materialism is basically antithetical to mysticism or supernaturalism. That's pretty much the whole point of materialism. And yes, if true it does spell trouble for anyone who wants to cling to that supernaturalism. If that's your beef, then so be it. But rest assured it does not necessarily result in a cold, dark, nihilistic world where a human is no more valuable than a speck of dust. There's plenty of room for imagination, fantasy and meaning in a materialistic, non-supernatural reality.
2.) You said "The correctedness of scientific findings have never been and will never be the axiomatic grounding of these 3 belief systems." That's correct, in fact it is the other way around: modern science is grounded in materialism and objectivism. The ideas that (a) there is nothing beyond this reality, and (b) this reality exists independent of the mind. However, scientific findings do help STRONGLY to justify reductionism.
And regarding "Reducing human existence to its purely physical attributes, thus denying man's spiritual and mystical bearings." Again, as I said in point 1 above, of course we are tossing out the mystical and the spiritual--we are tossing out all things supernatural. There is no argument there. But if you are worried that "man becomes robot" don't be. The fact that I know my imagination can be reduced to particles (as opposed to a supernatural "life force" or whatever) does not make me less imaginative. The point is that "spirituality" and "mysticism" have their roots in human fantasy, imagination, creativity and passion. Those things don't go away with materialism or reductionism or objectivity.
3.) My point here is that many theists assume that purpose comes from God. No God, no purpose. I'm saying that's wrong. Purpose comes from people.
4.) "How does the absence of God make our purpose "stronger"?"
By placing purpose within our grasp. God is a fixed quantity, and so God's purpose is fixed, it does not change with our changing culture, or our changing potential. That's why it hasn't changed in 5000 years, despite the monumental changes humanity has undergone in that time. By contrast, a human-based purpose is more flexible, more potent and more fertile with potential. The power lies within us, making us the "gods" of our destiny. If God has all the power, then we are just puppets in his performance.
The theater: the idea I was rejecting was the notion that if emotion and passion and exuberance are not mysterious to us, or if they can be *reduced* (reductionism) to numbers and graphs, they lose their value. You can reduce the theater, and it doesn't lose value, in fact it gains value, so that's the analogy.
5.) "Science loses this utility when applied to the emotional, spiritual and mystical."
Of course science, because of its aforementioned underpinnings, denies the existence of the supernatural, and therefore the mystical and spiritual as real objects. But the scientific approach/ method helps us understand emotions very well, whether in psychology, anthropology, neurochemistry, or others.
A lot to digest and regurgitate... your post.
Let me be brief ( sometimes an oxymoron when applied to me) . I am not in the business of predicting the future, so I prefaced my statement with IF, not WHEN. But WHEN your belief system do overun mine (not fair you might say since it has a 2000 year, give or take, leg up against yours) and toss it into the dustbin of history, what would happen has happened in the past (so many times in fact), and this is that once a particular belief system gets ensconsed or enshrined in a power structure, be it in goverment, arts, science and all other forms of human activity, the practitioners of that prevailing belief system would eliminate, physically, if possible any practitioner of an opposing belief system.
So your assurance that I have nothing to worry about, and that the strict and universal implementation of your belief system will not necessarily result in a cold, dark, nihislistic world, populated by robotized humans sounds hollow, shallow, and fallow.
Hmmm. I was hoping for a more rigorous challenge than that, A.Villarasa.
"once a particular belief system gets ensconsed or enshrined in a power structure... the practitioners of that prevailing belief system would eliminate... any practitioner of an opposing belief system."
There are 2 possible routes your position can take: (1) whether humans are likely to or will become robots, or (2) whether objectivism/ atheism/ reductionism necessarily leads, categorically and by deduction, to robotification.
Previously your argument's thrust seemed to be on #2, but now you seem to be focusing on the much softer #1.
I fail to see why such a pessimistic outlook is warranted. I have demonstrated that the theories/ worldviews in question do not necessarily lead to such an outcome (and aside from calling my arguments "hollow, shallow and fallow" you have not proven otherwise). And moreover, modern history and the history of modern secular societies marked by religious tolerance and pluralism shows that it is possible for a dominant worldview, ideology, religion or belief system to coexist with their minority counterparts in a single society, under a single roof.
I think that you, as a supernatural believer, are concerned that as humans turn away from the supernatural, they will lose an essential part of themselves. This surely makes sense if we accept the existence of the supernatural from the get-go. But I do not.
So, we are then down to proving/ disproving the existence of the supernatural, which is another discussion altogether.
Please read my post again, and you'll note that I was not referring to your arguments as hollow, shallow, and fallow. In fact I find your debating points enthralling, which was what I said when I intially responded to your first post.
I was specifically referring to your rather high-minded assurance that nothing of the sort that I was fearful of would happen IF, in the very, very distant future, your belief system trumps mine, and it becomes the universal belief system of those in power... people who are in a position to impose your and their congruent belief system by whatever means in their disposal.
Human history bears this assertion as fact. I truly believe that atheism, objectivism, reductionism and now secularism combined and being acted in tandem, are the very first steps that would lead humanity to the very slippery slope of thought and mind control via use of various nefarious techniques forwarded by a very supportive and complicit scientific community. Thus the robotization of homo sapeins. Paranoia you might say? Not really.
As regards the existence or non-existence of the spiritual and mysttical, let's just agree to disagree.
P.S. I just watched a movie directed, surprisingly by Clint Eastwood, and starring Matt Damon, titled :Hereafter" I suggest you watch the movie, but try not to throw-up. The true dyed secularist that you are, you might find the movie a little gut-wrenching.
Ha, you underestimate my intestinal fortitude, my friend. After reading, listening and debating with innumerable religious/ supernaturalist believers of various stripes, there's not much that can surprise me now. And anyway, if I was really that delicate I wouldn't be spending so much time in these forums!
Anyway, it sounds like what you are really concerned with is the rise of an oppressive dictatorship, regardless of the ideology or beliefs of that dictatorship. Which in turn sounds more like a social/ political topic, as opposed to a philosophical one.
An atheistic or secular dictatorship is surely just as bad as a theocratic one, as history has shown. However, I would remind you that state secularism has been an extremely fundamental component of the religious tolerance and pluralism that we all cherish in the modern civilized world, when bound with democracy. Ironically, it isn't religious states that have protected religious belief the most--states like Iran or Saudi Arabia, where religion and state form a single unit, are actually the most hostile to generalized religious belief when it clashes with their truth claims. As a result, they create a population of religious "robots" to use your phrase.
By contrast, the more secular governments in the world today tend to be those that respect religion the most. There is a STRONG correlation between state secularism and religious freedom. So, while resisting dictatorship and state oppression, you should actually be very much in favor of state secularism when matched with democracy and individual rights.
One more thing: you also must remember that our entire political and legal system--from high-level policy to court rulings to criminal investigation--rests strongly on a secular, objective and at least somewhat materialist foundations. Government studies, statistics, admissible evidence in court, policy formulations--all come from a distinctly secular and objective take on the universe.
The opposite of this is the medieval/ ancient system, marked by trials by ordeal and the use of oracles and tea leaves to determine public policy. That system was based on a supernaturalist worldview, ours is based on a naturalist worldview. Clearly, ours is better.
Hey there Secularist10:
I am of course being silly/facetious when I suggested that you might throw up watching the movie. Actually I cried, during some of the more heart-rending scenes depicting the spirit and mystical world as perceived by some of the characters. Two thumbs up for Clint.
Clearly you are so tightly enamored of your secularistic views, and me trying to disabuse you from it would be a gargantuan task, that I neither have the temerity nor the perspicacity to do.
Time will in fact be the best judge on whether your belief system becomes the universal axiom as you are suggesting it ultimately would. Meanwhile, us believers would continue our merry ways into, hopefully another millenium or two of unfettered spirituality.
P.S. In a secularist world, I think you could and would be a very effective propagandist, in the same way that Goebel was for Nazism. Just kidding.
You certainly have an odd sense of humor, my friend. Not the first time I've been compared to mass murderers, I must admit.
Clearly you are so tightly enamored of your supernaturalist views, and me trying to disabuse you from it would be a gargantuan task, that I neither have the temerity nor the perspicacity to do.
I suspect that in the far future, assuming humanity continues on its upward march of progress and prosperity, as more and more people voluntarily leave religion in favor of the much more effective and logical naturalistic mentality, religion will wither to become the domain of tiny isolated anachronistic or eccentric communities, like the Amish or the Fundamentalist Mormons or the Hasidic Jews are today.
Meanwhile, the real business of managing, growing and bettering civilization will fall to those who are best at it.
But again, the real subtext of your argument seems to be an argument against dictatorship and religious oppression, which has positively nothing to do with the truth or falsity of any of the philosophies or religions here discussed.
Good Evening Secularist 10:
I do have an odd sense of humor but never intended to compare you to a mass murderer. Just looking at your avatar makes me think you couldn't even hurt a fly. ("Here boy, I've got a bone for you to chew to your hearts content" ) However how do I know that that little puppy is just for show? and hiding behind that facade of innocence and lovability is a rotweiller, which by the way I have occasionally gleaned from reading your other posts while you were getting entangled with other hubbers, i.e. Izetti etc . etc. etc.
Your assumption about the future, could come true, but it may not happen in your lifetime or in the lifetime of your progenies until the 20th generation. So as I said, us believers will go on our merry ways for another one or two millenium, being spiritually inclined, and mystically involved,
Oi, don't remind me...
Actually, speaking of which, I'm confident you will find the argumentative morass on my hub about Secular Morality and Secular Rights HIGHLY entertaining, especially involving Spiderpam and Fatfist, if I remember correctly. Fun times. Those two make Izettl look like a cakewalk. Not to mention my adventures outside of Hub Pages.
Oh, I certainly don't think religion will totally shrink like that any time soon. It'll be around for quite a while, to be sure, bugging the rest of us.
Considering that all anyone has ever been able to show are the physical attributes of our universe and none have ever shown a "spiritual or mystical" attribute, your point is entirely moot.
Considering that no one has ever shown a god to be a doddering old fool or the omnipotent being he is claimed to be, your point is entirely moot.
Science does in fact understand how emotions are linked to the physical, it is the spiritual and mystical that science cannot test considering not a shred of evidence exists to support the spiritual and mystical. Your point is moot.
Beelzedad: I certainly am not holding my breath that science will find evidence to support the spiritual and mystical...since by context and definition they do not have any quantifiable form. The fact is science do not hold all the answers to what is or isn't in the universe, and to say that my belief system is moot, because it is not verifiable by any scientific methodology , is the height of hubris and arrogance....something that again, Einstein, your avatar, would not be caught indulging in.
Ignoring me, my service is not working for you, ok.
I was not ignoring you in any way, manner or form. I have not commented on your various post because, despite my difficulty following the trend of your occasionally disjointed arguments, I find that I agree with them 75% of the time.
Of course, science will not find something that doesn't exist or can exist by any laws of nature.
Yes, they are nonexistent.
It is unfortunate that science has not provided all the answers you seek as yet, but given time, they will be answered.
I didn't say your belief system was moot, only the assumptions you were making which were based on fallacies and fabrications.
Attacking me personally does nothing to support your argument.
A.Villarasa. Much better if you spoke real english. All them thar big words gives this po' 'ol gringo a massive headache.
Dang.. and I thought I was writing "real english". Anyway, do give my regards to Mr. Hawkings and Gravity. Cool Dudes they are , in plain simple engish. But I still think Sir Isaac should have been in, in your conversation. After all it was him that Gravity imparted his Laws.
sensient, volitional and emotional
Feels closer to the truth.
It's the wordage. If the words or concepts they convey are too mountainous, we have to stop and go get our high altitude gear to climb over. Not that we don't know the words, but the brain works a lot faster if you keep it tasty enough for the masses.
I don't know, feels more like incompleteness than high-mindedness to me.
Whole intelligent is not exclusive for the high mindedness. The over pride and arrogant; may effect the balance and completeness of this study also.
It’s called team work.
The English language is "alive! It evolves.
Currently there are in excess of 500k words to work with.
Words/language is why we human animals have progressed to the point we now "enjoy" (I use that term judiciously and with great reserve)
Those who speak my native language i.e. English, and are not able to communicate well because they lack a desire to learn it and use it to its greatest potential, are, in my mind, dullards who constitute the majority of American citizens.
How can one describe the intrinsic beauty, the essence of a rose without a knowledge of language.
I judge people by their use/misuse of English.
Fortunately, I have the ability to communicate with paupers or kings.
I am not an atheist, agnostic, deist or a believer in mythical, supernatural divinities.
I am but a "curious" human creature doing the best I can to make meaning of the incredible world surrounding me.
I will spend a lifetime trying to understand it. The result will be that I will leave, still floundering in abashed ignorance!
Visual Imagines came first, than words follow
From the dawn of humanity, mankind has made unique concept: the idea of art. This phenomenon goes back to most primitive cave-dwellings of 30,000 years ago, we have evidence of artwork. HISTORY OF WRITING Most early writing systems begin with small images used as words, in about 3200 BC recorded by the priests in the dynastic tablets.
Words have extremely short histories. The history of the English language started around 5th century AD. These cave drawings naturalistic and evolve to masterpieces of the Renaissance have evolve to the abstract images of today,
Its most basic, art is a form of communication and the greatest persuasive tool known to mankind. because My English lacks because I speck Spanish most of the time and think in my time, words of communication will be less necessary in the future.
I have 80,000 hour invested of my life mastering the arts and culture. I have something to offer this thread and I am no better or worst than the high minded with their words.
For many of us here, all we ask is to simpified your words
"For many of us here, all we ask is to simpified your words."
Your comment is filled with these kinds of language mistakes.
I have a broad education in the "arts" also. I consider painting a picture with "words,"...art!
A bad painter comes up with "mud" on the canvass.
A bad communicator "garbles" the language.
To those who can't handle English, may I suggest to them that they study the language that is responsible for man progressing from the stone age to the age of Hi-tech.
I have to simplified my words all the time from traveling around the world so many times and specking in different languages. The countries that have English as their first language are not all that civilized as a few of the other languages spoken in Europe alone.
Looking at your hubpage
William Ernest Henley also written in Napoleon Hill's book to Master of my Fate. A little second handed, yet interesting
You are in the broad of education in the "arts I don’t know if that master you in the arts compared to mastering it with 80,000 hours invested of actually doing the art.
You said Spirituality is nonsense, as for you mastering spirit compare to many other human beings, that is out.
What area have you mastered?
You say you are misfit. because of people who understand any part of the philosophies, maybe you think most people are living like in the Stone Age. I understand much of philosophies just coming from a different angle. Over all, I’m no better or worst as a whole person than you. I hope I have not insulted you.
I have as much the ability to handle this thread as you do. I’m very good at math. Yet do need more work on my out of practice, English,
I did not realize that English wasn't your native language.
I give you full credit for handling it as well as you do.
I am not a linguist, but I know English is very hard to learn.
You are doing very well.
Pls accept my sincere apology..!
I sincerely apologize!
I didn't know English was not your native language.
I don't know what language you use fluently.
English is very hard and you are to be congratulated for doing so well with it.
I withdraw my comments ref your use of English and shake your hand.
I hold 2 Masters degrees:
1.Science (clinical psychology)
2.Education (Guidance and counseling)
English is my native language, its just been away for most of the time so long from practicing english, you loose it when you don't use it. More of a problem I've had so much success with artistic expression, you loose words understanding and skills also.
Are you like a professional student?
English is your native language?
Jeez...I take back my apology!
I will always be a student of life.
It seem we are both victims of our own success
I have been too isolated from writing English for reason of over expressing visually and being mainly in Spanish communities. Yet do find teaching and learning is the same thing through everybody.
My kindness act to myself is to turn my writing skill weakness into strength.
It does seem your recycling much of second and third hand information.
What would your kind act be, for yourself?
These two words Objectivism and Reductionism are an oxymoron describing an atheist
Sensient, volitional and emotional feels closer
Not sure I quite understand you. But if I interpret it correctly, I don't see how an "objectivist atheist" is an oxymoron or a "reductionist atheist" is an oxymoron.
"Sensient, volitional and emotional feels closer"
Closer to what?
I still don't quite get it.
Objectivity and subjectivity is much in the centre of debates and conflicts in philosophy, morality, media, and science.
I can see One World Order or New World Order threat coming from the objectivity of a few different religions. But not from atheists of today, being only 3% of the world population. Its not realistic to have and an objective to rule the world. Atheist over all, are more subjective to being humanitarian, science and literature following role.
I will not see in my day, when science will lead over spirituality. My feeling about atheist is they want (deserving so) more respect of their service of shorting following spirituality with greater skepticism and science.
Objective Reduction is a theory of consciousness, which is the joint work of theoretical physicist.
Reduction closer to the root word is the act or process of reducing, the state of being reduced, something made by reducing, the amount by which something is reduced.
Reduction coincides much more with subjectivity than objectivity
Castlepaloma for someone who has English as a second language, may I say you are sensationally good with using it.
"But not from atheists of today, being only 3% of the world population."
The size of the atheist population is hardly relevant. Truth is not a popularity contest. Moreover, there are over 1 billion non-religious/ atheist/ agnostic people in the world. They are the 3rd largest group, after Christians and Muslims.
"I will not see in my day, when science will lead over spirituality."
It is already happening. In fact, it has been happening for many decades now. Have you ever been to a doctor? Ever use a computer? Ever ride in a car or an airplane? Ever drink water from a city water supply? Ever eat food grown on a modern farm? Ever purchase a product made from plastic, rubber or metal?
If the answer to any of these questions is "yes," then you, my friend, have benefited from secular, objective science. Chances are, you have done all of these things. Thus almost all of your life has been SIGNIFICANTLY affected by modern science.
"Reduction coincides much more with subjectivity than objectivity"
No. Reductionism is the idea that all things can be reduced to some basic parts. It stems from the idea that there is an objective reality. It has little or nothing to do with subjectivity.
Yes, atheist is very strong in the area of science.
Yes, ancient spirituality of religion will shrink; one good reason is a lack of science.
There is a certain degree of science in everything subjectivity Still as a whole, science is like one branch on the tree of life.
Size dose matter, when the population of the world is 80% religious and 80% are the consciousness of the people, who rule and lead. Being only 3% atheists population dose make these facts relevant, on this tread, and also compared to Religion objective .
Most out of that 1 billion people, 11% are spiritual non religious; agnostic can go either way with spiritual or science? What we are talking about is that relevant of the 3% atheist objective vs. subjectivity.
You don’t think politic is a popularity contest, do you see any USA Atheist voted in anywhere, kind of lost their objective there.
I often get bore at long list of great atheists in history that atheists send me; most of them are not self proclaim atheists. I think even gay parades will catch much more action than a boring atheist parade, not to mention the Christmas parade. Give me a list of all the self proclaim atheists who invented most of these computer, airplane, cars, drink water, food, plastic, doctors, modern farm, rubber or metal and compare them to the non atheist list.
Atheist as scientist, YES, now thats a lists
I have been affected by spirituality (99% UNKNOWNS) far greater, than the subjective science, that follows. Most fine Artist are subjective, it’s OK if most often scientist don’t get paid the big bucks like us as well.
Reductionism everything about the fruit fly and thats maybe one man’s objective reality, most likely it will end up subjectivity meaning to much of the World.
Everything I have done major in my life, was all imagined and inspired, first, science followed subjectively. A far as atheist objective leading and ruling with science the world in my lifetime,
NOT a FAT chance
Believe what you will, Castlepaloma.
But the facts are facts.
Secular science and the scientific method have created the modern world. You may realize it or not, you may like it or not, but that is the fact.
1 billion people do not accept traditional/ established religions, and they lead largely secular lives. That should give an indication of where we are going.
In the words of the Borg, "resistance is futile!"
There are many possible beliefs and ideas--objective and subjective--accommodated by the secular worldviews, agnosticism and atheism. It's not as scary as you think.
Why would atheists be scary to me, my mother an atheist, I' m that type 10% who are fearless, both and either way. Until agnostics self pro claim them selves’ atheists, you can't possible show all the great atheist to support your claim as fact.
Objection is over ruled, resistance is futile
97% the winner
I already indicated that the 3% doesn't matter. It's the over 1 billion nonreligious that matter, which is about 16% to 20% of the world population, and the 3rd largest group.
Atheism doesn't matter. Non-religion matters.
The vast majority of people in the rich world live secular, non-religious lives. They don't have to be atheist.
You can't argue with facts, my friend.
I belong to no group yet would lean towards Buddhism and Confucius in which is the majority of the spiritual non religious category. Even if most people think of them as religious.
I’m world famous in my field, specking in what ifs, if you put me on the atheist greatest men in world history list. Wail I was running for any public office in the USA. I may sue you for slander because my candidate would use Atheist against me and it would destroy my chance for running for any office.
I think for most part atheists would do a better job in office, yet the fact remains they are not allowed to.
Objection is over ruled, subjective is the atheist way
Your right, you can't argue with facts, my friend. Of all the bullies in the world I've confronted, only the governments facts and resistance become futile. The only 80% of the consciousness people makes it an objective to change those facts and who are those 80% consciousness people...?
Don’t forget Hitler tried to stamp out gays and atheists, for his idea of his faith. Atheists have come along way since then.
Qwark, me no peaka englay y tu no te acaba de enterar MIJITO!!!
Hey Earnest! I've been busy, but hanging in there. Assembling IKEA furniture! WHAT A NIGHTMARE!!!
Give the job to a small child!
Adults do not have the mental capacity to assemble Ikea furniture.
If I want to open a child-proof bottle or container I get a little kid to do it. I can't open the darn things myself!
I have the hard job - project manager! My husband drills, hammers, and every once in a while breaks something! How have you been?
I have a dumb assed virus! Well actually to be honest a very clever and well educated virus. It is obviously smarter than my T cells!
If your husband is legal marriage age, he's not in the race with Ikea assembly!
Man oh man...ya leave for a while and come back edycated! Yer speakin' a brand new langidge.
Ah sertinly do rispkt branes
Ahm gladjer back!
Ah had ta poot muh banjo down ta tipe thes!
Ahm smylin and thuh snuff joos is dripin on muh keebord....dangit!!!!
I'm sitting her having brkfast and a cuppa coffee.
I'm reading responses to: Atheism,Objectivism,Reductionism-The devolution of Homo Sapiens."
I try to think in terms of "concepts," not trivia. Concepts are conceived by gathering trivia and fitting each bit into it's proper place. Like a jigsaw puzzle, placing all the pieces properly, engenders a big picture or in this case, a concept.
Those of us who have studied all facets of science and metaphysics, have developed concepts related to "reality." Wrong or right? Who knows?
Personally? I side with science.
We humans, having gained a uniqueness i.e. "consciousness," amongst all extant life, attempt to conjure up "meaning" for our existence, when there is none!
A characteristic of our genetic programming is "curiosity." That characteristic is responsible for what we have become.
Regardless of the culture, within which one is sired and nurtured, the fact remains that once maturity has been attained, survival becomes a very individual/personal thing.
All men were not born equal! Each is unique and must adapt to the environment he chooses to exist within. Each has his own talent and aptitude. How he utilizes them in life, will determine his quality of life and his survival.
"Atheism,Objectivism,Reductionism," who gives a "flying f**k?" It's interesting to intellectually, contemplate and chat about, but in reality, those who live in poverty (the majority of human life) and are eking out a living with no chance of improving their lot, don't think about anything but surviving!
I understand our plight, but I, as one of 6+ billion human animals, am responsible for my (singular) survival. Selfish? you bet!
Human evolution will be determined by those who think like me. Those with individual survival first in mind, and 2ndly the survival of the species.
Even then, IF we do not escape from this doomed planet, we will cease to exist in about 1 billion yrs.
In geological perspective, 1 billion yrs is a very short length of time.
Get over it! Live for the joy of living! You'll never get another chance to do it.
A higher purpose doesn't have to come from a higher being. It can be based on a higher concept (justice) a higher motivation (compassion) or a profound experience (motherhood) etc. It is about existing for reasons other than immediate hedonism and personal gain.
Hi "Doc" Psyche:
A higher purpose?
A higher purpose with what in mind?
You listed justice, compassion, motherhood, hedonism and personal gain.
Being a genetically programmed animal, motherhood is, to most animal life, instinctive.
Being programmed as this planets prime and most successful predator, justice, compassion, hedonism and personal gain, as I see them, are all cultural.
The highest goal of all life is survival. Anything contrary to that goal has a short life span.
To me, the highest "purpose" mankind can work for, is: "synergy."
At this point in the evolution of "man," that goal is an impossibility.
He is headed for catastrophe.
I have never seen longer p...........
In my life
can we keep them short, I can't read that much
It's simple. No ism or system of believe is required not to believe farcical self evident myths and then build your life on them.
Religion is a very lazy way to avoid real thought or to take charge and full responsibility for ones own behavior and outcomes. The "devil in the corner" is no longer deemed a sane process since psychology tore it a new ashole 70 or so years ago.
It's a bloody joke mate!
It's just words.
by Castlepaloma 7 years ago
Man started wearing clothes 170000 years agoAdam and Eve were naked 6014 years agoAnatomically modern humans originated in Africa about 200000 years ago , most people can believe this, then how come most people are Religious?
by Alexander A. Villarasa 7 years ago
EXCEPTIONAL--- a word that humanists, of all colors and stripes, unreservedly applies to Homo Sapiens. However, in the atheist's world, Homo Sapiens is neither exceptional, nor for that matter---sensational, despite ample evidence to the contrary. So what gives?Is it because...
by Martin 8 years ago
What do you think is the reason we are on this planetDo you ever sit and wonder why we are here. Plus do you wonder what is it we are suppose to do on this planet. Because if you think about we are only down here for a very short time. So what is it all about and what do you think it is all about.
by Disappearinghead 8 years ago
It has been established by genetic inquiry that Neathderthals were a different species from Homo Sapiens, but possessed large brains, perhaps a culture, and possibly speech. There have been a few reconstructions from skulls that result in an appearance not so far removed from ours. Thus it is...
by Disappearinghead 8 years ago
It's the central theme of Christian doctrine that unless someone believes in Jesus they are going to hell when they die, which is primarily based on John 3:16 "For God so loved the World........".According to Judaism there is no original sin and nothing to be saved from. A common prayer...
by Alexander A. Villarasa 7 years ago
That religion and science are irreconcilable comes from the atheistic/secularist notion that like oil and water, religion and science would and should never mix. This belies the historical/factual perspective of say, Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein being guided by metaphysical thinking. The...
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|