|
The Belief Spectrum (pg. 21)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| meriter |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
Yeah, well im not gonna bother anymore with some ty alt that thinks dictionary.com is the be-all and end-all of intellectual enquiry. |
I've had this discussion many times and it's notions that atheism and agnosticism are the same that make them so frustrating and pointless. If you don't use words correctly communication becomes flawed. I can't just go and change the definition of a word because it's convenient to my argument and expect to get away with it. Most of these conversations about "God" contain no real communication anyway because no one takes the time to even define what they suspect "God" is before presenting an idea. |
|
|
| nefardec |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
Surely stuff like mathematics contradicts this? It provided examples of self-contained absolute knowledge?
This sounds kinda like plato's forms to me. Are you saying that absolute knowledge does not exist, or that human beings cannot experience it? |
no i am saying that absolute knowledge does exist and humans are proof of its existence :p
my idea of 'human' is probably different than yours. a human to me is just a temporary form, like a vortex in a sea of possible forms. Dust in the wind, if you will. A human looks like a thing because we perceive it always on a macro level. If you go to the atomic level and look at where your ass meets the chair, at a certain point you wont be able to tell the difference between ass and chair really - it just becomes atom and space. And then you can go into the atom and continue this ad infinitum.
Similarly, I believe that a mind, whether or not it is an epiphenomenon of a body, is also simply like this vortex, it is an apparent object in a field, but really it is simply a temporary disturbance of an undifferentiated whole.
As such, I think that ultimate knowledge isn't 'human' in the traditional sense of 'self' or 'ego' as in you or i can experience it individually, but rather is something that we are all experiencing in part and participating in. So I feel that the only way to experience the whole of knowledge is to completely lose individuality, or 'humanity' (indeed even worldliness or materiality) as we know it.
Maybe computer technology will move mankind to this state eventually. Already it's amazing what social networking and wikipedia and what not have allowed us to do in terms of sharing knowledge.
I'm not sure what you're saying with mathematics? Numbers are just symbols, and I am talking about what the symbols mean, whether they are in math or seen with the naked eye, etc. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by meriter
I've had this discussion many times and it's notions that atheism and agnosticism are the same that make them so frustrating and pointless. If you don't use words correctly communication becomes flawed. I can't just go and change the definition of a word because it's convenient to my argument and expect to get away with it. Most of these conversations about "God" contain no real communication anyway because no one takes the time to even define what they suspect "God" is before presenting an idea. |
Your problem is your definition is lacking and doesn’t really understand the various differences inside atheism. Im not changing anything to suit my arguments, there is plenty of literature discussing agnoticism and weak versus strong atheism. Don’t take my word for it, go pick up a book for youself. start here if you want
http://www.religioustolerance.org/agnostic.htm
| quote: | Originally posted by nefardec
|
Sorry, but you lost me when you pulled out your wang and started beating it in front of me. |
|
|
| nefardec |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
Sorry, but you lost me when you pulled out your wang and started beating it in front of me. |
|
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by nefardec
here's a thought, if you are a material realist, and you believe in oscillating universe theory, what caused the first oscillation, and when did it occur, why did it occur? This sort of thing will never be understood by any theory, because the explanation automatically requires it to be outside of the theory itself. In other words, you can always ask 'why' for every new discovery.
Within the paradox of his statement, which amounts to 'the only truth is that there is no truth' or 'I am a liar', is the essence of this unknowable thing IMO.
The theory can't explain the existence itself, but can only describe the perceived mechanics of exisence. And perception is unforunately not objective as relativity and quantum physics show us. |
I have quite enjoyed your thoughts in this thread (even where I disagree with them), but I have to question you here.
Imagine how an early human being might have thought about the concept of up and down. From their perspective, most things would have been earthbound: absent support from something underneath, they would fall. But this simplistic perception of things cannot exhaustively explain how objects on the ground are physically supported, since the ground itself surely cannot fly, and thus it too requires support. One might have concluded that the very stability of the ground under one's feet cannot be explained in purely physical terms.
Of course, that's not correct. And, in fact, the premises "underlying" the whole conundrum would have been false, an illusion created by a narrow perspective. And likewise, I think it is premature to conclude that we cannot explain the universe in purely physical terms. Within the confines of a cause-effect paradigm, where we perceive that every effect requires a cause, then we certainly have a paradox on our hands. But the conclusion we should draw from this is not that we cannot fully explain the existence of the universe; rather, it is that we will need to broaden our perspective and then shed our faulty assumptions which the apparent paradox before we will be able to see the "answer."
That is, it seems eminently possible to me that we are only unable to answer that question because we are trying to answer the wrong question. Of course, I have little doubt that actually understanding the existence of our universe would only lead to further questions and further illusions as well--but I for one would not have it any other way! |
|
|
| nefardec |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
I have quite enjoyed your thoughts in this thread (even where I disagree with them), but I have to question you here. |
I know you are correct in questioning me in the sense that I made a bad argument.
I think it ultimately comes down personal preference/intuition. I don't think there's anything intrinsically wrong with postulating theory after theory in the hope that total, absolute knowledge can be experienced.
I just personally think it is illusory, a diversion of sorts, from what really matters to me (personally) about life.
| quote: |
That is, it seems eminently possible to me that we are only unable to answer that question because we are trying to answer the wrong question. Of course, I have little doubt that actually understanding the existence of our universe would only lead to further questions and further illusions as well--but I for one would not have it any other way! |
That's pretty much what I am saying. Materialists ask 'what happens', I ask 'For what end'.
I'm not against science though. I just believe in a plurality of ways of understanding. (questions to ask, so to speak) |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| Sometimes I wonder if Europe and America will experience a massive revival of traditional religion. The Pope has proposed "re-evangelizing" European countries that have forgotten their Christian roots. |
|
|
| gehzumteufel |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Sometimes I wonder if Europe and America will experience a massive revival of traditional religion. The Pope has proposed "re-evangelizing" European countries that have forgotten their Christian roots. |
I really hope that doesn't happen. We have enough puritanical nonsense going on in the US, we don't need anymore. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by gehzumteufel
I really hope that doesn't happen. We have enough puritanical nonsense going on in the US, we don't need anymore. |
I would imagine that a return to a more traditional Christianity would be an enormous improvement over the evangelical non-sense in the US presently. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Sometimes I wonder if Europe and America will experience a massive revival of traditional religion. The Pope has proposed "re-evangelizing" European countries that have forgotten their Christian roots. |
I believe a lot of recent trends indicate towards the Catholic church "moving" to regions outside of Europe. In many African and island nations, for example, Catholicism is a staple industry of many, many people's lives - South America, too.
And doesn't it make sense? Really, the religion is founded on meekness and the relinquishment of wealth; the downtrodden inheriting the Kingdom Of God. But I suppose lots of religions are about that...
I would liken it to how Rome, once the seat of a Christian empire, basically closed up shop for a while and moved to Constantinople. It's really why the Roman empire didn't fall, merely moved for a while. |
|
|
| gehzumteufel |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
I would imagine that a return to a more traditional Christianity would be an enormous improvement over the evangelical non-sense in the US presently. |
Agreed, but that isn't going to happen. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by gehzumteufel
Agreed, but that isn't going to happen. |
But if you dislike the present shift toward more evangelical nut-case church/arenas in the US then you should welcome a return to traditional religions. |
|
|
|
|
