William James Hastings Braddell Can't understand why so many Athiests feel the need to be so arrogant about something they've yet to prove whatsoever.
Yesterday at 12:03am Friends Only · Comment · LikeUnlike · View Feedback (22)Hide Feedback (22)
James Mc Burney likes this.
Alex Gordito Garside
Alex Gordito Garside
They have nothing to believe in except their own eyes, so they take solace by parading their rationality to fill the void.
Yesterday at 12:09am · LikeUnlike ·
Alpharius Omegon
Alpharius Omegon
For the most part, it's not arrogance, it's more general irritation at the constant unsolicited rhetoric we get from religious fundamentalists. I can't count the number of times I've found pamphlets from various religious groups slipped under the door on my way out to uni just this year alone. Hell, even when I myself was a christian, that kind of ... See Moreobnoxious behavior annoyed the shit out of me. Spiritual belief of any kind should be a private thing, not something you attempt to foist on other people at every opportunity.
Yesterday at 12:14am · LikeUnlike ·
Alpharius Omegon
Alpharius Omegon
Also, @Alex, the claim that atheists have nothing to believe in is absurd. Most atheists believe in plenty of things, it's more that said things usually fit in with the individual's definition of rationality, and never revolve around the existence of any kind of deity.
Yesterday at 12:21am · LikeUnlike ·
Alex Gordito Garside
Alex Gordito Garside
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/richard_dawkins_on_militant_atheism.html Have a listen.
Yesterday at 12:25am · LikeUnlike ·
Alpharius Omegon
Alpharius Omegon
I would argue that if you pay attention to his opening statements what he is saying largely supports what I said. I don't always agree with Dawkins but he is a pretty intelligent guy, and his viewpoints are always interesting to look at even when I don't agree with them.
Yesterday at 12:33am · LikeUnlike ·
William James Hastings Braddell
William James Hastings Braddell
Fair enough but not relevant as I was actually referring to this as an ontological question, rather than being concerned with any actual faith, i.e. as to whether anyone has the answer to the absolute question, at least in the form of rational debate, for which I've yet to hear any Atheist or Theist or Agnostic (of whom I presently consider to be ... See Moremy ilk), give an irrefutable answer to.
Hence I can't understand for example, that William Adama guy saying that theology was useless (as I believe I read something along the lines of). People like that clearly haven't done their research into the influence that the Vedas had on mathematics or western philosophy. Also he might as well dismiss paper as being useless because Islam played a huge role in its development. Its that kind of ignorance and arrogance (whether in the form of religiosity or secularity) that I can't stand, particularly over something that is likely to remain unanswered for good. Also Gnosticism has already presented a possible valid counteraction to the whole sob story "if god exists, why is there suffering in the world?" argument which are quite common amongst Atheists.
As for the fundamentalist Christian groups, I've found in recent years that the best thing to do is to be above them by showing it clam indifference as being bothered by it only gives it sway over you and your life. I'd also argue that the militantly secular feminist/marxist propaganda (which in my experience holds far more sway at Victoria University) are equally bad if not far worse, given the failures of secular society in more recent centuries in the form of the French Revolution and Communism later on.
I read an interesting article on Prince Charles the other day in which he blamed Galieo and the natural sciences for pushing human interest towards quantity/greed and ultimately being responsible for overpopulation (Which poverty has had a huge role in) and the decline of the west. This raised my opinion of him slightly as this view has in part, been laid down by two of the philosophers I am most interested in, Julius Evola and Oswald Spengler. Although I do not have the answer to the absolute question, I think anyone who places faith in secular/progressive society is utterly delusional.
Yesterday at 12:41am · LikeUnlike ·
Alex Gordito Garside
Alex Gordito Garside
Oh overpopulation, is there anything you can't do?
Yesterday at 12:42am · LikeUnlike ·
William James Hastings Braddell
William James Hastings Braddell
What I have said here is not waffle, its well known that overpopulation has only become a problem with industrialization, a result of the natural sciences.
Yesterday at 12:44am · LikeUnlike ·
Alex Gordito Garside
Alex Gordito Garside
I would like to think industrialisation doesn't necessarily lead to overpopulation, but that may be wishful thinking.
Yesterday at 12:47am · LikeUnlike ·
William James Hastings Braddell
William James Hastings Braddell
In my opinion it has because it enabled a small rich minority, the Bourgeois, to produce more rapidly and get rich very quickly and pay the general populace poorly and as its well known, the poorer people are , the more children they breed.
Yesterday at 12:50am · LikeUnlike ·
Alpharius Omegon
Alpharius Omegon
Of course nobody has an answer to the "absolute question" as you put it because the very nature of the question has been tailored such that it is unanswerable during life, and becomes somewhat irrelevant after death. The basic response from a perspective of logic is the only response which can really be made, and it is of course limited, as one ... See Morewould expect in an area which bends over backwards to cover it's own ass against any rational enquiry.
The main issue I have with it is exactly that, it's designed to be impossibly to subject to rational enquiry, and yet people often try to pass it off as a "science", which it quite blatantly is not. It could not possibly be any further from being a science.
I don't personally think that theology is entirely useless, because it can potentially serve as a kind of naysmith and that is ALWAYS useless, but it's often one of those things that refuses to acknowledge even the possibility of being wrong, which really defeats the purpose of being a naysmith.
If people want to believe in a deity or deities, all well and good I say. However I also say that if those same people want to try and push their own beliefs on the rest of us, they really need to be prepared to subject their beliefs to enquiry and analysis from a perspective that is not their own, and to be willing to acknowledge the flaws of their beliefs, which horrific numbers of theists are quite unwilling to do.
I don't hold any particular faith in secular society myself, however I would maintain that a secular society would at least be -less- flawed than a society that revolved around religion. It would still be flawed because all human society is inherently flawed on account of people themselves being inherently flawed. But as a general rule, important areas of scientific research such as evolution, space programs, etc tend to be neglected more as a society becomes less secular, which to me is abhorrent.
Sorry, I went a bit off-topic there, I was meaning to progress to the point that holding absolute faith in anything whatsoever is utterly delusional, whether it's God, or secular society, or anything else you could name. Absolute faith in and of itself is irrational by it's very definition.
As to the question of "if God exists why is there suffering?" I have my own answer to that, an answer which should be blatantly obvious to anyone who has ever actually read the Bible: If God exists, then God is an absolute fucking asshole who is completely unworthy of human worship.
No argument on the overpopulation issues though, overpopulation is a very blatant issue in the modern world.
Yesterday at 12:51am · LikeUnlike ·
Alex Gordito Garside
Alex Gordito Garside
Does anyone else here enjoy people who believe outright in the cultural rorschach test that is the bible?
Yesterday at 12:55am · LikeUnlike ·
Alpharius Omegon
Alpharius Omegon
I enjoy referring to such people as irrational and delusional psychopaths, does that count?
Yesterday at 1:03am · LikeUnlike ·
William James Hastings Braddell
William James Hastings Braddell
"I don't hold any particular faith in secular society myself, however I would maintain that a secular society would at least be -less- flawed than a society that revolved around religion."
I cannot agree. In a manner of a few short centuries, Secularity has resulted in a worship of natural science which as I argued, leads to overpopulation through... See More making a few people very rich and the majority far worse off then they ever were as farmers in say, Feudal France. We also have natural science to thank for nuclear weapons that can destroy the earth countless times over and bio/eco warfare, of which the possiblities are really quite terrifying. Health is perhaps the only field in which science has been of real benefit and perhaps in some instances, communication but I say that in a reserved tone due to the global social conditioning it has made possible.
"But as a general rule, important areas of scientific research such as evolution, space programs, etc tend to be neglected more as a society becomes less secular, which to me is abhorrent."
I personally cannot say I am as bothered by this, as these are all things that humans and the planet did fine without for thousands of years and in any case, I don't think they are worth the drawbacks I have mentioned on the subject.
"have my own answer to that, an answer which should be blatantly obvious to anyone who has ever actually read the Bible: If God exists, then God is an absolute fucking asshole who is completely unworthy of human worship."
When I mentioned Gnosticism in response to this issue earlier, it was perhaps a tad arrogant of me not to provide the actual argument attached. Gnosticism is an ancient school of theology dating back to Persian times (I think) that puts forth the idea of an imperfect god rather than one who is not omni-benelovent as you have stated above. Incidently, due to its syncretic nature, it is also a movement within Christianity and happens to be an idea that I am quite fond of at present.
Yesterday at 1:05am · LikeUnlike ·
William James Hastings Braddell
William James Hastings Braddell
I myself am quite interested in some aspects of Christianity without actually ascribing a belief in God himself. Greek Orthodoxy is something I'm slowly starting to become sort of fond of, although I'll admit that religiosity isn't where my main interest lies.
Yesterday at 1:07am · LikeUnlike ·
William James Hastings Braddell
William James Hastings Braddell
"However I also say that if those same people want to try and push their own beliefs on the rest of us, they really need to be prepared to subject their beliefs to enquiry and analysis from a perspective that is not their own, and to be willing to acknowledge the flaws of their beliefs, which horrific numbers of theists are quite unwilling to do... See More."
The same fault can to some degree also be leveled at Dawkins (who has stated that even the idea of being open minded to the existence of a personal god is delusional) and his followers. Also, secular society is forced on people everyday through media and commercialism. Mcdonalds, Gangsterism, Globalization, MTV, Democracy and more or less all that defines the modern world that the media exposes us to, are the product of secular society and the same values behind this would not have held sway in pre enlightenment age Europe with its simple, agricultural economy.
Yesterday at 1:17am · LikeUnlike ·
Alpharius Omegon
Alpharius Omegon
"I cannot agree. In a manner of a few short centuries, Secularity has resulted in a worship of natural science which as I argued, leads to overpopulation through making a few people very rich and the majority far worse off then they ever were as farmers in say, Feudal France."
Can't agree that that's purely due to secularism. In fact I'd argue a ... See Morelot of current overpopulation issues are due to religious people forcing educational systems to promote abstinence and not teach about protection at all, when clearly abstinence is not going to happen. Given that atheists are far more likely to be sensible about such things, and are also as a general rule far more likely to support abortion and such, religious groups tend to more than just frown upon both contraception and abortion.
"We also have natural science to thank for nuclear weapons that can destroy the earth countless times over and bio/eco warfare, of which the possiblities are really quite terrifying."
Natural science does not equal atheism. Nuclear weapons were first developed in the USA, which is one of the least secular nations in the entire world, and was even less secualar six and a half decades ago when said technology was developed. I'm not saying that it's the fault of religion that such things exist, more that religion and secularism are pretty much entirely irrelevant to the case. It reminds me of those people who claim atheism is inherently evil because Stalin was an atheist and caused a hell of a lot of death. Yes he was and yes he did, but the two facts are pretty much unrelated.
"I personally cannot say I am as bothered by this, as these are all things that humans and the planet did fine without for thousands of years"
The planet may have, but humans have done ourselves less than proud in our ignorance. I can't help but be disgusted when I look at human history.
That aside, the space program is a potential solution to the issue of overpopulation, and indeed given that nobody is likely to begin a culling of the human population, may actually be the only viable solution, thus I'd actually expect you to support it given your apparent concerns about overpopulation.
Gnosticism might be worth looking into, although while it may be interesting I doubt I will be persuaded of much by it, as it still revolves around belief in a deity of sorts, and deities are inherently illogical concepts in my experience.
"Health is perhaps the only field in which science has been of real benefit and perhaps in some instances, communication but I say that in a reserved tone due to the global social conditioning it has made possible."
I'd also add mathematics to that list, along with debunking of unbelievably idiotic concepts like astrology, not to mention long-term storage of information and thousands of other areas where science is applicable. Life in today's world would be a hell of a lot less easy without science. For example, electricity comes directly from science, and that has undeniably made many, many things in life more efficient.
Yeah, like I said, I don't always agree with Dawkins. But quite frankly as long as religious folk keep pushing their dogma down our throats, I see no reason why we can't spit it out and respond by challenging their beliefs publically.
"Mcdonalds, Gangsterism, Globalization, MTV, Democracy and more or less all that defines the modern world that the media exposes us to, are the product of secular society"
Can't agree that secularism is to blame. While some of the people responsible for the things in question may have been secular themselves, I feel quite safe saying that the majority were not, as much like the nuclear weapon issue, McDonalds, Gangsterism to a large extent, MTV and the popular view on so-called Democracy come largely from the USA, which as previously mentioned is one of the world's least secular nations. And again I would argue that that the secularism or lack thereof is largely irrelevant, as these things have emerged more due to the state of western economics than anything else, and given that atheism makes up less than 7% of the world's population and in the past has consisted of much smaller numbers I think it a bit absurd to try and attribute the state of world/western economics purely to so-called secular society.
Yesterday at 1:28am · LikeUnlike ·
William James Hastings Braddell
William James Hastings Braddell
“Can't agree that that's purely due to secularism. In fact I'd argue a ... See Morelot of current overpopulation issues are due to religious people forcing educational systems to promote abstinence and not teach about protection at all, when clearly abstinence is not going to happen. “
Whilst Imperialism in the form of Catholicism in places such ... See Moreas Africa certainly has not helped the problem, it cannot be considered the root of the disaster. Traditional family structure and religion along with a lack of birth control and abortion was the standard worldwide for thousands of years yet it is only in recent times that overpopulation has boomed and become an issue, in fact correlating perfectly with the industrial revolution making my theory seem much more likely, that mass poverty caused by the secular Bourgeois revolution in France and subsequent industrial revolution.
“Natural science does not equal atheism. Nuclear weapons were first developed in the USA, which is one of the least secular nations in the entire world, and was even less secualar six and a half decades ago when said technology was developed. I'm not saying that it's the fault of religion that such things exist, more that religion and secularism are pretty much entirely irrelevant to the case.”
Ah but natural science rose to power during the Renaissance/Enlightenment Age which was totally secular and humanist in its outlook. Also the Jacobins (who were atheist or anti state religion in the least) toppled the French Feudal monarchy and came to power in this time period, forming probably the first secular government in Europe which was quickly followed by the industrial revolution. It is important to note, that the victorious bourgeois had everything to gain from encouraging the worship of natural science which equated with technological progress and in the form of the industrial revolution, benefited them above all others by making them incredibly rich (as the controllers of the means of production) and making everyone else poor, thus fitting well with the theory I have presented of the rise of quantity.
In regards to the U.S.A being one of the least secular nations in the world, I can only say that if you were to stop taking this at face value you would quickly see otherwise for a small number of reasons:
*The U.S.A is democratic and democracy is, excluding Athenian democracy (which is a different matter altogether), essentially secular, having re-emerged in Europe at the French revolution as would be necessary to confirm my theory of the rise of quantity in this time period.
*Being Democratic, the U.S.A does not recognize any divine right of kings, which in itself is an ideal that only emerged with secular thinkers like Locke and Roseau. The church itself generally supported the divine right of Kings at least up until the Magna Carta (which I believe to be an initial sign of secular decay) and even then, maintained respect for authority.
*America (Or the rest of the global western civilization does not have any kind of symbol of any higher order, I.e a Cross for Christianity or a Swastika for Hinduism which thinkers like Guenon, Spengler Evola have already identified as being part of most, if not all traditional, non-secular societies.
*Capitalism, the American way of life, which of course places emphasis on quantity (wealth) and nothing else, did not emerge until (you guessed it) the Bourgeois revolution and is totally unlike the Feudal economy of pre enlightenment Europe which as I have said was simple and agricultural. This emphasis on quantity economically, emerged at the same time as the rise of natural science and democracy, which cannot be viewed as unrelated. When viewed this way, it is not hard to see America as a more secular beast.
*Nationalism, which also was a result of the French revolution, is highly important to most Americans, you won't need to look far to see this is populist in its structure and due to its origins, is of a secular nature for all intents and purposes. If the argument laid out by Julius Evola in Men Among The Ruins holds any credibility, then you would not have found the presence of nationalism anywhere in any of the Christian monarchies in Europe but instead of adherence to border you would have found an adherence to an idea, in this case Christianity.
“That aside, the space program is a potential solution to the issue of overpopulation, and indeed given that nobody is likely to begin a culling of the human population, may actually be the only viable solution, thus I'd actually expect you to support it given your apparent concerns about overpopulation.”
A potential solution to a problem caused by the origins of the solution hardly appears to be worthy of support. Besides this seems like a hypothesis at most so far, as I've yet to see science create an entirely self sufficient space station and even if it could, is this any real way of life? Economic socialism, conservatism in terms of values and if necessary, mass sterilisation or what you have suggested seem like the only real solutions. Although I do not see them happening for the most part, this does to some degree fit into my Cycladic view of the civilization so I am left unchanged on the matter.
“it still revolves around belief in a deity of sorts, and deities are inherently illogical concepts in my experience.”
Its funny how different people react differently to this. To me, the idea of a being that can transcend human rationality and other abstract concepts such as time, seems far more likely than the universe being spawned by a primordial object.
“I'd also add mathematics to that list, along with debunking of unbelievably idiotic concepts like astrology, not to mention long-term storage of information and thousands of other areas where science is applicable.”
India played a huge role in mathematics which was a result of guess what: Hinduism.
“For example, electricity comes directly from science, and that has undeniably made many, many things in life more efficient. “
Its also made people more dependent. You saw how confused people were in the recent blackout, how many westerners do you think could survive today in a primitive hunter-gatherer formation without huge food sources such as supermarkets? Given that this type of society might be ahead in the future due to some of the problems we have discussed, I think this argument warrants some thought.
“the USA, which as previously mentioned is one of the world's least secular nations. And again I would argue that that the secularism or lack thereof is largely irrelevant, as these things have emerged more due to the state of western economics than anything else “
And what is the U.S.A's system of barter? Capitalism, which of course emerged with the Secular French revolution and with its veins full of gold and produce, is totally based around a secular worship of quantity. It of course makes sense for the Bourgeois to encourage a secular form of life for without some higher goal, what do most people turn to other than greed and technological progress? Hence it makes sense, that Mcdonalds and all the others I have listed emerged with the goal of achieving quantity (at whatever cost to everything else) in the age of globalization (which Mcdonalds and America are undeniably playing a huge role in and did not emerge in Feudal France.
Yesterday at 2:32am · LikeUnlike ·
William James Hastings Braddell
William James Hastings Braddell
Expanding a little further on what was said about Capitalism in the above comment, unlike the Aristocratic/Feudal systems before hand, it places no importance on any form of spiritual elite "i.e, a Divine Right, only a Plutocratic one, making it quite secular in function. Its of no concidence that Mcdonalds rose to power in the age of this... See ... See MoreMore ... See Morekind of social conditioning along with the technological progress that eventually enabled corperations like this to invade the average households living room in the form of the t.v.
It is true that most Americans and New Zealanders for that matter would list themselves as Christian but this is really a Residual matter rather than anything else, just everyday people preserving a long dead tradition only in name and theory for the most part.
No comments:
Post a Comment