EPTHow did you become an atheist? - Page 15
| Blogs > woreyour |
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18843 Posts
The word "Gnosticism" is a modern construction, though based on an antiquated linguistic expression: it comes from the Greek word meaning "knowledge", gnosis (γνῶσις). However, gnosis itself refers to a very specialised form of knowledge, deriving both from the exact meaning of the original Greek term and its usage in Platonist philosophy. Ancient Greek was capable of discerning between several different forms of knowing. These different forms may be described in English as being propositional knowledge, indicative of knowledge acquired indirectly through the reports of others or otherwise by inference (such as "I know of George Bush" or "I know Berlin is in Germany"), and empirical knowledge acquired by direct participation or acquaintance (such as "I know George Bush personally" or "I know Berlin, having visited"). Gnosis (γνῶσις) refers to knowledge of the second kind. Therefore, in a religious context, to be "Gnostic" should be understood as being reliant not on knowledge in a general sense, but as being specially receptive to mystical or esoteric experiences of direct participation with the divine. Indeed, in most Gnostic systems the sufficient cause of salvation is this "knowledge of" ("acquaintance with") the divine. This is commonly identified with a process of inward "knowing" or self-exploration, comparable to that encouraged by Plotinus (c. 205–270 AD). This is what helps separate Gnosticism from proto-orthodox views, where the orthodox views are considered to be superficial.[21] The inadequate take then requires a correct form of interpretation. With "gnosis" comes a fuller insight that is considered to be more spiritual. Greater recognition of the deeper spiritual meanings of doctrines, scriptures, and rituals are obtained with this insight. However, as may be seen, the term "gnostic" also had precedent usage in several ancient philosophical traditions, which must also be weighed in considering the very subtle implications of its appellation to a set of ancient religious groups. Gnosticism On a fundamental level, your outlining of the contours of the "atheist/gnostic/deist" conversation is a political move, one that seeks to streamline and make clear an argument that is possibly hopelessly mired in problematic language. It really isn't that useful to be frank. | ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
edit: and "debates" on religion outside of academia is seriously useless. There's little to no substance involved from either side, and the most public figures are not enlightening at all. | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
| ||
|
Birdie
New Zealand4438 Posts
On April 29 2013 08:05 koreasilver wrote: They've been repeating the same useless shit for years. Listening to them is like opening a book back to the 17th and 18th centuries when figures have said what they've said better and more. The pretense of being the bastion of rationality becomes intolerably facile when they've brought literally nothing new to the table. Given the context you're talking about atheists, right? Regardless, when it comes to philosophy there hasn't really been many original thoughts recently on any side of the fence. Doesn't mean people are irrational just because what they're saying is old. | ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10647 Posts
On April 29 2013 08:05 koreasilver wrote: They've been repeating the same useless shit for years. Listening to them is like opening a book back to the 17th and 18th centuries when figures have said what they've said better and more. The pretense of being the bastion of rationality becomes intolerably facile when they've brought literally nothing new to the table. As opposed to the religious arguments that date back millenia? Anselm's argument is almost 1000 years old now and people still use it. In all honesty it's absurd, but then again maybe I'm biased, since I view most religious arguments that way, since they are almost never based on any rational thought. | ||
|
B.I.G.
3251 Posts
Also, I guess I didn't really lose my religion, just became very sceptical about how it is "presented". I believe Jesus was real and that he was a very inspirational figure who tried to make the world a better place for his fellow men. God might be real as well if you ask me. I still have respect for the church and the people in it that dedicate their lives to what they believe in. It's just too bad that they cling ancient and totally outdated believes that have no place in the world nowadays. I mean I can understand the dilemma of trying to be a religious leader to billions of people across the world who all have unique background and cultural values, but I just have a hard time believing that a being who supposedly created the entire galaxy honestly cares about what people do with their penis. I guess this realisation kind of came on early. My parents are both raised catholic (although my dad is an atheist now) and they do respect the traditions of the church. However we also always have had close contact with gay family members and colleagues (turns out there are quite a bit of homosexuals in my family lol), and my parents were always very adament about making your own choices and thinking for yourself. To this day I'm actually not quite sure what place religion has in my life. I guess it's a never ending journey huh.. | ||
|
Shady Sands
United States4021 Posts
Asked teacher how God could have counted the days before he created the sun, if day means that the sun is around and night means the sun isn't Got sent to time out Persuaded parents to send me to public school the following year | ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
On April 29 2013 08:30 Birdie wrote: Given the context you're talking about atheists, right? Regardless, when it comes to philosophy there hasn't really been many original thoughts recently on any side of the fence. Doesn't mean people are irrational just because what they're saying is old. There's plenty of original things going on these days with the various Deleuze influenced/inspired materialists and people like Brassier and Meillassoux. I'm not saying the "new atheists" are irrational. I'm just saying that they are extremely amateurish and they play a big role in why any dialogue concerning religion in the English speaking nations is so vapid (along with the fundamentalists). The Anglo nations are stuck on two childish attitudes. One is the comically insecure religious fundamentalist, and on the other hand is their mirror adolescent that has simply inverted the ingrained idiotic religious upbringing and has turned religion into the boogeyman. Like I do understand that a large part of America are the breeding grounds for religious fundamentalism and I can empathize that if you grow up in such an environment you would be extremely put off by it (as was I when I left my faith; how could you not rebel and dismiss religion growing up like that if you have any ounce of honesty and love for your individuality?) but what much of us miss in the Anglo nations is that our image of religion is also a scarecrow. And most importantly, most of the so-called atheists in the West are still, fundamentally, Christian, and for me it's important for this generation to realize that. Not to return to Christianity, but to be able to actually move forward and find a way out of it. My biggest issue with our new atheists and their asinine acolytes isn't primarily because they don't even understand what they're talking about and actually want to spend their time studying, but because to me they are still so Christian without being able to understand it. The only one of them that wasn't was Hitchens, and he is dead now. And this is off-topic, but if you think there hasn't been any interesting, original, and substantive work in philosophy these days then you simply don't study it. But in our generation, who actually reads? Much too few. That's why these new atheists and loudmouth televangelists and demagogues get so much business. | ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10647 Posts
On April 30 2013 07:58 koreasilver wrote: There's plenty of original things going on these days with the various Deleuze influenced/inspired materialists and people like Brassier and Meillassoux. I'm not saying the "new atheists" are irrational. I'm just saying that they are extremely amateurish and they play a big role in why any dialogue concerning religion in the English speaking nations is so vapid (along with the fundamentalists). The Anglo nations are stuck on two childish attitudes. One is the comically insecure religious fundamentalist, and on the other hand is their mirror adolescent that has simply inverted the ingrained idiotic religious upbringing and has turned religion into the boogeyman. Like I do understand that a large part of America are the breeding grounds for religious fundamentalism and I can empathize that if you grow up in such an environment you would be extremely put off by it (as was I when I left my faith; how could you not rebel and dismiss religion growing up like that if you have any ounce of honesty and love for your individuality?) but what much of us miss in the Anglo nations is that our image of religion is also a scarecrow. And most importantly, most of the so-called atheists in the West are still, fundamentally, Christian, and for me it's important for this generation to realize that. Not to return to Christianity, but to be able to actually move forward and find a way out of it. My biggest issue with our new atheists and their asinine acolytes isn't primarily because they don't even understand what they're talking about and actually want to spend their time studying, but because to me they are still so Christian without being able to understand it. The only one of them that wasn't was Hitchens, and he is dead now. And this is off-topic, but if you think there hasn't been any interesting, original, and substantive work in philosophy these days then you simply don't study it. But in our generation, who actually reads? Much too few. That's why these new atheists and loudmouth televangelists and demagogues get so much business. nice generalizations bro. the bolded in particular makes very little sense at all. | ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
| ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10647 Posts
On April 30 2013 10:59 koreasilver wrote: Most of the atheists of our generation that take their cue from the new atheists are still absolute foundationalists where the ground of all meaning and reason doesn't come from the one sovereign deity, but some abstracted idea of rationality-in-itself. But just as the internal failure of the logical positivists led to its failure, the whole-hearted reliance on the modern scientific method doesn't lead us to any secure ground of thought. The scientific method does rely on particular metaphysical presuppositions and aren't as secure as one might think, but the new atheists and their acolytes don't recognize that, and this is where I think Feyerabend was the most correct. There is still an undue pledge of allegiance to a particular form of inquiry that is held up as unquestionably grounded although it still operates on particular metaphysical grounds. Let us also note that the new atheists of our generation still rely heavily on moralistic arguments and ethical outrage, much of which is just a reiteration of the various developments that occurred through Europe in a distinctly Christian way. What use is there in discarding the label of Christianity if the structures of thought are still Christian anyway? The new atheists operate under a veiled theology just as much as how Benjamin noted that the Marxist reliance on historical materialism was just a masked theology. One needs to take much more radical steps to go beyond Christianity, but the new atheists don't. They're content with the superficial and that's why I think the new atheists of the Anglo-nations are just as much of a failure as the Christians in the same nations. even more unbased generalizations! Being an atheist is nothing more than lacking a belief in God/gods/deities/whatever. Most of your pseudo-intellectual generalizations don't even hold any sway because they presuppose that lacking a belief is akin to some sort of scientific theology. You don't even need to be rational or even accept science to be atheist. They just generally coincide because of the tendency for people who rely on empirical evidence for their beliefs to reject religion, which by definition requires an acceptance of beliefs without evidence. In order to be atheist you need to simply reject beliefs-you do not need to actually hold any. | ||
|
Birdie
New Zealand4438 Posts
On April 30 2013 13:13 wherebugsgo wrote: even more unbased generalizations! Being an atheist is nothing more than lacking a belief in God/gods/deities/whatever. Most of your pseudo-intellectual generalizations don't even hold any sway because they presuppose that lacking a belief is akin to some sort of scientific theology. You don't even need to be rational or even accept science to be atheist. They just generally coincide because of the tendency for people who rely on empirical evidence for their beliefs to reject religion, which by definition requires an acceptance of beliefs without evidence. In order to be atheist you need to simply reject beliefs-you do not need to actually hold any. While that is the least you need to do be classified as an atheist (specifically rejection of belief in a god or gods), he's not talking about minimum requirements, he's talking about what most atheists in Western society are ACTUALLY like and what they ACTUALLY believe. | ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10647 Posts
On April 30 2013 13:15 Birdie wrote: While that is the least you need to do be classified as an atheist (specifically rejection of belief in a god or gods), he's not talking about minimum requirements, he's talking about what most atheists in Western society are ACTUALLY like and what they ACTUALLY believe. So he's generalizing about a massive group of people who don't actually have identifying characteristics otherwise. For example, I live in the west, am an atheist, and completely disagree with what he's saying. It's simply not true. What about not believing in the Christian God is "structurally Christian"? He makes the question of "what's the use of discarding the label of Christianity if the structures of thought are Christian" which makes no sense. If you're atheist you've clearly rejected the very foundation of Christian thought: belief without evidence. When you actually read his pseudointellectual posts you see that not only do they generalize but they're completely wrong. e: also I'm in no way related to anything Christian, I only argue against it because that's the most common faith of the people around me. None of my family was Christian, they were Muslim, and it has a whole host of problems that are similar foundationally but completely different societally. Muslims are worse in ways and (shockingly) better in others-my Muslim family tends to be very charitable, for example. | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
On April 23 2013 04:19 wherebugsgo wrote: Christianity as an institution has done nothing more than stifle progress throughout history. There are plenty of facts that I have already cited that support that assertion. How much do you give to charity every year? | ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10647 Posts
On April 30 2013 13:37 sc2superfan101 wrote: How much do you give to charity every year? How is this relevant? + Show Spoiler + For the record: In the past year I've donated blood twice, and ~$100 to Oxfam and Amnesty International. As a college student with no job, I wish I could donate more, but $20k a year in tuition after scholarships makes that quite difficult. I certainly don't persecute or harass or intimidate people for not being atheists, unlike the numerous people who have told me over the years that I'm going to hell for not believing in what they believe, or that I have no soul/heart in their eyes, including members of my own family. | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
On April 30 2013 13:44 wherebugsgo wrote: How is this relevant? + Show Spoiler + For the record: In the past year I've donated blood twice, and ~$100 to Oxfam and Amnesty International. As a college student with no job, I wish I could donate more, but $20k a year in tuition after scholarships makes that quite difficult. I certainly don't persecute or harass or intimidate people for not being atheists, unlike the numerous people who have told me over the years that I'm going to hell for not believing in what they believe, or that I have no soul/heart in their eyes, including members of my own family. You said the Christianity as an institution has done nothing but stifle progress. Clearly you meant excluding the Catholic Church being the world's largest charitable organization, all the Christian scientists and artists who cited their belief as the reason for their practicing science and art, the millions of doctors who cite their belief as being the primary motivator for their research and healing, the creation of empires, the cultural morality of the West, and all those other examples of Christianity as an institution being a force of progress. You can have problems with the way certain Christians have acted, and have problems with the way the institutions of Christianity have acted without resorting to such completely ridiculous hyperbole. In fact, one would be hard pressed to find any institution that had as positive effect on progress as the Christian institutions. edit: To answer your question, it was relevant because I just naturally assumed that you had to have done at least close to an equal amount for charity as the Catholic Church has to make such a bold statement that they do nothing at all. Seeing that you do some, but very little in comparison... well, that makes me wonder why someone on such shaky ground is attacking those who are on hard rock. | ||
| ||
