|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 04 2013 04:59 McBengt wrote:
The fact that I am speaking and thinking and responding is sufficient proof that I am sentient.
BAH
You are making a basic mistake in not recognising the varying degrees of burden of proof. A claim that I am me and not an automaton can easily verified or disproved. Once I present myself in all my fleshy glory and have a basic conversation the burden of proof is fulfilled. The burden of proof for the divine, as you may have guessed, is quite different. I suppose an ardent contrarian such as yourself could find some ridiculous reason to question the most mundane claims beyond reason, but most people grow out of that some time during high school. Not all claims are equal. Some require more proof, some less. A claim of a god requires, in technical terms, a fuckton.
The only other option is some form of morbid solipsism that bores me beyond words
Your scientistic empirical flatland leads directly to morbid solipsism, that's my point. Even if you showed up here, there would be no way to prove scientifically that you were self-conscious, so according to you, I would be able to reject this and feel quite pleased with myself about it.
|
On March 04 2013 04:59 sam!zdat wrote:
It's the "pre-trans fallacy".
"lack of God" is not equivalent to "lack of theistic concept", they are on opposite sides of the rupture
if you lack a theistic concept, you do not know that you lack a theistic concept. If you lack God, you know very fucking well that you lack God.
I believe I've clearly used God in the most absolute abstract usage of the term, but if you're so intent on splitting hairs, let me try this again:
Under what circumstances would a knowledge base have a lack of theistic concept?
|
sigh. what is a "knowledge base," and what do you mean by "theistic concept"
edit: theism is a development. atheism can only come after theism. what comes before theism is pre-theism, not atheism.
edit: don't be fooled by the way that your language constructs words to ever believing that some idea is simply the lack of some other idea. Ideas are ideas. If you think like an atheist, that means you are a person who could not have existed without a history of religious thought preceding you.
edit: why does science work? why is the world such that it is, that science works? How do you know? where does this idea come from?
|
On March 04 2013 05:03 sam!zdat wrote:
sigh. what is a "knowledge base," and what do you mean by "theistic concept"
Let's be clear here: You're the one that said even if "God" as a separate concept does not exist, it still exists in some form within the framework of man's knowledge.
I am asking you if you believe that "God" will always be in that framework the moment a being reaches the capacity for critical thought, and if it's impossible for you to conceptualize a framework that does not have "God".
EDIT: By the way, I have never assumed that atheism is a lack of concept of God. In fact, I don't think I've even used the word atheism.
|
On March 04 2013 05:09 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2013 05:03 sam!zdat wrote:
sigh. what is a "knowledge base," and what do you mean by "theistic concept" Let's be clear here: You're the one that said even if "God" as a separate concept does not exist, it still exists in some form within the framework of man's knowledge. I am asking you if you believe that "God" will always be in that framework the moment a being reaches the capacity for critical thought, and if it's impossible for you to conceptualize a framework that does not have "God".
you're still confused about what critical thought is. The idea of God precedes critical thought, and critical thought derives from people thinking about God. aufgehoben
|
On March 04 2013 03:50 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2013 02:29 Rassy wrote:On March 03 2013 18:13 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 03 2013 16:37 sam!zdat wrote:
Yes. For early man, the world is totally and completely magical. Only if he's seeking an explanation. Take a robot for example. It has its variables, it has their values and definitions, and does not have the capacity to see beyond what is defined. Going slightly higher, an animal. I can't get into the mind of an animal, but considering that the requirement for philosophical thought is a certain level intellect, I think it's fair to say that an animal's mind interprets observations exactly as they are. This object is food, food is eaten. That object is soft and warm, it's good to sleep on. So on, so forth. The world is not "magical", there is not God, they simply observe the world and interpret it based on their instinct and mental capacity. So if things below our level of intelligence have no fundamental framework of "God" within their knowledge base, why does it become automatically inserted into ours once we evolved to that threshold of brain power? Because animals are not seeking explanation,humans are seeking explanation. "God" is the most simple explanation possible, it covers every posssible event. Later when humans gain more knowledge more and more events can be explained by science. Why are humans seeking explanation, well i dont know for sure. Humans have this unique ability that seperates them from animals. Humans can see far into the future ,they can look ahead in time. That is the reason why an explanation is so valuable for humans,A correct explanation enables them to predict manny more things . Humans can make a connection between things that happend in the past and things that happend at a later time. Animals can not make such connections at all because they can not look into the future, they can not look ahead in time and an explanation has no value for them, nor are they capable of creating one. My question is not "why is God an explanation", it's "Why is God automatic inclusion into the knowledge framework as soon as the threshold for conceptual thinking is reached?" Or, maybe more clearly, is it literally impossible for anything with human-level of intelligence to never have a concept of God, at any point in their lives?
I dont know.It is the easiest explanation and maybe therefor the first people think off.
If look at it in a bit abstract way then: god = everything we can not explain.
We can not explain everything we witness so there will always be a god in the human thinking.
Later this old and vague concept of god as explanation for everything we can not explain, evolved to a more sophisticated god who not only explains everything we can not explain, but who also gives us a moral framework and rules to live by.
This moral framework and rules to live by have not always been connected to the concept of god, in the early days of mankind god was used as an explanation, and maye when we encountered a serie of unfavourable events like bad harvest and weather we started to think that we angerd our god, and so slowly moralty and rules to live by made its way into religion.
Is it possible for human like intelligence to never have a concept of god?
I dont know this tbh, it depends a bit on how you define god.
If you define it as "an explanation for everything we do not understand" then the answer is obviously "NO" since every human has things he can not understand.
If you define god as "good" and see him as an authority who gives us morals, then i think it is possible for humans to never have this concept. Humans for example who lack the cultural background we have, the cultural background wich slowly changed and refined the concept of "god" over the course of thousends of years from a simple explanation for everything we do not understand, to what it is now, a complete religion.
|
I leave for a couple of months and this thread goes to hell...
(jk, but seriously i thought I clicked on the wrong thread when I openned it and saw two pages of religion arguments.)
|
On March 04 2013 05:09 WolfintheSheep wrote:
In fact, I don't think I've even used the word atheism.
oh, but I know what you mean
On March 04 2013 05:12 sc2superfan101 wrote:
I leave for a couple of months and this thread goes to hell...
(jk, but seriously i thought I clicked on the wrong thread when I openned it and saw two pages of religion arguments.)
as you know very well, sc2superfan, religion is extremely important in american politics.
edit: we were originally talking about Texas educational policy. Does it make sense now?
edit: but do you conservatives understand now that sam's educational utopia will be just as challenging to the children of your atheistic enemies as it will be to yours?
|
On March 04 2013 05:11 Rassy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2013 03:50 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 04 2013 02:29 Rassy wrote:On March 03 2013 18:13 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 03 2013 16:37 sam!zdat wrote:
Yes. For early man, the world is totally and completely magical. Only if he's seeking an explanation. Take a robot for example. It has its variables, it has their values and definitions, and does not have the capacity to see beyond what is defined. Going slightly higher, an animal. I can't get into the mind of an animal, but considering that the requirement for philosophical thought is a certain level intellect, I think it's fair to say that an animal's mind interprets observations exactly as they are. This object is food, food is eaten. That object is soft and warm, it's good to sleep on. So on, so forth. The world is not "magical", there is not God, they simply observe the world and interpret it based on their instinct and mental capacity. So if things below our level of intelligence have no fundamental framework of "God" within their knowledge base, why does it become automatically inserted into ours once we evolved to that threshold of brain power? Because animals are not seeking explanation,humans are seeking explanation. "God" is the most simple explanation possible, it covers every posssible event. Later when humans gain more knowledge more and more events can be explained by science. Why are humans seeking explanation, well i dont know for sure. Humans have this unique ability that seperates them from animals. Humans can see far into the future ,they can look ahead in time. That is the reason why an explanation is so valuable for humans,A correct explanation enables them to predict manny more things . Humans can make a connection between things that happend in the past and things that happend at a later time. Animals can not make such connections at all because they can not look into the future, they can not look ahead in time and an explanation has no value for them, nor are they capable of creating one. My question is not "why is God an explanation", it's "Why is God automatic inclusion into the knowledge framework as soon as the threshold for conceptual thinking is reached?" Or, maybe more clearly, is it literally impossible for anything with human-level of intelligence to never have a concept of God, at any point in their lives? I dont know.It is the easiest explanation and maybe therefor the first people think off. If look at it in a bit abstract way then: god = everything we can not explain. We can not explain everything we witness so there will always be a god in the human thinking. Later this old and vague concept of god as explanation for everything we can not explain, evolved to a more sophisticated god who not only explains everything we can not explain, but who also gives us a moral framework and rules to live by. This moral framework and rules to live by have not always been connected to the concept of god, in the early days of mankind god was used as an explanation, and maye when we encountered a serie of unfavourable events like bad harvest and weather we started to think that we angerd our god, and so slowly moralty and rules to live by made its way into religion. Is it possible for human like intelligence to never have a concept of god? I dont know this tbh, it depends a bit on how you define god. If you define it as "an explanation for everything we do not understand" then the answer is obviously "NO" since every human has things he can not understand.If you define god as "good" and see him as an authority who gives us morals, then i think it is possible for humans to never have this concept,humans for example who lack the cultural background we have, the cultural background wich slowly changed and refined the concept of "god" over the course of thousends of years from a simple explanation for everything we do not understand, to what it is now, a complete religion.
Yes, this is very much what I was trying to say.
Think on the word "wonder", and how a man without words or culture might wonder about the world.
|
On March 04 2013 05:13 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2013 05:09 WolfintheSheep wrote:
In fact, I don't think I've even used the word atheism. oh, but I know what you mean Show nested quote +On March 04 2013 05:12 sc2superfan101 wrote:
I leave for a couple of months and this thread goes to hell...
(jk, but seriously i thought I clicked on the wrong thread when I openned it and saw two pages of religion arguments.) as you know very well, sc2superfan, religion is extremely important in american politics. edit: we were originally talking about Texas educational policy. Does it make sense now?edit: but do you conservatives understand now that sam's educational utopia will be just as challenging to the children of your atheistic enemies as it will be to yours?
well actually, now it kinda does. lol
edit: what about texas education policy, if you don't mind me asking?
|
On March 04 2013 05:10 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2013 05:09 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 04 2013 05:03 sam!zdat wrote:
sigh. what is a "knowledge base," and what do you mean by "theistic concept" Let's be clear here: You're the one that said even if "God" as a separate concept does not exist, it still exists in some form within the framework of man's knowledge. I am asking you if you believe that "God" will always be in that framework the moment a being reaches the capacity for critical thought, and if it's impossible for you to conceptualize a framework that does not have "God". you're still confused about what critical thought is. The idea of God precedes critical thought, and critical thought derives from people thinking about God. aufgehoben
So really, it once again comes back around to the the belief that only religion can create critical thought. Or, if you like, the lack of conceptualizing any possibility where critical thought does not originate from the questioning of religion.
I think this has gotten too circular at this point. I'll call it quits now.
On March 04 2013 05:11 Rassy wrote:
If you define it as "an explanation for everything we do not understand" then the answer is obviously "NO" since every human has things he can not understand.
Just to clarify this, I don't think it's fair to call every explanation "God", more so that it needs to be an abstract, consistent third party concept. Whether it's the planet itself as a being, a deity, spirits, etc.
|
On March 04 2013 05:02 sam!zdat wrote:
Your scientistic empirical flatland leads directly to morbid solipsism, that's my point. Even if you showed up here, there would be no way to prove scientifically that you were self-conscious, so according to you, I would be able to reject this and feel quite pleased with myself about it.
Which in turn necessitates a certain level of cognitive reasoning independent of this logical framework. If we are to function in the world, we must assume that other people are real and that events that occur actually occur. Otherwise we would never survive. We have to use our wonderfully evolved brains to reach an acceptable middle ground where we don't descend into gullibility but don't question everything beyond reason.
My middle ground was that I accept things that I can consistently perceive through sensory input, unless I am in a state which could render me delerious or make me hallucinate. I accept that which can be demonstrated and falsified in laboratory conditions, that which is supported by multiple independent sources and corroborating evidence. My requirements also vary with the nature of the claim. If my friend tells me, "I'm going to the store", I will believe him, I have no reason not to, going to the store is a common occurence and I know the store exists. If he upon returning claims, "I met an alien at the store", I would not accept that simply on his word, it is a highly unlikely event and more substantial proof is needed.
|
On March 04 2013 05:19 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2013 05:10 sam!zdat wrote:On March 04 2013 05:09 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 04 2013 05:03 sam!zdat wrote:
sigh. what is a "knowledge base," and what do you mean by "theistic concept" Let's be clear here: You're the one that said even if "God" as a separate concept does not exist, it still exists in some form within the framework of man's knowledge. I am asking you if you believe that "God" will always be in that framework the moment a being reaches the capacity for critical thought, and if it's impossible for you to conceptualize a framework that does not have "God". you're still confused about what critical thought is. The idea of God precedes critical thought, and critical thought derives from people thinking about God. aufgehoben So really, it once again comes back around to the the belief that only religion can create critical thought. Or, if you like, the lack of conceptualizing any possibility where critical thought does not originate from the questioning of religion. I think this has gotten too circular at this point. I'll call it quits now. Show nested quote +On March 04 2013 05:11 Rassy wrote:
If you define it as "an explanation for everything we do not understand" then the answer is obviously "NO" since every human has things he can not understand. Just to clarify this, I don't think it's fair to call every explanation "God", more so that it needs to be an abstract, consistent third party concept. Whether it's the planet itself as a being, a deity, spirits, etc.
It is not that only religion can create critical thought, it is that it did.
|
On March 03 2013 06:06 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2013 04:38 Grumbels wrote:On March 01 2013 13:13 sam!zdat wrote:
of course, when politicians/economists say "education," they really just mean "STEM"... I think that's a bigger problem than anything else
edit: this is just it. The whole notion of "student debt" gives the impression that "education" is an investment into future earning potential. That's not what education is, that's what training is. Education is what you need in order to be a good citizen of a democratic society and a well-developed human being. It's not something you have that lets you make more money in the future. So the entire notion of education as an investment is ass-backwards. that's why it needs to be free - because otherwise only rich people can have it, and that defeats the entire notion of a democratic society, at which point we really should just stop pretending. Yes. I don't know how the situation is today at schools in the United States, but wouldn't it be wonderful if students received extensive training in looking at media from a critical perspective? Republicans disagree. "Texas GOP rejects ‘critical thinking’ skills. Really."Show nested quote +In the you-can’t-make-up-this-stuff department, here’s what the Republican Party of Texas wrote into its 2012 platform as part of the section on education:
Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.
Yes, you read that right. The party opposes the teaching of “higher order thinking skills” because it believes the purpose is to challenge a student’s “fixed beliefs” and undermine “parental authority.”
It opposes, among other things, early childhood education, sex education, and multicultural education, but supports “school subjects with emphasis on the Judeo-Christian principles upon which America was founded.”
This is the post that started this all for us.
|
On March 04 2013 05:21 McBengt wrote:
don't question everything beyond reason.
I maintain that the goal is, quite precisely, to question everything beyond reason.
On March 04 2013 05:18 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2013 05:13 sam!zdat wrote:On March 04 2013 05:09 WolfintheSheep wrote:
In fact, I don't think I've even used the word atheism. oh, but I know what you mean On March 04 2013 05:12 sc2superfan101 wrote:
I leave for a couple of months and this thread goes to hell...
(jk, but seriously i thought I clicked on the wrong thread when I openned it and saw two pages of religion arguments.) as you know very well, sc2superfan, religion is extremely important in american politics. edit: we were originally talking about Texas educational policy. Does it make sense now?edit: but do you conservatives understand now that sam's educational utopia will be just as challenging to the children of your atheistic enemies as it will be to yours? well actually, now it kinda does. lol edit: what about texas education policy, if you don't mind me asking?
The 2012 republican platform for texas states explicitly, I kid you not, that they are opposed to the teaching of critical thought and "higher order" thinking.
So I had to explain a number of things: what "critical thought" is (nobody seems to know), then how "critical thought" historically develops out of critical investigation of scripture, cannot be separated from this, and is not, as the scientistic-atheistic worldview would like to believe, the natural state of man before big bad religion showed up and ruined it. That critical thought is a development from religious thought, and that religious thought is serious and should be taken seriously, studied, and treated with respect ("respect," of course, for sam includes critical examination - I believe that biblical literalism is highly disrespectful to the text and to the people who wrote it.) Basically these kids want to think that pre-modern man is just a bunch of modern positivist-worldview atheists in smelly fur clothes, and I've been trying to smack some sense into them.
edit: at the end of the day, only people who have never made any effort to understand what religion is about can dismiss it in the way that seems to now be so fashionable.
edit: The point I'm making specifically about politics is that everyone should have to encounter ideas in school that they find uncomfortable. This means sex-ed and evolution for christians, and christianity for atheists.
|
On March 04 2013 05:19 WolfintheSheep wrote:
So really, it once again comes back around to the the belief that only religion can create critical thought. Or, if you like, the lack of conceptualizing any possibility where critical thought does not originate from the questioning of religion.
I think this has gotten too circular at this point. I'll call it quits now.
There's a strong current in social sciences right now that considers man to be a spiritual animal, after being a social animal.
Religion merely is organized (social) spirituality. In that regard, yes, critical thinking came from religion.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
oh geez. science --> solipsism? i don't even know how you got up that creek. just take a taxi back
|
It's just a very useful epistemological tool. 
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 04 2013 05:24 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2013 05:19 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 04 2013 05:10 sam!zdat wrote:On March 04 2013 05:09 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 04 2013 05:03 sam!zdat wrote:
sigh. what is a "knowledge base," and what do you mean by "theistic concept" Let's be clear here: You're the one that said even if "God" as a separate concept does not exist, it still exists in some form within the framework of man's knowledge. I am asking you if you believe that "God" will always be in that framework the moment a being reaches the capacity for critical thought, and if it's impossible for you to conceptualize a framework that does not have "God". you're still confused about what critical thought is. The idea of God precedes critical thought, and critical thought derives from people thinking about God. aufgehoben So really, it once again comes back around to the the belief that only religion can create critical thought. Or, if you like, the lack of conceptualizing any possibility where critical thought does not originate from the questioning of religion. I think this has gotten too circular at this point. I'll call it quits now. On March 04 2013 05:11 Rassy wrote:
If you define it as "an explanation for everything we do not understand" then the answer is obviously "NO" since every human has things he can not understand. Just to clarify this, I don't think it's fair to call every explanation "God", more so that it needs to be an abstract, consistent third party concept. Whether it's the planet itself as a being, a deity, spirits, etc. It is not that only religion can create critical thought, it is that it did.
this is as absurd as saying walking created legs
|
On March 04 2013 05:31 sam!zdat wrote:
I maintain that the goal is, quite precisely, to question everything beyond reason.
Then we are at an impasse. This has passed into the realm of abstract philosophy, which bores me. Where pragmatism ends, I take my leave. Good night sir.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
