Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

Cannabis Seeds Zamnesia
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |  [ show all ]
Re: Atheism [Re: Lakefingers]
    #12511924 -

Lakefingers said:
Agnostics usually have guilt problems and secretly take pleasure in something they claim to have no pleasure or self-interest in: rational fence riding. To your face they are calm, when no one's looking they smile at what they've done. They follow the ascetic ideal.


One can call themself agnostic but when you take out all the language and look at how they live their life they will be doing so in fashion that either does or does not believe in God. That's how it was for me; sure I'm an agnostic in theory but when I look at what I practice I do not live my life as if their is anything reading my thoughts or watching me shit.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Atheism [Re: Grapefruit]
    #12511975 -

Grapefruit said:
Can you really say it's just as poor scientifically to have belief that there is definetly no god as having faith that there is definetly a god?


Well, it isn't really a scientific question since science deals with material things.  The question is philosophical, which delves into metaphysics.

Grapefruit said:
A lot of agnostics seem to lump the two into the same categorie and I just don't see it. Do "God" and "No God" really have the same probability?


I don't know how you would answer such a question.


Grapefruit said:
I consider it highly improbable that there is a god.


That would be a belief.  If you're comfortable with such a belief and it works for you, why question it?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Atheism [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
    #12512090 -

Quote:
Well, it isn't really a scientific question since science deals with material things.  The question is philosophical, which delves into metaphysics.


The question can be either scientific or philosophic, but, IMO, philosophy without science is crap.
How are we supposed to believe in stuff that has no evidence of existence? Do you believe what everyone is telling you, or are you taking steps to test the verity of their words?

Quote:
That would be a belief.  If you're comfortable with such a belief and it works for you, why question it?


Because other views might work even better? :shrug:


--------------------
:bunny::bunnyhug:
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
:bunnyhug: :yinyang2:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Atheism [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
    #12512126 -

Mr. Mushrooms said:
  If you're comfortable with such a belief and it works for you, why question it?


because you do not have all of the information in the universe nor do you know any universal truths so there is always the possibiliy that you are WRONG.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Atheism [Re: Tropism]
    #12514974 -

Tropism said:
Lakefingers said:
Agnostics usually have guilt problems and secretly take pleasure in something they claim to have no pleasure or self-interest in: rational fence riding. To your face they are calm, when no one's looking they smile at what they've done. They follow the ascetic ideal.


One can call themself agnostic but when you take out all the language and look at how they live their life they will be doing so in fashion that either does or does not believe in God. That's how it was for me; sure I'm an agnostic in theory but when I look at what I practice I do not live my life as if their is anything reading my thoughts or watching me shit.


nope. there are many conceptions of god that do not watch your every move or care about what you are doing.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Atheism *DELETED* [Re: MushroomTrip]
    #12515149 -

Post deleted by Lakefingers

Reason for deletion: .

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Atheism [Re: Lakefingers]
    #12515182 -

Lakefingers said:
So I take it you no longer partake in auto-erotic activities. :grin:


I do, I just don't think of you. :tongue2:


--------------------
:bunny::bunnyhug:
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
:bunnyhug: :yinyang2:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Atheism [Re: MushroomTrip]
    #12515225 -

OUCH!:lol:


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Atheism *DELETED* [Re: Icelander]
    #12515566 -

Post deleted by Lakefingers

Reason for deletion: .

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Atheism [Re: Lakefingers]
    #12515572 -

Proof that you desire mine.


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Atheism *DELETED* [Re: Icelander]
    #12515582 -

Post deleted by Lakefingers

Reason for deletion: .

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Atheism [Re: Icelander]
    #12515585 -

Quote:
The question can be either scientific or philosophic, but, IMO, philosophy without science is crap.
How are we supposed to believe in stuff that has no evidence of existence? Do you believe what everyone is telling you, or are you taking steps to test the verity of their words?


:thumbup: Philosophy is a branch of science despite a wealth of poor practioners.


--------------------
Little left in the way of energy; or the way of love, yet happy to entertain myself playing mental games with the rest of you freaks until the rivers run backwards. 

"Chat your fraff
Chat your fraff
Just chat your fraff
Chat your fraff"

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Atheism *DELETED* [Re: Grapefruit]
    #12515609 -

Post deleted by Lakefingers

Reason for deletion: No reason.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Atheism [Re: Lakefingers]
    #12515618 -

Practioners.  :facepalm: :lol:


--------------------
Little left in the way of energy; or the way of love, yet happy to entertain myself playing mental games with the rest of you freaks until the rivers run backwards. 

"Chat your fraff
Chat your fraff
Just chat your fraff
Chat your fraff"

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Atheism [Re: Lakefingers]
    #12515676 -

Lakefingers said:
I don't follow that one.


You haven't commented on any other of my posts to MT.:wink:

I know you want to have my baby. :heart:


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Atheism [Re: MushroomTrip]
    #12515931 -

MushroomTrip said:
Quote:
Well, it isn't really a scientific question since science deals with material things.  The question is philosophical, which delves into metaphysics.


The question can be either scientific or philosophic, but, IMO, philosophy without science is crap.


Please explain how empirical investigation can deduce entities that are immaterial.

MushroomTrip said:
How are we supposed to believe in stuff that has no evidence of existence?


What kind of evidence, scientific or philosophical?  I don't think it's so much evidence as it is the interpretation of evidence.

MushroomTrip said:
Do you believe what everyone is telling you, or are you taking steps to test the verity of their words?


I test everything, most people don't.  Why?  Most people wish to defend an already established ideological view.

MushroomTrip said:
Quote:
That would be a belief.  If you're comfortable with such a belief and it works for you, why question it?


Because other views might work even better? :shrug:


That might work for some eating kind of food, but few people, within the main religions, jump from one to another if they are comfortable with what they have.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Atheism [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
    #12515989 -

Quote:
Please explain how empirical investigation can deduce entities that are immaterial.


Please give an example of a proven immaterial entity. WTF even is immaterial. :confused:


--------------------
Little left in the way of energy; or the way of love, yet happy to entertain myself playing mental games with the rest of you freaks until the rivers run backwards. 

"Chat your fraff
Chat your fraff
Just chat your fraff
Chat your fraff"

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Atheism [Re: Grapefruit]
    #12515995 -

Immaterial is defined as that which no empirical investigation can deduce.  :tongue:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Atheism [Re: DieCommie]
    #12516019 -

Nothing that doesn't comprise of matter has ever been proven to exist.


--------------------
Little left in the way of energy; or the way of love, yet happy to entertain myself playing mental games with the rest of you freaks until the rivers run backwards. 

"Chat your fraff
Chat your fraff
Just chat your fraff
Chat your fraff"

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Atheism [Re: Lakefingers]
    #12516028 -

Lakefingers said:
Grapefruit said:
Quote:
The question can be either scientific or philosophic, but, IMO, philosophy without science is crap.
How are we supposed to believe in stuff that has no evidence of existence? Do you believe what everyone is telling you, or are you taking steps to test the verity of their words?


:thumbup: Philosophy is a branch of science despite a wealth of poor practioners.


What is the evidence of a triangle existing? A straight line? A logical argument. Yeah, philosophy without science is gay.


That's just a misunderstanding of philosophy and how it is used.

There are two distinct kinds of first-order knowledge that philosophy obtains, descriptive and prescriptive, while science has only one, descriptive knowledge.  Descriptive knowledge deals objectively with what is or is not in the world in terms of perceptually existing sensate objects and as intelligible objects of the mind as well as memories and other cognitive objects and subjective experiences like bodily and emotional feelings as opposed to prescriptive knowledge that deals with ought or ought not statements.  The motto of Phi Beta Kappa, found in the end of this post, describes philosophy as the guide to life, shouldering the dual burden of making sense of common experiences and informing us of the right way to live.  The questions “what is good?” and “what should men do to obtain it?” cannot be answered by science.  Science can make nuclear power, but it cannot tell us whether it is better to heat our homes or destroy an enemy, or both, or neither.  I am reminded of Albert Einstein who said, “It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity.” 

Before evolutionary psychologists raise objections over what is good and what is not let me point out that in terms of non-cognitive ethics, the kind promoted by them and other materialists infatuated with science, no categorical imperative exists within their scope.  As an evolutionary psychologist may describe what is good for the perpetuation of a species or mental health thereof for an individual as a doctor may advise a patient not to smoke to reduce the risk of lung cancer, neither the psychologist nor the doctor are able to assign truth to the value other than an “if, then” statement.  “IF you want to avoid a higher risk of lung cancer, THEN stop smoking.”  Only philosophy can assign, and does assign, an objective truth-value in the form of an undergirding categorical imperative that is solid as well as axiomatic.  Found in Aristotle, it is, we ought to desire everything that is good for us.  The fact that the statement is axiomatic or self-evidently true demarcates another difference between philosophy and science.  While axiomatic statements are rarely found in any empirically based field of inquiry, they are never found in science.  As I’ve mentioned before, most statements occur as doxa, as opinion that may change with the addition of new facts; few statements are episteme, statements that cannot change with the addition of new facts.  They are unshakeable, incorrigible, immutable truths, e.g. from descriptive knowledge we obtain the statement, “I exist,” and from prescriptive knowledge, the kind that subsumes ethics, we obtain the statement, “one ought to desire things that are good.”

As philosophy contains two types of knowledge within its scope of first-order questions, one descriptive, the other prescriptive, it also contains second-order questions and answers that are concerned with two types of understanding, e.g. philosophical analysis as it concerns analytical and linguistic philosophy and logic on the one hand and in addition the categorization of all subjects that are intelligible objects of the mind on the other.  The first consideration is the means by which all empirical investigation is dependent whether it is historical, scientific or self-referentially philosophic.  The fact that philosophy has first-order questions such descriptive truth that considers the existence or non-existence of perceptually existing sensate objects as well as a logically tight categorical imperative and second-order questions that are concerned with understanding wrought by logic and categorization makes philosophy’s status as a field of inquiry not only unique but indispensible for understanding the world in which we live and knowing how to act. 

Philosophia biou kybernētēs—Philosophy, the guide to life.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |  [ show all ]

Shop: Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Atheism and Theism are not Polar Opposites.
( 1 2 all )		 Evolving 3,610 35 02/16/04 11:07 PM
by Sclorch
* Atheism vs Agnosticism
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )		 SkorpivoMusterion 7,647 113 02/10/06 11:21 AM
by BlueCoyote
* Possibilianism Noteworthy 724 8 07/28/11 08:01 AM
by Noteworthy
* . z_x_x_z 1,225 16 06/02/05 01:19 PM
by SneezingPenis
* Atheism
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )		 rogue_pixie 4,778 83 01/17/06 09:53 PM
by Gratos
* Thoughts on Atheism, and Nolabelism Amnesiac 881 6 05/13/03 11:58 PM
by Amnesiac
* Agnostics and atheists will you succumb just before the end?
( 1 2 all )		 Scarfmeister 3,685 25 04/23/03 06:18 PM
by CeeEssGee
* assumptions in agnostic"ism" kaiowas 917 8 11/08/04 11:27 PM
by kbilly

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
5,032 topic views. 0 members, 237 guests and 21 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.026 seconds spending 0.006 seconds on 15 queries.