Through the eyes of Atheism

reply to post by nenothtu


So Quality is purely subjective? I'm not so sure about that, because we do know it when it's present, and when it is not - don't we, for the most part?

All I'm really suggesting, is that there once existed another type of understanding, another type of teaching, of knowledge, and even science, what in India the ancient Hindus called Bramavidya (Supreme Science) and it was the science of enlightenment, of the soul of man and the continuous re-discovery (through initiation) of man's true nature, as a reflection of the divine, or of the Absolute.

But academia killed it, as did government, as did the church itself, and so too the modern scientific method, as a be all and end all description of reality, when it's really only working with the most superficial aspect of reality, however successful it may be in manipulating and re-ordering matter, and predicting certain causes from effects. Even in that regard the truth of the matter, so to speak, is that we still don't know squat about reality, and for every new "truth" given by the modern scientific method, there's an exponential bifurcation of new hypothesis, so how are we REALLY any closer to the truth about our existence, and since when did the modern scientific method become an institutionalized religion in it's own right?

Did that make sense to anyone else?

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by nenothtu

 

So Quality is purely subjective? I'm not so sure about that, because we do know it when it's present, and when it is not - don't we, for the most part?

That quality exists, I think we can all agree on, for the most part. That much would seem to be an "absolute" or objective. What constitutes quality, where the threshold lies, what we are willing to accept as "quality" will likely vary from each individual to the next, though. That aspect would seem to be more subjective than objective.

All I'm really suggesting, is that there once existed another type of understanding, another type of teaching, of knowledge, and even science, what in India the ancient Hindus called Bramavidya (Supreme Science) and it was the science of enlightenment, of the soul of man and the continuous re-discovery (through initiation) of man's true nature, as a reflection of the divine, or of the Absolute.

Your probably right about varying types of understanding, as there are probably as many types of understanding as there are minds to understand. None of us thinks exactly alike.

What is now considered "science" is pretty well defined objectively, although there are varying understanding of what is "science", not all of those understandings is correct in the sense of being in step with the commonly accepted definition. Modern science is verifiable or falsifiable via repeatable observations under controlled circumstances to insure homogenous or comparable results from one observation to the next. An experiment that can't be repeated under the same set of conditions isn't repeatable, and doesn't really verify anything other than what is observed under that singular set of circumstances, since it can't be reliably compared to the results of previous or subsequent observations.

I'm not versed in what the ancient Hindus considered Supreme Science, and so can't really comment on how it compares to the modern concept of science. Nowadays, "enlightenment" is usually used in a religious or spiritual context, although it isn't necessarily limited to that context. One can be "enlightened" or educated via scientific inquiry in concrete matters, not so much in spiritual matters. Spiritual enlightenment has a more esoteric, less concrete source, and isn't subject to repeated experimentation - and so isn't subject to scientific inquiry.

The notion of an "initiation" may be problematic, depending on just how that term is meant. The implication is that it is unattainable for some, solely based upon whether they are "initiates" or not, rather than their own native intelligence. I don't see that sort of "initiation" as having any particular value to the general public, since it is rather exclusive.

Introducing the divine into the nature of man takes that part of the nature of man out of the realm if scientific inquiry, since the divine generally won't stand still to be poked, prodded, and experimented on. Science can investigate the mechanics of man, his existence and environment, from the micro to the macro, but indefinable and unquantifiable esoterics such as a "divine nature" aren't proper subjects of scientific investigation.

But academia killed it, as did government, as did the church itself, and so too the modern scientific method, as a be all and end all description of reality, when it's really only working with the most superficial aspect of reality, however successful it may be in manipulating and re-ordering matter, and predicting certain causes from effects. Even in that regard the truth of the matter, so to speak, is that we still don't know squat about reality, and for every new "truth" given by the modern scientific method, there's an exponential bifurcation of new hypothesis, so how are we REALLY any closer to the truth about our existence, and since when did the modern scientific method become an institutionalized religion in it's own right?

Academia, government, and "the church" (by which most people mean the Catholic Church, as if there weren't any others) seem to me to exist solely for their own benefit, not mine, yours, or any one elses. They exist to propagate their own existence, at whatever expense they can extract from the rest of the world. Modern scientific method is more objective, and is open to anyone who cares to try to grasp it. Neither is science static, and it is subject to revision at every turn.

What you are terming "reality" here seems to be of a more abstract, esoteric nature than a "hard" reality, something that one can smack with a hand. Scientific method deals with things that are concrete, can be poked, prodded, experimented upon, and smacked with the hand - figuratively speaking. It's a fair certainty that none of us will smack any quantum foam in a macro sense, but it is nonetheless a concrete more than an abstract, and subject to experimentation. Likewise, none of us will ever smack a star, but it is there all the same, as any with eyesight can verify, and the light from them can be studied and picked apart to reveal deeper secrets than the mere presence of "light".

What you seem to be suggesting is a synthesis of sorts between science and spirituality, the end result of which could well leave something less of both than a separation of them. In such a synthesis, each would necessarily have to give up part of itself in deference to the other in order to make a proper merger, and that couldn't be good for either

Then again, I might be misunderstanding what you're getting at.

reply to post by nenothtu


baking soda gets anything out lol

reply to post by nenothtu

I graciously offer you my hand, so that you may use it for assistance, while stepping down from atop this pedestal, that you have placed yourself upon. Maybe, just maybe, you will be able to return to reality for a moment or two.



There is probably one of these↓, somewhere within your vicinity. Try to find one, and take a look into it. mk?[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0a7a960044ee.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by nenothtu

Apparently you DO care that I think your belief is a belief, or you wouldn't be trying to counter it so vociferously.

I cannot even begin to imagine what it must feel like, consistently being wrong, over & over again. Maybe you're accustomed to it by now, I'm not sure. Regardless, once again, you are incorrect.

Take a look at Example A. A quick scroll from top to bottom, is all that is needed.
Then take a look at Example B. Compare them.

Of those two examples, which one is best described as being vociferous?

[color=A9B5B8]You should be able to get this one right. However, since you are so often incorrect, I shall go ahead and give you a little hint. It is not Example B.

Originally posted by DaveNorris
reply to post by nenothtu

 

baking soda gets anything out lol

Oh, that's what I've been doing wrong! I've been using club soda to clean up the mess when my head explodes! No wonder it just smears it everywhere!

Originally posted by BrokenCircles
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Meh. I've been the recipient of much higher quality insults, from people who actually knew what they were doing. I'll give you a couple days to get your act together and try again.

I graciously offer you my hand, so that you may use it for assistance, while stepping down from atop this pedestal, that you have placed yourself upon. Maybe, just maybe, you will be able to return to reality for a moment or two.

Thanks but no thanks - I don't know where that hand has been.

There is probably one of these↓, somewhere within your vicinity. Try to find one, and take a look into it. mk?[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0a7a960044ee.jpg[/atsimg]

Why would I do that? I'm not very pretty, and so not in the habit of preening.

Originally posted by nenothtu

Apparently you DO care that I think your belief is a belief, or you wouldn't be trying to counter it so vociferously.

I cannot even begin to imagine what it must feel like, consistently being wrong, over & over again. Maybe you're accustomed to it by now, I'm not sure. Regardless, once again, you are incorrect.

I believe your first sentence there. Your lack of imagination is on bold display. I'm sure you can't imagine much at all. Pity. Be that as it may, it appears you have no need to imagine what it feels like to be so consistently wrong - you have first hand knowledge, which you have once again placed on display. I stand by what I said - you must care, and have demonstrated that once again, with this very post.

Take a look at Example A. A quick scroll from top to bottom, is all that is needed.
Then take a look at Example B. Compare them.

Of those two examples, which one is best described as being vociferous?

[color=A9B5B8]You should be able to get this one right. However, since you are so often incorrect, I shall go ahead and give you a little hint. It is not Example B.

What do you think "vociferous" means? here's a wee lesson:

vociferous

vo·cif·er·ous
   [voh-sif-er-uhs]

adjective

1. crying out noisily; clamorous.

2. characterized by or uttered with vociferation: a vociferous manner of expression.
Origin:

1605–15; vocifer(ant) + -ous

Related forms
vo·cif·er·ous·ly, adverb
vo·cif·er·ous·ness, noun
un·vo·cif·er·ous, adjective
un·vo·cif·er·ous·ly, adverb
un·vo·cif·er·ous·ness, noun

source

That's your word for the day. Study it, internalize it, know it, understand it, then re-evaluate your links above, and tell me again which one is and which isn't "vociferous". You appear to have confused "vociferous" with "verbose". that's another good word to look up, but we can save that for tomorrow's schooling.

Isn't building a vocabulary fun?

reply to post by nenothtu


i probably dont agree with you on somethings but i like you, your like a walking dictionary, and you insult people in the way that i beleive stephan fry would

To be fair, literally anyone is a walking dictionary when google is only a click away.

Originally posted by nenothtu
I'm with you. I'm an anti-dragon, and don't believe in the existence of an invisible purple dragon. I have no proof that such doesn't exist, however, so it IS faith

Really, I hope you're just playing a game. I'm sure you know faith means "a belief in something". It does not mean " to reject a theory". I also hope you're having fun.

Originally posted by gentledissident

Originally posted by nenothtu
I'm with you. I'm an anti-dragon, and don't believe in the existence of an invisible purple dragon. I have no proof that such doesn't exist, however, so it IS faith

Really, I hope you're just playing a game. I'm sure you know faith means "a belief in something". It does not mean " to reject a theory". I also hope you're having fun.

i hope he doesnt get too close to that purple dragon, doesnt he know that they hate non-beleivers lol

reply to post by nenothtu


[color=F0E6B8]Imagine that. Wrong again. Shocking!

Vociferous:

[color=CFECEC]

marked by or given to vehement insistent outcry

Vehement:[color=CFECEC]

a : intensely emotional

b (1) : deeply felt

b (2) : forcibly expressed

Insistent:

[color=CFECEC]disposed to insist

persistent

Outcry:

[color=CFECEC]

a : a loud cry : clamor

b : a vehement protest

[color=F0E6B8]We have both displayed some of these traits, but you have shown them much more than I have. You have continued claiming that I hold a particular thought, even though I know for a fact, that I do not.

The question was: "Which one is best described as being vociferous?"
(meaning: Between the 2 of us, and what we have stated in this thread, who is more vociferous than the other?)


[color=96EBE3]There is something that I do regret. It was stated in the beginning of my [color=3EB3F7]1st reply [color=96EBE3]to you. The statement itself, has proven to be 100% correct, as I knew it would be. I just regret that I did not adhere to my own rule.

I suppose it is better late than never. There is no reason for either of us to continue this conversation, because it will never end. Another thread, another day, but I am not returning to this one.


[color=FF6A14]~~End Transmission~~

Originally posted by DaveNorris
reply to post by nenothtu

 

i probably dont agree with you on somethings but i like you, your like a walking dictionary, and you insult people in the way that i beleive stephan fry would

No, we likely disagree on most things, since I am old, cantankerous, cranky, and just plain contrary, but just because we disagree is no reason to be disagreeable, if you get my meaning. Some of my favorite people disagree with me at every turn, yet we still seem to somehow get along, without killing each other off. If we agree on everything, then one of us is unnecessary - that would likely be me.

I've always had a wide vocabulary - probably a lot wider than I have the good sense to employ. The purpose of language is communication, and I think one should be able to communicate on any level, to be able to communicate with any one on in their own vernacular from a ditch digger to a rocket scientist in order to facilitate effective communication. It has drawbacks. For example, I get unreasonably irked at some misuses of language, such as the frequent use of "reeked" or "wreaked" as the past tense of "wreak". The proper past tense of "wreak" is "wrought". if you do it now, or in the future, you either are wreaking havoc, or will wreak havoc, but if you did it yesterday and are resting from it today, you have wrought havoc. I don't generally correct it, though, I just sit and let steam fly out of my ears. I'm not the language police.

Come to think of it, a lot of things unreasonably irk me. I'm not a reasonable person, I reckon.

I had to look up Stephen Fry, as I wasn't familiar with him. Found a dandy YouTube video, "Stephen Fry on the Joys of Swearing". he does sound a lot like me, except he's got that endearing British accent, and I'm saddled with a gutteral American Hillbilly accent. You've broadened my horizons. I'm going to look up more Stephen Fry.

Originally posted by yes4141
To be fair, literally anyone is a walking dictionary when google is only a click away.

I DID look it up on Google, to make sure I wasn't misusing the term, which would have put me in the wrong, and forced an apology out of me. I wasn't.

Originally posted by Donkey_Dean
reply to post by Thundersmurf

 

Atheism is a faith friend!

edit on 25-8-2011 by Donkey_Dean because: (no reason given)

No it's not. It's just the absence of a belief. A dictionary definition. I don't have to believe anything to be an aetheist, all I need to do is not believe in gods.

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by yes4141
To be fair, literally anyone is a walking dictionary when google is only a click away.

I DID look it up on Google, to make sure I wasn't misusing the term, which would have put me in the wrong, and forced an apology out of me. I wasn't.

Sorry, I wasn't implying you didn't know it, just that anyone on a computer can find an online thesaurus/ dictionary and try to blag some cheap respect.

Originally posted by gentledissident

Originally posted by nenothtu
I'm with you. I'm an anti-dragon, and don't believe in the existence of an invisible purple dragon. I have no proof that such doesn't exist, however, so it IS faith

Really, I hope you're just playing a game. I'm sure you know faith means "a belief in something". It does not mean " to reject a theory". I also hope you're having fun.

True enough, that's one sense of the word. Another is the sense of faith being a belief unsupported by evidence. Not necessarily to believe IN something, but simply to believe. Since existence of a deity cannot be proven nor disproven presently, it necessarily follows that thoughts either for or against that existence must be based on a belief... on faith. This is the sense in which I'm using the term, whereas you seem to have a need to include the modifer "in something", which is why we are at this impasse. Using slightly different variants of the meaning.

You are absolutely correct in stating that it does not mean "to reject a theory", but that rejection , while not a belief itself, must be based on either belief or proofs. So then, what I'm saying is that rejection of the existence of a deity is no less "taken on faith" than acceptance of that same existence. I've yet to run across an atheist that will make that allowance, and in fact most will go through all manner of mental gymnastics to convince themselves that their conclusion is somehow based on proofs, or that no proofs are necessary... which is exactly the same route most theists take for THEIR beliefs.

The bottom line for me is that there are no objective proofs either way, and so it's a decision "taken on faith" once the possibility enters the mind. Agnostics are generally fence-sitters, who acknowledge the lack of proofs either for or against, and make the decision to straddle the fence and not decide either way. that itself is a decision, a third choice.

I don't fault anyone for whichever belief they harbor - that's up to them. I just think it would be refreshing to hear an admission that it is a belief, rather than a blind statement that their belief must be objective fact, without followup evidence. I've heard it stated as fact from both sides, but neither has ever offered objective evidence. All have their reasons they have arrived at that conclusion, just as I have mine for arriving at my conclusion, but those reasons are subjective, rather than objective. They are almost invariably a personal experience, or a lack of a personal experience, but the key there is "personal experience".

I suppose I'm having fun. It passes the time, at any rate. Have another beer - this one's on me!

Originally posted by DaveNorris

i hope he doesnt get too close to that purple dragon, doesnt he know that they hate non-beleivers lol

Oddly, I recently slew a dragon in a story being written at ATS, in this post and the one or two surrounding it. It wasn't a purple dragon, though. I only kill stuff that I'm gonna eat, or that is gonna eat me, and the purple ones give me heartburn.

reply to post by BrokenCircles


Fair enough.

Have a good one.

reply to post by yes4141


No problem, I was just verifying that you were right, and I DID use Google to double check myself. If anyone is always 100 percent sure, it's likely that they are also 100 percent wrong. it pays off to keep ones self honest.

Why is it so important to understand atheism? Just be well assured that we are no threat to your god.