Theism is Primitive Thinking

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by PsychoticEpisode, Oct 16, 2009.

  1. glaucon tending tangentially Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    No; they just can ascertain that the possibilities are negligible.

    Pay attention to the word I bolded in your quoted comment above.
    Fantasy = irreal.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. PsychoticEpisode It is very dry in here today Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,452
    Your delusion is complete.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Pipes75 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    251
    I used the words 'possiblities of fantastical realities' together on purpose. But deep down I knew it might confuse someone that doesn't have creativity as an equal to logic

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    . So if you preffer, I can word it like Einstein did, and say 'if an idea doesn't start as an absurd possibility, then it was never a good idea.' One of the best scietists of all time had beliefs very similuar to mine, yet you seem to think scientists are all logic, lol. The brilliant minds of science's past were just as creative as they were logical, whether you believe it or not.

    And just because something is a fantasy, doesn't make it not possible!
    It's the fantasies that get proven impossible that need to be modified and/or discarded. But science doesn't disprove much of anything, because the more it finds out, the more crazy the possibilities become!
    Science only cares about physical evidence, where as, creativity explores all possibilities imaginable. The 2 can become a wonderful mixture by those capable of balancing the 2 extreme sides.

    Stranger then fiction is used quite often by scientific minds, and the best scientists explore their fantasies to see if they can proof something physically that can help support the symbolism of their spiritual beliefs!

    So the question remains (see below), glaucon walked around the question without giving a real answer (although I respect that he tried to answer it, but I could tell by his response he didn't like the question too much, lol). - 'no but it is negligable' is not an aswner to me.
    Nothing would ever get proved if it wasn't for the dreams that started somewhere first. Science and creativity go great together, and to get back on topic, Theism is just one of many ways to mix creativity in with logic, and therefor it is still important for those that balance themselves with this kind of belief. Others beliefs should not effect you as long as believers aren't disrespecting your believes neither

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    .
    But as far as I'm concerned, creativity has just as much truth to it as logic, it's just a different kind of truth. This seems to be the part most logical minds disagree with, but to each his/her own, but to me it is an obvious truth that the 2 sides are equals.

    Any other taker's on my question:
    Are logical minds so one dimensional that they don't see the possibilities of fantastical realities that exist within and/or beyond the physical?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    whatever I may be, for as long as your arguments don't go any further than .... "you're delusional - see I just proved it by saying you're delusional" .....your status is self evident.

    :shrug:
     
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2009
  8. glaucon tending tangentially Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    Mod Hat,

    I could go back and delete all the offtopic posts you and PE have dropped here as of late, but rather, I prefer to hope that each of you can keep the insults to a minimum.

    LG, I'm not singling you out, so...

    PE and LG, please stay on topic and drop the tit for tat.
    Insults aren't constructive here.

    Thanks.
     
  9. glaucon tending tangentially Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    Too bad. It is an answer, and it's the correct one.
    Insufficient evidence and/or support = improbable; ergo, unworthy of consideration given a different, but superior theory.

    Mod Hat;


    Perhaps this is fruit for a thread of its own, but it's hardly relevant here.


    Take this question to a new thread.
    [Though I will advise you to remove the "one dimensional" slur...]
     
  10. PsychoticEpisode It is very dry in here today Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,452
    Well my friends I am about to drop the bombshell on this thread. In order for theism to avoid primitive thinking status then there cannot have ever been an idea for a God.

    Have I lost my mind? No(although some might differ.) For true theism to exist, God would have had to introduce Himself at the first opportunity. When was that you say? The defining moment would have to come when evolution provided us with a consciousness and a self awareness coupled with an ability to formulate thoughts. If God did not deliver the 'Hi I'm God' message then theism is a human thought. God would have had to make an appearance before humans thought of His possibility in order for theism to have any merit.

    Unfortunately none of this can be proven at this time. Maybe never. Theists will have to cling to the belief that God made Himself known to us, but before we could think of Him. I think this is pretty much how it is anyway, I just wanted to throw some logic into it.

    Theism is primitive as far as time scale goes. Yet it isn't if you consider that no one ever originally thought of a god. One has to determine whether god actually showed up to eliminate theism from the idea pool. First time I think I've ever changed my opinion on a religious matter.
     
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2009
  11. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,533
    theism is a notion. in order for a notion (or concept) to exist, someone must "think it up." that's all. you're not talking sense here.

    if god did deliver the "hi i'm god" message then theism is a human thought. see above.

    logic? not any system of logic with which i am familiar.
     
  12. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    How does someone "think something up"?
     
  13. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,824
    The best evidence for what primitive is, look at primitive living beings, are they theists? Can they form advanced societies with advanced thought processes? Look at the origin of society, education, thinking [as in philosophy]. What are its roots? Theism or Atheism?
     
  14. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    28,550
    Atheistic approaches seem to predominate among non-agricultural people - nomadic hunters and gatherers, etc. These are usually thought of as more "primitive" human societies.

    And they educate, philosophize, etc.
     
  15. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    What's the first opportunity of eternal time?
     
  16. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,824
    What is an "atheistic" approach in nomadic tribes? Give me an example of such a tribe.
     
  17. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,533
    that's a good question and , honestly, i don't know (and i'm suspicious of anyone who does). moreover, must one think it up? mightn't it "exist" prior to such?

    [i was tired and i had stuffed myself with too much theism at dinner time, a little place in the far reaches of ... something. anyways, i ordinarily refrain from making such absolute claims.]
     
  18. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,533
    well, they are "atheistic" in the sense that they have never even considered god (hence the quotes i guess)--and certain, modern nomadic tribes are theistic, but are so as a result of frequent trade/raids with/upon theistic peoples.

    are you interested in specific peoples, or how they are "atheistic"? the latter is a fuzzy issue, as they are not without "superstitions," and some even go so far as to claim that they conceive movement itself as a sort of "god." i mean if you meet a group of people who are "clearly" pantheistic or panentheistic, but they haven't got any singular term for god (you know, kinda like that very first freakin' line in the torah!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ), are they"atheistic"?


    edit: i had to put "clearly" in quotes, for clarity's sake.
     
  19. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    If it exist prior to "thinking it up", then it is more than just a mere notion or concept, but something more substantial.
     
  20. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,533
    "substantial" in what sense? and what precisely is it? what i was getting at originally--and funnily enough (to quote lou reed), came up simultaneously in another thread--was the fallacy of reification, or thinking a concept a thing.
     
  21. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Substantial in the sense that it isn't a mere concept or notion; substantial in the sense that it is related to an actual reality.

    There is an apple, and we have a concept of what an apple is ("a kind of fruit that is edible, ...").

    Some phenomena seem to exist as mere concepts, such as "toward", "concept" or "justice".
     
  22. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,533
    but if you are asking the former (see post #295 ), one can only give examples provided by outsider anthropologists who have studied and live amongst various nomadic peoples. what is that worth? are we to trust their claims? regardless, here goes:

    frederik barth (in nomads of south persia) argues that the basseri of iran regard migration itself as their "religious" practice. of course, they are shiite muslims, but barth maintains they are such in name alone.

    mary douglas (in natural symbols) stands in marked opposition to eliade and jung: she claims that many nomadic peoples do not "frame reality in transcendent terms" (no mind/body dualism), for they are "governed" only by rules of reciprical transactions and relations and are not bound by broader group loyalties. anthropologists (and eliade particularly) impose their "religion" upon nomadic peoples by squeezing the data: the tribes they have encountered are as irreligious as one can imagine.

    anatoly khazanov (in nomads and the outside world) writes of the bedouins and their supposed adherence to islamd: he claims they simply "go through the motions," with respect to practices, but their beliefs are otherwise.

    and if we go back to the late 18th century when anthropologists played by different rules, even c.f. volney wrote: "they are so lacking in religious rigour, so slack in the devotions, that in general they are regarded as infidels, knowing neither the law nor the prophets" (of the bedouins). joseph hobbes,on egyptian bedouins, remarks that they are firmly grounded in immanence. many, many more examples, but again: what is it worth?

    we might as well look to bruce chatwin (songlines and the anatomy of restlessness), if we're to regard these anthropologists as "authorities" on the matter in any sense: religious belief and practice is at best peripheral to the existence of nomadic peoples, their hearts lie in migration--and the notion that they would become sedentary "oh, if only they could," is sheer nonsense: they choose their destinies. still, perhaps movement itself is their god, like martu (the martu people (as opposed to the god) only adopted religion when they became indistinguishable from the amorites in ancient mesopotamia: when they settled.)
     
  23. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,533
    that is exactly what i'm getting at: mistaking "democracy" for an apple. but what is "actual reality?"
     

Share This Page