In addition to such formalised religions and philosophies as christianity, buddhism, and so on, I have seen people here say things such as: - "I follow humanism." - "I follow Randism." Et cetera. Why? Why the heck would you read any damn piece of paper and base your life on it? Why not decide every matter of philosophy yourself? Why not "follow" you-ism?
Because to Thiests, the peice of paper says I'm right, and if you question it you will burn in hell forever!! Kinda sad really.
I follow "my-ism" ...I am sure Adam you do too! Sheeps have a cosmic urge to follow someone else....because they are not sure about themselves. I have talked to people who catch on this principle, but when asked a question why they follow certain ideas, they immidiately say the book says....go figure...
No, you're sad for generalizing all theists to be such. Ho ho Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Well, I think that people read a certain philosophy, and they begin to agree with it, point for point. As that happens more and more, they begin to associate with that philosophy (whatever it is, I know many Atheists to be more stubborn and close-minded than fundamentalist christians) and then through the need of community-a very important human need-we seek people out who have had simlar thoughts, aggregate, and call ourselves "Rationalists" or "Empiricists" or "Existentialists" or "Christians" or "Muslim" or "Neo-classicist" or "Objectivist" or whatever, even if our own personal dogma is slightly different than the basic canon. This is a phenomenon that has little to do with heaven or hell, or sheep and goats, and is just as common among non-theistic topics as it is among theistic ones. I myself have changed camps slightly over the past 10 years as I read and learn more, and do more mental exploration of the world. A second reason why is that we have no reason to reinvent the wheel. If I were to ask why people all use Henry Ford's concept of the assembly line, instead of everyone making their own, or why we all don't design, assemble raw materials and build our own houses, I think that many people would look at me like I was foolish. That is why Philosopher is a profession now, why we have Artists and Poets. They search out the questions for us, give us their answers, and challenge us to agree or disagree with them on their merits. They do this in the same way that inventors chose what wants and needs should be filled, the same way that scientific researchers delve into the mysteries of the universe and explain the world to us. I see nothing wrong with reading descartes and saying "That guy knows what he's talking about" and then building on that knowledge. (Ok, well I do, but only because I disagree with his logical stream, not from an objective jumping-off point). Nor the bible, nor the Quran, nor the Torah, nor Beyond Good and Evil, nor The Wealth of Nations.
Some people can't handle that their is no one, no higher athourity with all the answers and they have to figure things out for themselves. Also they want the easy answers, and how to live thier lives they don't want to think about it they want rules from someone they think knows. They want blind faith and no questioning its so much simplier that way, I feel it really fucked with me more then questioning everything but I've allready talked about that in other threads. But anyhoo, everyon must follow the ten commandments of Atheism Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Rio, The problem with examining a philsophy and agreeing with the concepts is that, using a very blunt example, that tends to have people believing the world is flat because they can see quite clearly that they aren't rolling down the sides. Say some organisation says "the world is flat". Any uneducated person or one without the means to see otherwise might justifiably conclude from observation that the world is indeed flat. Acceptance of ideas which seem to make sense is not enough, for me. For me, it is necessary to always question. As for re-inventing the wheel, I really see no problem with it. About a year ago I invented a method of passing multiple signals through a single telecommunications line. Then my friend told me that multiplexing had already been invented. I was a total beginner at all this techy stuff back then, still a beginner I guess. But it was a valuable exercise, figuring it all out. Maybe, but many humans unfortunately have a tendency to accept any given starting point and proceed from there. I may read Descartes (haven't actually), but I could not say "That's a good starting point to build on" without first reaching the same conclusions through my own reasoning.
Is there such a thing as followism? Anyway, that's what they're suffering from. The -ism is used in bragging purpose mainly, to put weight on words to light to stand on their own.
I know this feeling Adam. Synchronous demodulation is only one among many other "original" ideas that I've had "stolen" from me by my forebearers. The often heard complaint that, "The Ancients have stolen all our inventions" is more often true than not. I suspect that I've never actually had an original idea. Most "inventors" feel rather crushed when they examine the files of pre-existing patents. The one U.S. patent I share with another fellow had to have its claims carefully tailored so as to be accepted by the Patent Office. The observation has been made that the Universe appears to use an infinite number of variations on a small set of basic themes. One of the pleasures I find in philosophy, mathematics, and science is the occasional ability to see relationships between nominally unrelated phenomena. Michael
Very well said...that is what Stephen Wolfram in his "A new kind of science" is trying to establish...
Adam, you are not going to make me believe that you have done every bit of scientific research that has ever been done in the history of man on your own, starting from knowing absolutely nothing. It's simply not possible. At SOME point, you had to just accept some starting material, and don't lie and say you didn't, unless you can produce your atomic theory experimental data, and whatever manner you used to sequence DNA-for that matter whatever manner you used to discover that DNA exists in the first place. It's simply a holier-than-thou double standard that there are some real-world ideas that are ok just to accept someone's word for, but then others which are based on the same perfectly good logic that can't be accepted because you personally haven't done every exercise. I admit, I simply accept that current atomic theory is correct. Mostly because I don't want to aim a gamma ray beam at gold foil. Frankly, I'll count my life as a success if I can live it and never encounter gamma radiation period. I can read the research done in DNA sequencing and never have to perform the experiments because if their work has a logical flow, I can be reasonably assured of their conclusions. Is that really the case? Or is it that people need to feel superior? People who start from scratch need to feel superior over people who don't, just as people who don't question need to feel superior over people who do?
If it's a question of superiority, then it doesn't matter who or what came up with your beliefs, as long you don't feel they're better than others', or at least 'good'. Personaly, I didn't 'follow' anything until I researched paganism and realized that the gods in that system, while incredibly unbelievable, made sense to me. So now I choose to believe in the importance of what those gods mean and not in their existence. You've made it all up anyway, depending on how conscious you truly are inside. We never really listen to anybody if we don't want to. You can't invent a religion to be as tight and rigid as one in existence- that's egotistical. But you can have your own morals, and to have at least a loose confirmation of yourself is better than straining to find something important, merely so others can look upon it, and you can feel as if you've created something you wouldhave otherwise followed.....what power! A religion is personal, so why then try to emulate the product of people working too hard to capitalize on the globalisation of the person?
I do tend to apply a double-standard to belief, one for the material and one for the metaphysical. I am far more likely to accept certain things of the material since all the common theories are based on basics which are easily demonstratable, and most can be confirmed if one has the will to do so. In fact, since I usually live at one of Australia's better universities, I have access to quite a lot of evidence for things which you might suggest require faith. I can, for example, go and have a look at individual atoms or play with some chemical bonds and such. All these matters of the physical tend to tie together based on what we can see and prove. The metaphysical or philosophical, however, is based only on imagination and rationalisation. We have to do that on our own.
Hopefully you use your rationalization much much more than your imagination. Also, real philosophy isn't about opinion, it's just as much about knowledge as any other science is. In philosophy things are also based on a basic set of theories which are logically demonstratable and can be conveyed through text. And even if you do go down and look at atoms and experience DNA for yourself, it is still the same sort of cherry-picking that goes on in people who "follow" a philosophy, because in classes you know the answer before you start the experiment, and it is designed to demonstrate the principle but is not indicative of the work that went into discovering that principle from scratch.
One of the big problems I have with a limited lifespan is that we can't go and work through it all from the start, running through centuries of science. We have to accept that work already done, and move on to new discoveries. I would love to go right from the start, from beginning chemistry and all to quantum mechanics and new inventions. But it would take years we don't yet have.
My point is that it's unfair to say that people who do read and accept an "official" -ism are bad, and people who accept other forms of research and knowledge are just working with the time they have.
Rio I don't see all such people as bad. Most are just people, like everyone else. But I see reason as an integral part of being human. Thus it seems to me that oen should always prefer ideas supported by some amount of evidence over those with no supporting evidence. But what of comparing two philosophies, neither with any supporting evidence? Such as those of imagination and rationalisation? Although I may personally disagree with some such philoshopies, I see discussion and debate of such quite healthy. However, religions, which I see as a distinct sub-set of philosophies, have over the centuries been far more harmful than non-religious philosophies. People rely on them far too much, as an emotional crutch. Most do, anyway. A minority use that reliance as a power-tool, and cause problems. As Asguard asked, "What's wrong with an emotional crutch?" I would ask in return "If you break your leg, do you use the crutch for the rest of your life, or just until healed?" My real problem is that reliance on an external factor for strength. Why? Why can't they be strong enough to have all their strength inside them? Reliance on an external factor means you are influenced by an external factor. A person is only truly their own person when they can honestly say they are guided by their own mind, not by any such external factors.
------------------------------------------------------------ Cactus Jack wrote: Some people can't handle that their is no one, no higher athourity with all the answers and they have to figure things out for themselves. ------------------------------------------------------------ This statement is a gross mischaracterization of believers and displays a wanton ignorance of people of faith. Whats more it is simply opinion and carries no more weight than anyone else's. ------------------------------------------------------------ Cactus Jack wrote: Also they want the easy answers, ------------------------------------------------------------ If you think that it's easy to "love your enemies", you're misguided at best. I think the "easy" answer is to simply wash your hands of God and live according to one's own code of conduct. This obfuscates any responsibility to a higher authority, and is therefore a "simpler" life. ------------------------------------------------------------ Cactus Jack wrote: they don't want to think about it they want rules from someone they think knows. ------------------------------------------------------------ Don't kid yourself C Jack... beleivers think. We wrestle with temptation, we question our existence, the existence of God, and whether we are worthy of grace. Most devout Christians spend much time in deep contemplation. ------------------------------------------------------------ Cactus Jack wrote: They want blind faith and no questioning its so much simplier that way, I feel it really fucked with me more then questioning everything but I've allready talked about that in other threads. ------------------------------------------------------------- Is this the best intellectual argument for the belief that God doesn't exist that you can do? It is desperately pitiful. ------------------------------------------------------------- Cactus Jack wrote: But anyhoo, everyon[e] must follow the ten commandments of Atheism Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ------------------------------------------------------------- Here are the "10 Commandments of Atheism": 1. Do whatever YOU feel is best. 2. Do whatever YOU feel is right. 3. Do whatever YOU feel is good. 4. Do whatever YOU feel is self-serving. 5. Do whatever YOU feel is profitable. 6. Do whatever YOU feel is enjoyable. 7. Do whatever YOU feel is easiest. 8. Do whatever YOU feel is moral. 9. Believe whatever YOU feel is true. 10. Reject any argument that disagrees with you no matter the facts or logic. Have a good day C Jack! -Mike
