Who designed the designer?

[Musika]

Except that science expects its guesswork to be rationally validated, where religion does not.

Your ideas about rational thought having no practical field in religion aside ( ... yet another popular opinion of those not aquainted with philosophy or history), rationally arriving at an error is still arriving at an error. The operation can be successful, even though the patient dies.

You’re speaking of human character flaws, not flaws in the principles of science. These same character flaws also permeate the ranks of the religious.

All human behavior is subject to social bias and inertia, and the principles of science are crafted to mitigate these influences.

Obviously.
Hence it makes sense to look not only at the knowledge but the institutions that disseminate and represent it.
Atheists love to do that all the time with religion, in case you hadn't noticed.

Apparently you missed the point. To infer an eternal universe, a sensiable existing universe exists to base that claim on. To propose an eternal existence outside of our universe, an infinite collection of like universes could be rationally proposed based on the known existence of the one. Essentially an extrapolation of our currently perceived cosmology would be a more reasonable model of an eternal reality than one that has no demonstrable properties. You can propose any conception of reality that suits your fancy, but you can’t equate it with conceptions that are more sensibly relatable.

No I didn't miss the point.
If you want to work with the idea that the universe is eternal, you are working with an idea that is beyond direct perception, and thus sends the problem into the same category as other problems that are beyond direct perception ... namely outside the epistemological purview of empiricism.

If you want to say, "Hey look, we already have a universe, as evidenced by this falling apple. We are just tagging 'eternal' to it now, so that makes for the stronger case", you are begging the question since the specific quality remains outside direct experience. Or to say it another way, one could just as easily point out God by pointing out a person, of the subject to birth and death and limited capacity for independence variety, and say, "Hey look, we already have a person, we are just tagging 'omni' to it now, so it makes for a stronger case."

Let me count the ways. You empirically learned the language of the pilot, empirically acquired the knowledge of the identity, operation and use of a seatbelt, and were empirically conditioned to follow the instructions of authority figures such as pilots and flight attendants. Are you going to suggest the basis for this behavior was not derived through sensory experience? Maybe the motivational knowledge was acquired astrally during a period of self abandonment?

Well, in the original description I did mention "despite hearing", hoping you might take that as a clue to avoid this unnecessary line of thought.
It seems you are stuck in this false dichotomy of "battle of the epistemologies", thae notion there is a one size fits all that kicks ass in all times, places and circumstances.
To say that one particular epistemology is what grants knowledge doesn't mean that it involves disregarding all traces of all others. To say one is not using empiricism to deliver the goods does not mean one is now in danger of walking into walls or off cliffs.
To go back to the airplane scenario, despite understanding the language of the pilot, the use of seatbelts etc, one is still left with an assessment that everything is fine. There is no immediate issue apparent to the extent of our non-pilot, passenger seat-empiricism purview of the 5 senses that would warrant putting on a seat belt. Of course the pilot has just issued a warning, but if we are not willing to accept his fallacious argument from authority, the actual truth of the situation is still before us in all its empirical mystery.

Go ahead and explain your reasoning.

The first one is empirical, in the classic sense, direct perception. A few others can perhaps be explained as sort of "helping hands" for what passes as empiricism, but there is one in particular that remains strictly out of bounds to the umbrella of empiricism.

But if you haven't, can't or won't see the variety intrinsic to epistemology (and as mentioned, this was just one offering ... there are many ways to unpack the subject ... varieties of maps for the same terrain and all that), an exercise in explanation and reasoning will proceed like motorbike riding classes for goldfish.

When you occupy a body and mind that are designed to function by way of their senses, why would you suggest that we adopt a non sensory approach to investigation and validation of reality?

Because the senses serve the mind and the self, which is where all these interesting notions of empathy and selfishness, short and long term value, self satisfaction and frustration, reward and punishment, fame and infamy, indulgence and austerity and all other facets of spectrummed duality reside. Generally living entities aren't satisfied to plod along this planet's surface like a mars explorer that surreptitiously grinds to a halt, mid step, as the battery runs flat.

Then by all means enlighten us. The next trip you take to the astral library, check out the blueprints of reality, make a digital copy, and upload them to the web for all to see.

Lol.
Kind of like, "If you want to show that atheism has specific problems, first you have to show it has no specific problems."
If you are working from the position that knowable things may not occupy an ontological position superior to the knower, you don't surmount the inherent difficulties by demanding proof within the jurisdiction of the knower.
Kind of like demanding water be poured in an empty cup that is more elevated than the jug containing the water .. things get messy.

If you want to see it in action, you can skip the astral plane and jump on a regular one. When the pilot announces turbulence ahead, just politely make your way to the cockpit and assert your ontological jurisdiction by surveying the dashboard instruments.

Neither of us will live to see such an accomplishment, regardless of the looking glass employed, so no disappointment from my end.

I suspect there may be a different version to the sour grapes, with the fox eulogizing future generations of the canidae family with the power to taste grapes tantalizingly dangling beyond the reach of their snapping snouts. Maybe it has something to do with the inabiliy of the fox to fully convince themself that the grapes are sour.

What, to be alive is to suffer? Is that why Jesus opted for the cross?

Jesus, much like Buddha, seems to be more about opting for the best use of a bad bargain. If you can't see the bargain as bad, chances are you won't get the best use from it.

 

[Musika]

I can understand why you could think such but I do think there is more to it really.
In any event things move forward and new observations are fitted in.
I am not saying it is a perfect system but it has the merit of requiring any change of "opinion" has support by way of evidence and most importantly testable prediction.

The reason for this "merit" is that it is accepted that one is bringing flawed information in to the fold. The "error" lies not in the world, but in the five senses one is bringing to assess the world, so each and every empirical conclusion comes tagged with the disclsimer " ... as things stand" as we negotiate the corners of coffee tables and other problems of this world.

IOW its not really a "merit" but an epistemological requirement of empiricism that everythong be subject to second guesses. Transplanting that same "merit" to other epistemological scenarios, far from making them more "meritous", makes them more dysfunctional.

For instance if a pilot was required to personally explain to and convince his 250 passengers exactly what sensory data he was interpreting via the dashboard to warrant them buckling up, it would weaken his position to function as a reliable authority.

I would not but that means little as my whole idea about gravity being a pushing force is a mere notion.
But although I form a notion I dont try to convert it to reality because I have a good feeling about it.

If you start a thread in the physics forum titled "Gravity is a pushing force", I'm pretty sure the community would conspire to rob you of that "good feeling" with the empirical method.

Perhaps.

Perhaps. But these marks in the sand have a great deal to back them up and really if you have a better model you stand out in history.
One could look to a larger picture where all activities of humans could be looked at as a mere blink in time and space.

So, from a certain perspective, our "great deals" are not such "a great deal".
IOW there is a sense that empiricism is poorly equipped to breach the "great deals".

Yes I can admit that is posible indeed probable.
One of my reasons for disliking the big bang is it seems the church were somewhat fond of the cosmic egg idea which was origin inally a Pagan idea indeed many cultures had a creation model notion☺ where it all came about spliting an egg.

Lol
Atheism rulz. Theism drulz.
Our "everything" is better than your "anything".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triumphalism

Science that looks like it may inadvertantly lend credibility to religion should be treated with suspicion?
It sounds more like a PTSD sort of hypervigilance than a platform for knowledge.
Of course PTSD may be warranted, on account of past history, but that doesn't make the state any less abnormal.

I would have thought you would like the idea of a big bang approach as the theory leaves creation unexplained where must be a great place to say God did it.

From our (meaning atheist, theist and everything in between) perspective, there will always be an aspect of the creation that will remain "unexplained". Being relegated by the universe presupposes having the resources to explain. Successful application of religion is more about focusing on how God explains Himself rather than pointing out the unexplainrd to explain God.

Even after a certain stage when the vatican decided to leave astronomy to the astronomers, it seems their business model didn't immediately go bust.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholasticism

Anyways nice observations on your part I would like to make other small observations but they are trivial and I unfortunately must go.
Alex

No need to apologize.
It seems the only observations that we are capable of that are not trivial are the ones that lead to nice observations.

 

[iceaura]

Saying that you are not isn't the same as showing that you are not.

Likewise saying that I am.
With the difference that my posts supported my contention, already, when reread, as noted - so the "showing" had been accomplished in advance. Whereas your assertion involved directing attention to irrelevancies of particular Taoist communities of belief - an obvious red herring, incapable of "showing" anything - and personally derogatory as well as irrelevant mischaracterization of my sources of opinion.
None of that had any bearing on the discussion.
Nevertheless, I offered you pro forma benefit of the doubt - that you had overlooked the key factors, and were honestly confused rather than deliberately deceptive. Was I wrong?

Pointing out how your argument is neither true nor simple is not a deflection.

You did not address my argument. You deflected.

Well whenever you finish going on about what your argument is not, feel free to begin explaining what it is, preferably not in the same manner that gave rise to the original critique ...

Nothing in my posting gave rise to your "critique". The argument is still there, whenever you choose to address it.

Because it seems obvious it has less intrinsic substance in relation to taoism and more in relation to atheism.

That's irrelevant. You're deflecting again.

You are going to have to break it down to specifics of where are the ad hoc projections etc etc.

Or just continue to use the present specific context and specific location here - which includes your projections of the kind, right here, as quoted and identified as "common" etc. I assumed you were aware of the discussion on this thread?

I was talking specifically about cerebral pursuits of scientific conclusions that lack any demonstratable change in everyday life, etc, etc.

Then you were not replying to the posts or the posters you were quoting, or participating in the thread at hand - and presenting your posts as if they were such replies, including those quotes etc, was misrepresentation.
Which brings us to a sticking point:

If you can tag "ist" to "tao", then yes, it does appear certain behaviours relative to precepts determine an approach, or "style", in regards to "life".
Disregard them, either the behaviours or the precepts, and it just makes others wonder about your language usage.

On the other hand, dismissing a widely established basis of religion and profound category of spiritual insight as a lifestyle makes no one wonder about your use of language - it's standard Abrahamic fundie rhetoric, dishonorable and dishonest to its very core.
Which explains the spewage, there, btw - when cornered in indefensible bs you let slip through carelessness, type the word "if" and then just keep typing until a sufficient muddle for a claim of plausibility in personal derogation has appeared in text.

And if that means you find yourself claiming that Taoist thought and spirituality is a collection of "certain behaviors" that one can identify as a "style" - well at least your problem
(that you had been presented with this: "The ways in which human design proves inadequate, the world forever and flagrantly fails to behave as human design would have it, could also be taken as evidence of the ultimate inadequacy of design and designer as explanatory concepts. That would be an obvious alternative to taking them as evidence of a perfect and humanly incomprehensible designer imposing a perfect and humanly incomprehensible design."
tangentially supported by this: "Taoist beliefs are often bootstrapped from "validated reality" - careful observation brought into narrative - in the first place. So are various foundational beliefs of even the most baroque and extravagantly mythical of theistic religions (the Parables and Fables of the Middle Eastern theistic ones, the foundational narratives of Hinduism, etc).")
has been well buried. You can hope.

 

[Musika]

Likewise saying that I am.

Likewise if you repeatedly respond to requests for clarification with "I said it already*" and leave it at that , it will remain as your saying and not showing. And furthermore responding to critiques of what you have said with "What you say has no relevance*" and leaving it at that will again remain as your saying and not showing.

I have gone through your response, but if you think having a discussion involves throwing a word salad on top of personal decrees (decrees that you will neither clarify nor respond to critiques of), people will just pass you by because you bring nothing to the table.

*To the effect of.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

If you start a thread in the physics forum titled "Gravity is a pushing force", I'm pretty sure the community would conspire to rob you of that "good feeling" with the empirical method.

Well that wont happen I respect the fact that the science section deals with science not my ideas.


I do not need them to tell me I am wrong or right because I just know I am right☺

Is that not the only important thing... knowing you are right.

Well of course it is☺

I did predict the Pioneer craft would slow as they did but science found a reason it thought a better idea...I see space as a something and reasoned they would encounter drag...but it was not a scientific prediction because I could not say how much they would slow...and that is what it is all about...reliable prediction.
But it was satisfying to be right on the prediction even if my idea was not recognised as the cause.
Well you can understand that...you dont need an uninformed mug being right...that would not be right.

I can even explain how an atomic bomb works using push gravity and a telescope lens and lightning...well as I said most things really.
I dont need to prove it just as you dont need to prove God.
I work on the basis that what we understand will probably be different in a thousand years ...get on with enjoying the benefits of science like the simple mobile phone...hey how come the good book did not prophesise mobile phones...see proof there is no God☺

And as wild as my ideas are I suggest they are based on at least reasonably well reasoned steps which I just dont see in religion.

I am not your average crack pot you know I can speculate and not get carried away.

But just like you with your God I can explain most everything due to push gravity.

I know that General Relativity gives us the math to make gravity predictions so I am happy to keep the reason why it works to myself.
Heck if people realised how smart I was they would be pestering me to solve all their problems.
I know how God must feel...not those damn humans again...there is a whole church full pleading with me to do this or that.
They will work it out.

Have you though of writting a book..or have you...you could do a book on your hobbies...do you have any hobbies or does God fill that bill.
I am so talented I often think only God could cause me to be so wonderful...do you think that is reasonable?

I am so happy today.
I have set up my new astronomy gear a feat way past my ability more complicated than you could imagine ... God must be on my side I guess...well of course he is what other reason could there be.

Alex

 

[Musika]

Well that wont happen I respect the fact that the science section deals with science not my ideas.


I do not need them to tell me I am wrong or right because I just know I am right☺

Is that not the only important thing... knowing you are right.

Well of course it is☺

I appreciate what you are trying to say, but, contrary to the beliefs of numerous atheists (and perhaps even quite a few theists), religion is not an epistemological-less open season.

If you have ideas about science, there is a body of work associated with science.
If you have ideas about religion, there is a body of work associated with religion.
Also I might add, if you have ideas about Taoism, there is a body of work associated with Taoism.

IOW the moment you categorize an idea, there is an associated context with it that determines means, ends and everything in between.
The difference between understanding this point and not understanding this point is the difference between there not being a pinata festival on sciforums and there being a pinata festival on sciforums ... at least as far as the science thing goes, anyway.

I dont need to prove it just as you dont need to prove God.

The "need to prove" comes after "the need to be interested". Rocking up to a prestigious university as a potential applicant and crassly challenging the interviewer with a mood of "prove to me this place is any good", will probably result in you promptly being dismissed. If you are not interested, they are not duty bound to prove anything to you. Bringing horses to water and all that.

I work on the basis that what we understand will probably be different in a thousand years ...get on with enjoying the benefits of science like the simple mobile phone...hey how come the good book did not prophesise mobile phones...see proof there is no God☺

I was thinking along the same lines, except an absence of discussion about mobile phones proves God does exist.
https://www.elitedaily.com/p/why-do...-instagram-filter-heres-how-to-get-it-9971585

And as wild as my ideas are I suggest they are based on at least reasonably well reasoned steps which I just dont see in religion.

I am not your average crack pot you know I can speculate and not get carried away.

Speculation that takes one away from the established body that establishes context (regardless of what the subject is ... science, religion or tao) tends to fall within two mutual extremes : it's either ground breaking or crack pottery.

Heck if people realised how smart I was they would be pestering me to solve all their problems.

Despite the mutual extremes of being a ground breaker or a crackpot, allusions of messiah-hood seem to be strangely uniformly consistent.

Have you though of writting a book..or have you...you could do a book on your hobbies...do you have any hobbies or does God fill that bill.
I am so talented I often think only God could cause me to be so wonderful...do you think that is reasonable?

I am so happy today.
I have set up my new astronomy gear a feat way past my ability more complicated than you could imagine ... God must be on my side I guess...well of course he is what other reason could there be.

Alex

If we find other people interesting or delight in their association, it is because they have a nature that is somehow different from ours. Beyond the point of being civilized, obedience serves no real purpose in a relationship. Real happiness does not involve being surrounded by toadies, lackeys and polishers.

In this world, possessing power tends to come at the expense of such real happiness. If you have power, then you also require a cohort of lackeys to maintain the status quo. So when we hear about God possessing "real power", we tend to bring our material conception of "possessing real power" to the understanding, thinking the only vacancies available are for lackeys, and alas, poor God has been robbed of the opportunity for real happiness, since it's lonely at the top.

Needless to say, just like a glitch within one's earthly telescope provides a distorted image of the heavenly bodies, material models for possessing power in this world can prove just as inaccurate when used as a lens for forming a view one's self in relation to God, especially when the power difference is not surcharged by a need to maintain the status quo.

Tl: Dr : This is not accurate :

 

[sideshowbob]

It's the nature of existence that it's not passive. Belief, much like food, is a required intake.

And yet hunger is passive.

 

[Capracus]

Your ideas about rational thought having no practical field in religion aside ( ... yet another popular opinion of those not aquainted with philosophy or history), rationally arriving at an error is still arriving at an error. The operation can be successful, even though the patient dies.

I’m not saying that religion is devoid of rational thought, I’m saying that there is no expectation that it’s propositions be objectively validated.

Obviously.
Hence it makes sense to look not only at the knowledge but the institutions that disseminate and represent it.
Atheists love to do that all the time with religion, in case you hadn't noticed.

The thing about scientific proclamations is that they are continually challenged, and if the claims fail scrutiny they don’t stand, that’s the nature of science. Bad science eventually gets outed as such, and practitioners either make corrections or reputations suffer. What processes exists to weed out falsehoods in religion?

No I didn't miss the point.
If you want to work with the idea that the universe is eternal, you are working with an idea that is beyond direct perception, and thus sends the problem into the same category as other problems that are beyond direct perception ... namely outside the epistemological purview of empiricism.

If you want to say, "Hey look, we already have a universe, as evidenced by this falling apple. We are just tagging 'eternal' to it now, so that makes for the stronger case", you are begging the question since the specific quality remains outside direct experience. Or to say it another way, one could just as easily point out God by pointing out a person, of the subject to birth and death and limited capacity for independence variety, and say, "Hey look, we already have a person, we are just tagging 'omni' to it now, so it makes for a stronger case."

We have more than a few physical observations to validate the existence of our known and theorized universe. There are centuries of empirical and theoretical knowledge that can be employed to rationally speculate the limits of our universe. Scientifically we can assume that we exist in a vast cosmological setting composed of various elemental processes. If reality is larger than our universe, it would not be unreasonable to speculate that what lies beyond could be more of the same. Such speculation does not involve modifying the qualities of the known universe. You could reasonably speculate that human beings may exist throughout an eternal reality, but since known human beings don’t posses the necessary qualities to be defined as gods, it would be unreasonable to speculate based on that example that any exist as gods.

Well, in the original description I did mention "despite hearing", hoping you might take that as a clue to avoid this unnecessary line of thought.
It seems you are stuck in this false dichotomy of "battle of the epistemologies", thae notion there is a one size fits all that kicks ass in all times, places and circumstances.
To say that one particular epistemology is what grants knowledge doesn't mean that it involves disregarding all traces of all others. To say one is not using empiricism to deliver the goods does not mean one is now in danger of walking into walls or off cliffs.
To go back to the airplane scenario, despite understanding the language of the pilot, the use of seatbelts etc, one is still left with an assessment that everything is fine. There is no immediate issue apparent to the extent of our non-pilot, passenger seat-empiricism purview of the 5 senses that would warrant putting on a seat belt. Of course the pilot has just issued a warning, but if we are not willing to accept his fallacious argument from authority, the actual truth of the situation is still before us in all its empirical mystery.

It doesn’t matter what motivated the pilot to issue a warning of turbulence, the fact remains that the passengers reactions were based on a verifiable auditory stimulus originating from the pilot, and not some extrasensory perception. The passengers empirically determined a warning and acted accordingly.

The first one is empirical, in the classic sense, direct perception. A few others can perhaps be explained as sort of "helping hands" for what passes as empiricism, but there is one in particular that remains strictly out of bounds to the umbrella of empiricism.

But if you haven't, can't or won't see the variety intrinsic to epistemology (and as mentioned, this was just one offering ... there are many ways to unpack the subject ... varieties of maps for the same terrain and all that), an exercise in explanation and reasoning will proceed like motorbike riding classes for goldfish.

You claim there are many paths to knowledge independent of empiricism, yet you still haven’t demonstrated an example of such.

Because the senses serve the mind and the self, which is where all these interesting notions of empathy and selfishness, short and long term value, self satisfaction and frustration, reward and punishment, fame and infamy, indulgence and austerity and all other facets of spectrummed duality reside. Generally living entities aren't satisfied to plod along this planet's surface like a mars explorer that surreptitiously grinds to a halt, mid step, as the battery runs flat.

But you’re still ignoring the empirical basis for all of these notions. They are simply notions derived from empirical existence. Unless they can be continually related to that empirical existence, they have no value.

Lol.
Kind of like, "If you want to show that atheism has specific problems, first you have to show it has no specific problems."
If you are working from the position that knowable things may not occupy an ontological position superior to the knower, you don't surmount the inherent difficulties by demanding proof within the jurisdiction of the knower.
Kind of like demanding water be poured in an empty cup that is more elevated than the jug containing the water .. things get messy.

I’m not disputing the likelihood that there is knowledge beyond our perception, I’m disputing your contention that there exists methods available to human beings other than empiricism to access it.

If you want to see it in action, you can skip the astral plane and jump on a regular one. When the pilot announces turbulence ahead, just politely make your way to the cockpit and assert your ontological jurisdiction by surveying the dashboard instruments.

I can know the pilot issues a warning via my physical senses. The pilot issues a warning based on a physical observation of the instrument display. Again, where’s the instance of special knowledge in this example?

I suspect there may be a different version to the sour grapes, with the fox eulogizing future generations of the canidae family with the power to taste grapes tantalizingly dangling beyond the reach of their snapping snouts. Maybe it has something to do with the inabiliy of the fox to fully convince themself that the grapes are sour.

Is this suppose to be an example of contemplative acquisition of knowledge?

Jesus, much like Buddha, seems to be more about opting for the best use of a bad bargain. If you can't see the bargain as bad, chances are you won't get the best use from it.

Jesus presumably being a god never really had anything to lose. Guarantee my reassemblage and I would bear a similar cross.

 

[Musika]

And yet hunger is passive.

Only at the point where it advances to death, which is also the point where existence ceases.

 

[sideshowbob]

Only at the point where it advances to death, which is also the point where existence ceases.

That's irrelevant. Atheism is also passive. It just doesn't cause death.

 

[Musika]

That's irrelevant.

It's completely relevant. While you are hungry and not eating, the requirement for sustenance comes from the body. As far as hunger is concerned, there is nothing passive about it until death approaches.

Atheism is also passive. It just doesn't cause death.

Memes, history, philosophy, memes, clubs, coffee cups, memes.
If you can throw "atheist" in front of any or all of those words in a manner meaningful to or representative of the behaviours of atheistic individuals or communities, you don't have something that is passive.

 

[sideshowbob]

While you are hungry and not eating, the requirement for sustenance comes from the body.

While you're an atheist, there is no requirement to change.

Memes, history, philosophy, memes, clubs, coffee cups, memes.
If you can throw "atheist" in front of any or all or any of those words in a manner meaningful or representative of the behaviours of atheistic individuals or communities....

Atheist history, atheist philosophy, atheist clubs, atheist coffee cups are not a necessary part of atheism. I, for one, have none of them. I'm guessing that many atheists here have none of them.

At most, you're showing that it is conceivably possible to be an active atheist. However, the vast majority of us are passive atheists.

 

[Musika]

While you're an atheist, there is no requirement to change.

I'm not sure what that has to do with being passive. Change into what? A theist?

Atheist history, atheist philosophy, atheist clubs, atheist coffee cups are not a necessary part of atheism. I, for one, have none of them. I'm guessing that many atheists here have none of them.

I notice you left out memes, even though I repeated it 3 times.
It's not that they are required but they are representative of atheism.
You may not require atheist jokes to be an atheist, but if you have ever laughed at one (or thought it was in poor taste, or good taste, or apraised its merits or faults in any way), as an atheist, (IOW you adopted a valued behaviour representative of atheists), you just took one giant step outside of being passive.
Or to say it more plainly, if you can think of good atheist jokes, crappy atheist jokes, offensive atheist jokes etc etc, according to your identification as an atheist, then the opportunity for being passive is long gone.

At most, you're showing that it is conceivably possible to be an active atheist. However, the vast majority of us are passive atheists.

I am not talking about "passive atheism" and the holding off/philosophical ping pong of rising to the defense of absolute negatives. I am talking about atheism being impossible to assert as passive in terms of values, behaviours, ideals, community, identity, etc.

It atheism really was value neutral and passive, you would have nothing to say on it.

 

[sideshowbob]

I'm not sure what that has to do with being passive. Change into what? A theist?

That's exactly the point. An atheist doesn't have to change into anything. Atheism is passive.

It's not that they are required but they are representative of atheism.

But of course they are not.

You may not require atheist jokes to be an atheist, but if you have ever laughed at one (or thought it was in poor taste, or good taste, or apraised its merits or faults in any way), as an atheist, (IOW you adopted a valued behaviour representative of atheists), you just took one giant step outside of being passive.

Nonsense. I can laugh at an alien joke without taking an active position on whether or not aliens exist.

It atheism really was value neutral and passive, you would have nothing to say on it.

Also nonsense. See above. I could make jokes about aliens, write books about aliens, devote my entire life to the discussion of aliens without ever once taking a position on whether or not aliens exist.

 

[Capracus]

Only at the point where it advances to death, which is also the point where existence ceases.

Seems a bit philosophically sloppy to characterize death as the end of existence. What would Buddha have to say?

 

[Michael 345]

Seems a bit philosophically sloppy to characterize death as the end of existence. What would Buddha have to say?

I'd ask him but he's dead

 

[sideshowbob]

Seems a bit philosophically sloppy to characterize death as the end of existence. What would Buddha have to say?

Joni Mitchell said, "We are stardust. We are golden."

Buddha might agree.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

If you have ideas about religion, there is a body of work associated with religion.

Sure. Obvious really however I feel it is built upon a flawed notion I hope that does not surprise you.
There is a great body of work on "The Lord of the Rings" (the behind the scenes movie is most interesting) however most folk can realise that notwithstanding that great body of work the whole thing is fiction.
There are no Hobbits for a start.
I suppose the God story may be similar in so far as it is entertaining and I admit helpful for some to find a reason not to slash their wrists however there is more evidence to suggest Hobbits exist than we can find for God...in my view.
Heck one of the actors may be a real Hobbit pretending to be a human actor...dna test them all I say.
In any event I do not think one can compare the body of work for religion with the body of work for science.

The difference between understanding this point and not understanding this point is the difference between there not being a pinata festival on sciforums and there being a pinata festival on sciforums ..

Sure.
My problem is I think the concept of a creator has yet to be shown to have any substance, and when you think about it one can come up with various alternatives all of which are on the same footing as the creator notion.
The universe may or may not be created and if created there are multiple choices to select from as to who how or what.

So I do think it reasonable to conclude as we dont know and there could be multiple ways the universe came into existence, if indeed it did, we really should not make up a notion that a God was involved...A God arose from superstition which is a worry.
I certainly accept there are higher levels at which religion could be discussed but you can guess the level I enjoy.
I cant take religion seriously.
And so ...where is my stick.☺

If you are not interested, they are not duty bound to prove anything to you.

Yes but not a great example.
The Uni could take that approach because they have runs on the board.
Religion has many problems and really if theist seek acceptance as worthwhile what better place to start by backing up the prime claim.

tends to fall within two mutual extremes : it's either ground breaking or crack pottery.

Interesting and yet I can respect mainstream science and not be limited to exclude thinking about things...
I am not one who automatically respects authority of accumulated learning...well most things that are beyond alteration.
Say my interest in how gravity works if you ask a scientist for a mechanical explanation they lable you as a crackpot but that does not stop me from wanting to know what goes on at a particle level and I really dont care what others think.
I am not perfect and others can explain why if they feel the need.

allusions of messiah-hood seem to be strangely uniformly consistent.

If you mean me I think you have it wrong but if that is the impression I give I really dont care...just another example of why I never became a comedian.

I was joking...well just a little.
Strangly with my background folk often seek my advice to the point of it being annoying.

Ones view of oneself is often different to those around you.

I see myself as peaceful and reserved yet others think I am agressive and domineering.

I do however have many runs on the board such that I feel rather proud of what I have managed with a poor education and no network of cronies.

since it's lonely at the top.

I know I know
I am happy being a hermit not need to manage or control or fight business battles, no need to wear a suit anymore and to do only what I want to do... few if any get to enjoy life for themselves exclusively but to do so is the meaningful power..power to do what you want without ever thinking about anyone at all.

forming a view one's self in relation to God,

In my universe there is no God which must be difficult for you to imagine but its a non event.
I just think theists are unable to think rationally and have been conned.
I dont fear death or hell.
My view is I exist in my eternity ..I did not comprehend arriving and I wont know when l am gone so all I experience is an eternity.
Others need a god and have made one up to manage their fear of death fear of hell and the realisation they are not at all important.
I have no problem realising I am just a speck in time and space ...others do I dont.
I did enjoy reading your well considered post in reply.
Alex

 

[iceaura]

Likewise if you repeatedly respond to requests for clarification with "I said it already*" and leave it at that , it will remain as your saying and not showing.

I have yet to receive a request for clarification of any actual post of mine, from you.

And furthermore responding to critiques of what you have said with "What you say has no relevance*" and leaving it at that will again remain as your saying and not showing.

Except that I never said half that stuff, already showed the rest, and you have yet to post a "critique".

And putting things in quotes that I did not say is dishonest. Typically so, notice - not at all aberrant in your posting.
Dishonesty permeates and characterizes most overtly Abrahamic theistic posting on science forums, such as this one.

To put it another way: You repeatedly demand that I "show" you things I don't care about that have nothing to do with my posts or the thread discussion: what response would be appropriate?
Notice that I do respond to relevant content in your posts, when it appears, without dismissal, as in this response to your linguistic revelation of viewpoint on the matter of intelligent design:

On the other hand, dismissing a widely established basis of religion and profound category of spiritual insight as a lifestyle makes no one wonder about your use of language - it's standard Abrahamic fundie rhetoric, dishonorable and dishonest to its very core.

IOW the moment you categorize an idea, there is an associated context with it that determines means, ends and everything in between.

Such as by labeling it a lifestyle.

Which point of view is a plausible explanation for your persistence in attempting to mischaracterize the ideas in other people's posts, especially via insult and derogatory presumption rather than accountable argument. You think you can pigeonhole - on a science forum.

But such posting will not - ever - bear on the actual question of intelligent design. The character flaws of atheistic people, their spiritual deficiencies and blind spots, including those of the fundie-fiction atheists inhabiting your imaginary world of Abrahamic-mirroring adherents to a dogma of godlessness, are beside the point.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

The notion of intelligent design is no more than wishful thinking with no basis in science which provides us with the best tools for describing reality.
It is no more than just another fairey tale.
Alex