gyrofry posted:God is not false enough, I claim
god is totally a false. he doesn't even know about the nihilist demos or who master's hammer is despite claiming he's like seriously into some hardcore shit. probably slipknot or weezer
roseweird posted:i'm sorry u feel that way jools, perhaps one day u will be more spiritually evolved and then u will understand......
could you give me an example of a question that continually reposes itself? this is a question
tpaine posted:roseweird posted:swirlsofhistory posted:jools posted:its cool how marx's development into the anti-philosophical incredible hulk basically started with him trashing the dawkinses of his day
The problem with most atheists is that they aren't atheist enough. They reject gods and miracles but hold quasi-theological beliefs in things like conscious minds (Christian souls) and laws of nature.
you are doing the same thing by identifying atheism as an ahistorical intellectual posture with an ideal set of principles rather than as a reaction to theism
wow. this is really, er atheisty. are you ANY OF THESE PEOPLE http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=angry+atheist&oq=angry+atheist LMAO. PICK THE FATTEST ONE, ITS YOU
hey now this guy gets it
he was awesome as johnny the bartender at swearengen's saloon who taught that hooker to read then al killed her to fool george hearst into thinking she was trixie
roseweird posted:AVE_MARIA_GRATIA_PLENA posted:religion isnt separable from the totalizing material prescriptions that constitute its society of believers as religious subjects, it doesnt place structures on society, it is the structures, willfully breaking down structures is only slightly more liberal than trying to strip off the most idealist parts of them and defend those as you repeat at the end of every sentence "...but of course, the structure is rotten, and always has been,"
this is true and i agree with it despite your rcc cheerleading
well then why are you being a liberal
roseweird posted:jools posted:roseweird posted:i'm sorry u feel that way jools, perhaps one day u will be more spiritually evolved and then u will understand......
could you give me an example of a question that continually reposes itself? this is a question
sure, i mean simple questions like "who am i?" and "what is me and what is not me?" "what is the nature of my will?" i think that even if we are not conscious of it, the patterns of our minds revolve around the polarities of basic questions like this. i'm not sure i can explain it more clearly than that, as iwc points out some people simply are not bothered about examining these things. for some people in the right context though words of this kind have value and i try to do my best with them. you can think it is a sham if you like, i try to be open about what it all means
this has nothing to do with religion i'm sorry
roseweird posted:jools posted:roseweird posted:i'm sorry u feel that way jools, perhaps one day u will be more spiritually evolved and then u will understand......
could you give me an example of a question that continually reposes itself? this is a question
sure, i mean simple questions like "who am i?" and "what is me and what is not me?" "what is the nature of my will?" i think that even if we are not conscious of it, the patterns of our minds revolve around the polarities of basic questions like this. i'm not sure i can explain it more clearly than that, as iwc points out some people simply are not bothered about examining these things. for some people in the right context though words of this kind have value and i try to do my best with them. you can think it is a sham if you like, i try to be open about what it all means
well i think you can't explain it more clearly than that because it doesn't make sense.
if i go up to someone and ask "who are you?" they are likely to first give their names, and if i repeat it (and don't get punched!) they are likely to tell me their job, or their sexual orientation, or their beliefs (political or religious) - things like this. if i keep pressing to the point where they're cowering before my transcendental wisdom, crying "i don't know!" to the heavens, this actually does nothing to prove your point about these questions being unresolvable. it just means that the terms you've set are nonsensical, such that any answer other than "i don't know" is invalid or "not deep enough", or something.
precisely the same applies to "what is me and what is not me?". the question has to be set in terms that are a priori nonsensical for it to remain unresolvable. the language games might be fun but they bear no relation to sense.
if people do structure their lives around questions like these, and in a sense they do (but as you can tell i really don't like the way it's put), it's in a way that is about as far from this ouroboros of doubt you create. these questions are continually resolved by the lives of people.
and saying "but well the axioms are arbitrary" is just being antimaterialist
Ironicwarcriminal posted:babyfinland is performing cunnilingus as a muslim different to performing it as an atheist in any substantial ways?
uh no
babyfinland posted:Ironicwarcriminal posted:
babyfinland is performing cunnilingus as a muslim different to performing it as an atheist in any substantial ways?
uh no
ok just wondering cuz i was hanging with a muslim convert aquaintance (Greg) talking about the Haj and this girl came up and introduced herself and asked for a light, i lit her cigarette and off she went. Then Greg was like 'i'm going to Mecca' and I was all like 'Mecca?! you only just met her!'
roseweird posted:iwc why the downvote, do you disapprove of the high priesthood of biology
yeah it sounds pretty gay and lame, like a skit made up by a bunch of teenage monty python fans in Ohio
roseweird posted:jools posted:roseweird posted:jools posted:roseweird posted:i'm sorry u feel that way jools, perhaps one day u will be more spiritually evolved and then u will understand......
could you give me an example of a question that continually reposes itself? this is a question
sure, i mean simple questions like "who am i?" and "what is me and what is not me?" "what is the nature of my will?" i think that even if we are not conscious of it, the patterns of our minds revolve around the polarities of basic questions like this. i'm not sure i can explain it more clearly than that, as iwc points out some people simply are not bothered about examining these things. for some people in the right context though words of this kind have value and i try to do my best with them. you can think it is a sham if you like, i try to be open about what it all means
well i think you can't explain it more clearly than that because it doesn't make sense.
if i go up to someone and ask "who are you?" they are likely to first give their names, and if i repeat it (and don't get punched!) they are likely to tell me their job, or their sexual orientation, or their beliefs (political or religious) - things like this. if i keep pressing to the point where they're cowering before my transcendental wisdom, crying "i don't know!" to the heavens, this actually does nothing to prove your point about these questions being unresolvable. it just means that the terms you've set are nonsensical, such that any answer other than "i don't know" is invalid or "not deep enough", or something.
precisely the same applies to "what is me and what is not me?". the question has to be set in terms that are a priori nonsensical for it to remain unresolvable. the language games might be fun but they bear no relation to sense.
if people do structure their lives around questions like these, and in a sense they do (but as you can tell i really don't like the way it's put), it's in a way that is about as far from this ouroboros of doubt you create. these questions are continually resolved by the lives of people.i think this is a very good response because despite your dismissal of paradox and dialectic we have pretty quickly established a strong dialectic on the nature of questions (continually posed vs. continually resolved). however i have now spent literally all day posting in this thread and i think the zzone at this point has a sufficient map of my bad case of recursive brainworms to extrapolate my responses to any given question on this topic
the problem is that "continually posed" is antimaterialist bullshit that treats every religion as its origin point rather than as it exists in time, oh, here's christianity *poof* here's buddhism *poof* here's islam *poof*, now they all compete on a level playing field in rawlsrace 5000, feel free to build your own religion just talk about your personal feelings about some Big Questions In Life and there you go, you're jesus christ, you're muhammed, you're buddha, materiality and history don't exist, religions just show up because somebody thought about some Big Questions and decided that religion would be a nice thing to have
AVE_MARIA_GRATIA_PLENA posted:here's islam *poof*
personally i like having babyfinland back regardless of his sexual preference
roseweird posted:jools posted:roseweird posted:jools posted:roseweird posted:i'm sorry u feel that way jools, perhaps one day u will be more spiritually evolved and then u will understand......
could you give me an example of a question that continually reposes itself? this is a question
sure, i mean simple questions like "who am i?" and "what is me and what is not me?" "what is the nature of my will?" i think that even if we are not conscious of it, the patterns of our minds revolve around the polarities of basic questions like this. i'm not sure i can explain it more clearly than that, as iwc points out some people simply are not bothered about examining these things. for some people in the right context though words of this kind have value and i try to do my best with them. you can think it is a sham if you like, i try to be open about what it all means
well i think you can't explain it more clearly than that because it doesn't make sense.
if i go up to someone and ask "who are you?" they are likely to first give their names, and if i repeat it (and don't get punched!) they are likely to tell me their job, or their sexual orientation, or their beliefs (political or religious) - things like this. if i keep pressing to the point where they're cowering before my transcendental wisdom, crying "i don't know!" to the heavens, this actually does nothing to prove your point about these questions being unresolvable. it just means that the terms you've set are nonsensical, such that any answer other than "i don't know" is invalid or "not deep enough", or something.
precisely the same applies to "what is me and what is not me?". the question has to be set in terms that are a priori nonsensical for it to remain unresolvable. the language games might be fun but they bear no relation to sense.
if people do structure their lives around questions like these, and in a sense they do (but as you can tell i really don't like the way it's put), it's in a way that is about as far from this ouroboros of doubt you create. these questions are continually resolved by the lives of people.i think this is a very good response because despite your dismissal of paradox and dialectic we have pretty quickly established a strong dialectic on the nature of questions (continually posed vs. continually resolved). however i have now spent literally all day posting in this thread and i think the zzone at this point has a sufficient map of my bad case of recursive brainworms to extrapolate my responses to any given question on this topic
at this point i will declare victory, and i will explain why below:
i) i didn't dismiss paradox - merely described it. paradoxes are logical inconsistencies. if a question results in a paradoxical answer, this means the terms of the question are logically inconsistent and therefore nonsensical. paradoxes can serve a useful educational function in revealing the illogic of particular axioms or positions, as i believe they have in this case.
ii) however, i did dismiss "dialectic". this is another example i think of the twisting and smearing of philosophical language. in the original sense - the dialectic of the socratic dialogues - this merely meant coming to truth through a method of rational debate (which would be distinct from the more general art of rhetoric, given the exclusion of emotional appeals). hegelian dialectic, however, is quite different, in that it explicitly creates "contradictions" - really ontological antinomies - that are only resolved in hegel through the creation of two distinct (and conflicting) ontologies of the material and the ideal. given i am a a materialist, i have to accept that these antinomies cannot truly "sublate" in the ideal, hegelian sense, but are resolved through removing their fundamental inconsistency. which brings me on to my next point...
iii) the "dialectic" you identify between continually posed and continually resolved is not an artefact of any kind of Deep Mystery, but of the fact that matter exists temporally - historically - and as such any question that pertains to matter is in a sense "continually posed". for example, were i to die, the question "who are you" if asked of me would become nonsensical. this isn't a "dialectic", it's just common sense.
iv) the quality of continuous material resolution to the question "who am i" also means that the quality of "unresolvable" assigned to those questions is false.
v) there is a category of statements that qualify as either deep but false or true but trivial. i believe your statement about "unresolvable self-posing questions", now shaved to "self-posing questions" given the falsehood of "unresolveable" is, if we take it to mean "continually posed questions" as described in iii), a statement that falls in the latter category. in its full form it would however be deep but false.
it's like wittgenstein's private language question - just as a private language would be literally meaningless, communicating nothing, and is therefore impossible - a private religion means nothing whatsoever. talking about Big Questions that have to be answered voluntarily by individuals obscures all material existence of religion and at best you get sola scriptura, which either represents some kind of personal manifesto and should not be read at all or means infinitely many things to infinitely many people and that meaning is completely incommunicable
either way you have a total denial of meaning, of communication and of social relations. goethe's famous for saying "individuum ineffabile est" - the individual is unspeakable - and i think that pretty much sums up the problem with a hyperpluralist view of religion as Big Questions that we all have to answer in our own way: the "answers" you're describing just don't exist except as a liberal-idealist construct. the terms "question" and "answer" are inherently dialogic and a "libertarian socialist," voluntarist or otherwise solipsistic approach to dialogue is incoherent because you're trying to prove that 2=1 in purely idealist, atemporal terms
AVE_MARIA_GRATIA_PLENA posted:the other thing is that nearly all of these questions you're talking about - the Big Questions in life that liberal scholarship tells us all religions set out to answer - when divorced from the context of the axiomatic "answers" that religions provide, are fundamentally solipsistic and the only "answers" that can, in turn, be given are infinitely individuo-pluralistic, where pluralism is in direct opposition to religion, which is communal
it's like wittgenstein's private language question - just as a private language would be literally meaningless, communicating nothing, and is therefore impossible - a private religion means nothing whatsoever. talking about Big Questions that have to be answered voluntarily by individuals obscures all material existence of religion and at best you get sola scriptura, which either represents some kind of personal manifesto and should not be read at all or means infinitely many things to infinitely many people and that meaning is completely incommunicable
either way you have a total denial of meaning, of communication and of social relations. goethe's famous for saying "individuum ineffabile est" - the individual is unspeakable - and i think that pretty much sums up the problem with a hyperpluralist view of religion as Big Questions that we all have to answer in our own way: the "answers" you're describing just don't exist except as a liberal-idealist construct. the terms "question" and "answer" are inherently dialogic and a "libertarian socialist," voluntarist or otherwise solipsistic approach to dialogue is incoherent because you're trying to prove that 2=1 in purely idealist, atemporal terms
agreed. this is also why i believe in state mandated atheism.