First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Narrow-minded viewpoints (materialism)
22653 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 4/7/16 , edited 4/7/16

Ejanss wrote:
... Science is essentially blind faith in an invisible set of agreed-upon assumptions people guessed about the world, and leading their lives accordingly.


Hmm sort of. It's more like observable phenomenon packaged in a language comprehensible to humans. Laws are more like language--a means of communicating reality in a manner that is comprehensible to us humans. Of course we can get into the philosophical question if whether reality is even objective but that becomes a bit of a convoluted discussion....I mean what is our existence under that context? Belief? Reality? What is reality? The comprehensible? The measured? The observed? Goes back to the old if a tree fell in a forest conversation....

If we establish reality as we do, science follows in a way more like a language rather than faith--unless science is expressed as a belief in reality...



I just thought of another, you could say there are those that believe in the truth value of scientific theory. For example, there are those that believe in the theory of evolution given the evidence for it.

Posted 4/7/16 , edited 4/7/16

Dark_Alma wrote:


Sarah_Blight wrote:



As an aspiring buddhist, and an atheist, I see it as a cultish reactionary movement in the scientific community against anything other than what they know. They make science a religion, and try to use their finitely acquired knowledge . Science works for no one, but for everyone , science and religion (not all religion) are not yet proven to be mutually exclusive.





What are you asking? I cant seem to figure out what it is you are trying to say. Are you saying atheism is bad? Materialism is bad? Religion is bad? I just cant figure it out.

Can the OP or anyone clear up what the question that is being debated here is?


(Blind) Materialism, mainly.
1127 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/7/16
I have a lawn mower in my shed, it's been there all winter and I haven't thought about it once, it will still mow my lawn even if I repeatedly tell it it doesn't exist the entire time I'm using it.

I think the concept of religion and the existence of deities is a lot like my gardening, my belief is only required to make a thing that doesn't exist begin to exist (as a concept - I don't think I can magically think things into reality like it's the Matrix or something).

On the subject of gardens, I have a hedge but no clippers. I can stand next to that hedge all summer long talking to it and making clipper sounds but it won't get any shorter...
10620 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/7/16

RebRebel wrote:

I have a lawn mower in my shed, it's been there all winter and I haven't thought about it once, it will still mow my lawn even if I repeatedly tell it it doesn't exist the entire time I'm using it.

I think the concept of religion and the existence of deities is a lot like my gardening, my belief is only required to make a thing that doesn't exist begin to exist (as a concept - I don't think I can magically think things into reality like it's the Matrix or something).

On the subject of gardens, I have a hedge but no clippers. I can stand next to that hedge all summer long talking to it and making clipper sounds but it won't get any shorter...


It will, however, tend to grow larger, and that's the real breaking point for a lot of people. They want the hedge to stay the same size regardless of how much time goes by, but don't want to put the effort into finding out how to stop it or finding ways to curtail that growth.
1127 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/7/16 , edited 4/7/16

gornotck wrote:


RebRebel wrote:

I have a lawn mower in my shed, it's been there all winter and I haven't thought about it once, it will still mow my lawn even if I repeatedly tell it it doesn't exist the entire time I'm using it.

I think the concept of religion and the existence of deities is a lot like my gardening, my belief is only required to make a thing that doesn't exist begin to exist (as a concept - I don't think I can magically think things into reality like it's the Matrix or something).

On the subject of gardens, I have a hedge but no clippers. I can stand next to that hedge all summer long talking to it and making clipper sounds but it won't get any shorter...


It will, however, tend to grow larger, and that's the real breaking point for a lot of people. They want the hedge to stay the same size regardless of how much time goes by, but don't want to put the effort into finding out how to stop it or finding ways to curtail that growth.


I think maybe you've misunderstood my point about the hedge and clippers - in that analogy God is the clippers not the bush. It doesn't matter how much I try and make the universe believe they exist my belief in them won't trim the hedge. Conversely my not believing in the lawnmower wont stop it mowing the lawn.

In essence belief is inconsequential if a thing is real and counter-productive if it does not.
10620 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/7/16
Oh, no. I got that, but thanks for clarifying.
16767 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hoosierville
Offline
Posted 4/7/16
Materialism - Everything we know about the past can be attributed to materialism. Without it we would not know anything.
Posted 4/7/16

RebRebel wrote:


gornotck wrote:


RebRebel wrote:

I have a lawn mower in my shed, it's been there all winter and I haven't thought about it once, it will still mow my lawn even if I repeatedly tell it it doesn't exist the entire time I'm using it.

I think the concept of religion and the existence of deities is a lot like my gardening, my belief is only required to make a thing that doesn't exist begin to exist (as a concept - I don't think I can magically think things into reality like it's the Matrix or something).

On the subject of gardens, I have a hedge but no clippers. I can stand next to that hedge all summer long talking to it and making clipper sounds but it won't get any shorter...


It will, however, tend to grow larger, and that's the real breaking point for a lot of people. They want the hedge to stay the same size regardless of how much time goes by, but don't want to put the effort into finding out how to stop it or finding ways to curtail that growth.


I think maybe you've misunderstood my point about the hedge and clippers - in that analogy God is the clippers not the bush. It doesn't matter how much I try and make the universe believe they exist my belief in them won't trim the hedge. Conversely my not believing in the lawnmower wont stop it mowing the lawn.

In essence belief is inconsequential if a thing is real and counter-productive if it does not.


This is what I'm talking about; narrow-minded. If you define reality as just based on matter ,or only what aspects of existence is shown to you (or that buddhists are theistic and regard the buddha as a god) -- then I'm afraid I've went over your head. We don't generally deny matter exists; it is but an aspect , a part, of a whole. The real question is why wouldn't it be possible?
1127 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/7/16 , edited 4/7/16

Sarah_Blight wrote:


RebRebel wrote:


gornotck wrote:


RebRebel wrote:

I have a lawn mower in my shed, it's been there all winter and I haven't thought about it once, it will still mow my lawn even if I repeatedly tell it it doesn't exist the entire time I'm using it.

I think the concept of religion and the existence of deities is a lot like my gardening, my belief is only required to make a thing that doesn't exist begin to exist (as a concept - I don't think I can magically think things into reality like it's the Matrix or something).

On the subject of gardens, I have a hedge but no clippers. I can stand next to that hedge all summer long talking to it and making clipper sounds but it won't get any shorter...


It will, however, tend to grow larger, and that's the real breaking point for a lot of people. They want the hedge to stay the same size regardless of how much time goes by, but don't want to put the effort into finding out how to stop it or finding ways to curtail that growth.


I think maybe you've misunderstood my point about the hedge and clippers - in that analogy God is the clippers not the bush. It doesn't matter how much I try and make the universe believe they exist my belief in them won't trim the hedge. Conversely my not believing in the lawnmower wont stop it mowing the lawn.

In essence belief is inconsequential if a thing is real and counter-productive if it does not.


This is what I'm talking about; narrow-minded. If you define reality as just based on matter ,or only what aspects of existence is shown to you (or that buddhists are theistic and regard the buddha as a god) -- then I'm afraid I've went over your head. We don't generally deny matter exists; it is but an aspect , a part, of a whole. The real question is why wouldn't it be possible?


I'm sorry what? I suspect your response is the narrow minded one in this exchange. I said belief in a thing was inconsequential to it's existence, you are the one redefining my answer to fit your own position with regard to buddhism. Unless you are directly telling me that your belief in Buddha is exactly why he exists like a Tulpa?
Posted 4/7/16 , edited 4/7/16

RebRebel wrote:


Sarah_Blight wrote:


RebRebel wrote:


gornotck wrote:


RebRebel wrote:

I have a lawn mower in my shed, it's been there all winter and I haven't thought about it once, it will still mow my lawn even if I repeatedly tell it it doesn't exist the entire time I'm using it.

I think the concept of religion and the existence of deities is a lot like my gardening, my belief is only required to make a thing that doesn't exist begin to exist (as a concept - I don't think I can magically think things into reality like it's the Matrix or something).

On the subject of gardens, I have a hedge but no clippers. I can stand next to that hedge all summer long talking to it and making clipper sounds but it won't get any shorter...


It will, however, tend to grow larger, and that's the real breaking point for a lot of people. They want the hedge to stay the same size regardless of how much time goes by, but don't want to put the effort into finding out how to stop it or finding ways to curtail that growth.


I think maybe you've misunderstood my point about the hedge and clippers - in that analogy God is the clippers not the bush. It doesn't matter how much I try and make the universe believe they exist my belief in them won't trim the hedge. Conversely my not believing in the lawnmower wont stop it mowing the lawn.

In essence belief is inconsequential if a thing is real and counter-productive if it does not.


This is what I'm talking about; narrow-minded. If you define reality as just based on matter ,or only what aspects of existence is shown to you (or that buddhists are theistic and regard the buddha as a god) -- then I'm afraid I've went over your head. We don't generally deny matter exists; it is but an aspect , a part, of a whole. The real question is why wouldn't it be possible?


I'm sorry what? I suspect your response is the narrow minded one in this exchange. I said belief in a thing was inconsequential to it's existence, you are the one redefining my answer to fit your own position with regard to buddhism. Unless you are directly telling me that your belief in Buddha is exactly why he exists like a Tulpa?


Maybe. Maybe not. If I seemed to single you out, I'm sorry. I'm far from perfect and not above getting emotional. The topic veered from open-mindedness towards spirituality among the questioning, to yet another religion vs. atheism spiel, when really my point that they aren't always mutually exclusive..and I got defensive. You made your point.
7090 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / SK, Canada
Offline
Posted 4/7/16

Ejanss wrote:


So...you're telling everyone you're an atheist, but you believe in some fat smiling guy turning into a god and sitting in the clouds because he became smart. And that the squirrel stealing your bag of peanuts at the park might have been a trial lawyer twenty years ago.

Ooo-kay. Guess we're just trying everything to show off.

(Hint: An "Agnostic" doesn't know what his central belief is, an "atheist" attacks it. A bit of Webster's might help clarify things.)


They make science a religion, and try to use their finitely acquired knowledge . Science works for no one, but for everyone , science and religion (not all religion) are not yet proven to be mutually exclusive.


Thing is, using your belief to make it do what you want to do to prove some frustrated political point is exactly what most atheists accuse "those crazy terrorists" and "Red-state book-burners" of doing.
They like Sci-ence! because they think it's "not on anyone's side", but that neutrality means it's not on theirs either. It just Is, and won't always do what you want to the Bad People.

And unless you can point to a Law of Gravity and show us a picture of it, Science is essentially blind faith in an invisible set of agreed-upon assumptions people guessed about the world, and leading their lives accordingly.


I don't think you understand what Buddhism is rofl. A bit of Webster's might help clarify things.

:)
14767 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 4/7/16 , edited 4/7/16

Dark_Alma wrote:


Sarah_Blight wrote:
As an aspiring buddhist, and an atheist, I see it as a cultish reactionary movement in the scientific community against anything other than what they know. They make science a religion, and try to use their finitely acquired knowledge . Science works for no one, but for everyone , science and religion (not all religion) are not yet proven to be mutually exclusive.


What are you asking? I cant seem to figure out what it is you are trying to say. Are you saying atheism is bad? Materialism is bad? Religion is bad? I just cant figure it out.

Can the OP or anyone clear up what the question that is being debated here is?


He's an agnostic, which means he isn't sure, but like most agnostics, he latched onto the word "Atheist", and then found out he doesn't want to be like those boorish misanthropic jerks who keep campaigning to put an Einstein statue next to the town's Christmas display because they're paranoiacally thinking the entire town is "against" their way of thinking, like Trump talking about Bernie and Cruz supporters.

It's okay not to be sure, as it's better to be a quiet questioner, than a loud asshat.
14767 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 4/7/16 , edited 4/7/16

PrinceJudar wrote:


Ejanss wrote:
... Science is essentially blind faith in an invisible set of agreed-upon assumptions people guessed about the world, and leading their lives accordingly.


Hmm sort of. It's more like observable phenomenon packaged in a language comprehensible to humans. Laws are more like language--a means of communicating reality in a manner that is comprehensible to us humans. Of course we can get into the philosophical question if whether reality is even objective but that becomes a bit of a convoluted discussion....I mean what is our existence under that context? Belief? Reality? What is reality? The comprehensible? The measured? The observed? Goes back to the old if a tree fell in a forest conversation....

If we establish reality as we do, science follows in a way more like a language rather than faith--unless science is expressed as a belief in reality...


Well, the idea that "Science proves everything, so that's that!" and "Science will save us from the dark ages!" is just as dogmatic in one's beliefs as the dogma they're accusing everyone else's of biting the mailman.

Already explained it back when Eclair leaped onto the crazy Chinese girl's thread of trying to "prove" religious people were looneys, and it's too good to go back and write again, so:

Well, that's just it, y'see:
Someone didn't break the bad news to them--or else someone did, and they're just closing their ears and going la-la--that it is the fundamental concept that Science doesn't "prove" anything.
It offers cold data with which one makes assumptions. In other words, it's not on anyone's "side", not even your own.

If you wanted to "prove" that an apple off a tree falls up, you could drop twenty apples in experimental testing, and if all twenty fell down, the data wouldn't look good for your hypothesis--
- HOWEVER -
under the concept of Science, you would not be allowed to actually say that your little experiment of twenty apples has "now proven, for all time and beyond any shadow of doubt, for it to be physically impossible" for an apple to fall up, you could only be allowed to say that based on your observations, it would be highly unlikely. Or at worst, that you haven't observed it to happen yet.
And words like "likely" or "probably" are inconclusive words in the realm of opinion, since no actual data that something Exists or Doesn't Exist has come out of various tests. Someone else can say the law of Gravity makes it very unlikely the apple will fall up, and even offer specific predictable numbers about how fast it will fall down based on a hundred other apples, but again, there is no 100% validated language that can be used to that effect until someone actually SEES one fall up.
We simply accept the law of Gravity on faith, assuming what else we believe to be true about it, since it is an invisible, intangible thing we can not measure itself, but only study its effects on other things.

Science studies what can be observed, and what can't be observed, it leaves alone, or disputes as academic theory, if there is no physical way of testing it.
And faith is when you put trust in something that you can't 100% prove or disprove.


(Or to put it in layman's terms: Ever notice how all those annoying pharmaceutical-drug commercials never actually flat-out say their drug will "cure" somethng?
Under FCC rules, they're only allowed to say, "A majority of test-study cases noted improved symptoms in only one week." Anything else would fall under Deceptive Advertising.)
10620 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/7/16
Yes. Because it's actionable. It's actually kind of incredible how people can twist things to mean whatever they want it to. Even the most exacting statement can be misconstrued and turned to another's uses, simply by them changing meaning through fiat.

Yet, in absolute terms, I don't think this has touched on the intended path of talking about so-called Blind Materialism, though it is fascinating in a sick way.
33510 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / U.S.A.
Offline
Posted 4/7/16 , edited 4/7/16

Ejanss wrote:


Sarah_Blight wrote:

As an aspiring buddhist, and an atheist,


So...you're telling everyone you're an atheist, but you believe in some fat smiling guy turning into a god and sitting in the clouds because he became smart. And that the squirrel stealing your bag of peanuts at the park might have been a trial lawyer twenty years ago.



(Hint: An "Agnostic" doesn't know what his central belief is, an "atheist" attacks it.
wat



They make science a religion, and try to use their finitely acquired knowledge . Science works for no one, but for everyone , science and religion (not all religion) are not yet proven to be mutually exclusive.


Thing is, using your belief to make it do what you want to do to prove some frustrated political point is exactly what most atheists accuse "those crazy terrorists" and "Red-state book-burners" of doing.

Haha! That's actually funny because if I substitute 'atheists' for 'creationists', that quote would actually hold some ground.


And unless you can point to a Law of Gravity and show us a picture of it, Science is essentially blind faith in an invisible set of agreed-upon assumptions people guessed about the world, and leading their lives accordingly.
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.