He makes a great point in this video about burden of proof: the default assumption when you read something is that you’re supposed to take it literally. When someone tries to read the bible in a more complicated way, they are required to meet the burden of proof and not just wash their hands and say that “no one really knows so let’s move on.”
Why am I so amazingly smart? QFT
You experience this illusion because you’ve been surrounded by your intellectual inferiors your whole life. Leave your home and find a place where you will frequently be the least intelligent person in the room, and you will be able to grow and learn far more than ever before.
/ fucking saved. Someone took my shitpost on te philosophy board seriously, and reaffirmed the value of something I’ve told myself for years. I gotta trust myself and get out of this stupid country. To do anything but seek intellectual abroad is the real escapism!
Christians love to act skeptical of science and say something to the effect of, “Proof is not the entirety of truth. Believing that the world was a sphere (roughly) before it was proven to be so did not make that person wrong or delusional.”
This is a call to ignorance, radical skepticism and complacency. We can behave upon the grounds of what seems likely, and do so daily because that is the only practical way to live. From here the theist straddles the line between the God of the Gaps fallacy, or solipsism. The empty rhetoric these people use really says that we should not tentatively attach more credibility to what seems probable. They’re in effect saying, “No one knows the truth, so I will keep believing in what seems less probable.”
Let’s fix this stupid word game these tricky sophists are playing quickly by demanding they answer one of Aristotle’s question.
“There are no truths. Is this true or false?”
No matter what they say, Aristotle has got them cornered.
Cloud and Zidane were the greatest philosophers that ever lived. They changed my life. But my best friends at middle school think Titus has even deeper insights into the human condition.
I discovered philosophy from Trigun. I could have stopped there and been smarter than the adults, but my older brother who is 14 and a genius showed me Final Fantasy. He has studied the story his whole life and wants to start a class to teach about Final Fantasy theology at a university. He says he needs to teach kids to live with nature again and care for gaia or ancient guardians will be awakened to destroy us.
This begs the question of what sort of religion Final Fantasy espoused?
>But as with everything, moderation is key.
I don’t like the old idea of living with ‘moderation,’ it sounds too much like mystical yin-yang – remember kids to balance your salad with the dressing or it will be too sweet or too bland. I prefer to look at extreme fashions where a concept is distilled to the absolute, over the boring ‘subtle’ conservative look old-timers embrace, that looks like its a bland mish-mash of whatever was left in your wardrobe. They claim a drab purple, gray, or brown with is classy. To me it’s just boring and makes you look like everyone else who does it – like you’re not even trying to have a stroke of individualism.
In fact they like those colors because their eyes are dimming and losing sensitivity with age. Young people are attracted to saturated colors and if you’ve watched shows for kids, you’ll noticea actors tend to notch up the drama to the point of overacting. The most fascinating art goes beyond what is realistic, and is unusual enough to be very stimulating, mainly because nature is subtle. (Supernormal stimulus explains why we tend to fetishize extremes.)
Btw, the truth doesn’t necessarily land between two extreme viewpoints.
“Truth, regardless of what liberal centrists and “common wisdom” morons say, is not in the middle. Truth is very one sided, even when that side is a third side that says “You’re morons who are arguing the wrong question about a wrong conception”. The only way to actually come to know what side truth is on is to dive deeply into the waters of whatever grabs your attention claiming to be the answer you seek.”
Too many stars:
My Mastery of Religion:
>I think therefore I am – Descartes
“I” may not actually exist in the way I think I do. The “I” is not well defined as an entity, and the “therefore” still requires a leap of faith to prove that thinking proves existence. Just because we are used to the idea that thinking things must exist, does not mean that we could not be totally deceived. We could even be deceived about our ability to think.
“I” might exist, but only as a concept or a metaphysical possibility. Descarte still has not proven the evil genius cannot affect his mind, or there is not something even more powerful.
Philosophy is not my area of expertise, but the statement feels wrong to me, and I will try to explain why I think it is unsafe:
Does a computer that thinks it exists actually exist or is it programed to think so? If there was no one to observe it, how would it confirm that it was not a concept in a void of possibilities? Concepts do not exist in a physical (material) sense. If I write a dialog about a thinking character named Jim, that does not mean Jim “exists” as anything but a concept in my imagination. Does “Jim” exist on some plane if he recites “cogito ergo sum” in my internal dialog? Does he now have a soul?
If the premises are wrong, then Jim has unknowingly begged the question.
I can think therefore I am
I exist therefore I can think
Now then does Jim have a soul? Well “can” implies “ought” but can does not prove ought.
I have thought of another way to phrase my answer:
How can you know if you are actually thinking? Or that thought even exists, rather than being an illusion/concept? What if thought is an automatic process in a conception?
Even if I affirm “I think therefore I am”, it doesn’t prove I am part of a material universe, or that such a reality even exists. The expression is just an excuse to pretend you’ve found a rock-solid axiom, so you can put aside some extreme skepticism.
I’m fond of “The Little Prince” and rereading it never gets old. In simple, layered words it lays out a plan to experience the joy of a whimsical life, even when there are thousands of identical people from an objective viewpoint. I’ve met people whoose names I never bothered to learn, and now when I think of the the country I think of them and smile. A few chance encounters are enough to brighten up entire parts of a world map.
I’m beginning to discard the New Atheism idea that we must reject all sentimental bullshit that has any tinge of mysticism, so we can all live in the same objective reality. Scientism seems to limit the imagination, and destroy the zest for life that children naturally possess, forcing the conformity that drive grown-ups to drink or kill themselves from over-work. Logical and analytical types have a reputation for being boring, because they actually murdered part of their soul for wordly success.
Most people aren’t explorers, and there is so much you can’t learn without firsthand experience. It has been said, ‘When all of your knowledge comes from books, all you get is prejudice and not empiricalism.’ (Mean world syndrome is when people watch too much of the news and think everyone is trying to murder you.)
Mysticism may be a hollow substitute for feeling knowledge without actually possessing it, but it could still be useful for the energy and inspiring feelings it imparts. Dawkins is right that religion shouldn’t be allowed to monopolize spirituality too.
If Atheism is the jumping point to Skepticism, and Skepticism is a superior way of viewing the world, where does Skepticism lead? I’m worried that I am a zeitgeist that still possesses ungrounded beliefs, and that I will fail to transcend to a higher state of critical thinking.
Waking up from religion is a start, but now I want a second awakening/paradigm shift, except I just don’t know where to look. I am trying to break free of the constraints of my time, so I can imagine how Utopia will look when we’ve solved our current problems, so I know what to work towards.
(I guess this is a more concise version of my earlier post. As an aside, I’ve been getting more interested in philosophy, and I think the Communist philosophers had a lot of valid ideas about religion.)
I understand that he was an Atheist, but let’s put the herd mentality aside for a moment. (Hurr durr, he loathed religion like me, so he’s the best of all.) Many of his ideas are obvious realizations to anyone who has newly deconverted, and kept up with ideas of human evolution, and his attempts to mix literature with philosophy, and write a novel bog it down. Although I haven’t read much of his work, I’ve enjoyed reading plain old Plato and other Greek philosophers much more.
Plato carefully builds a foundation and then adds layers. I also like reading about other philosophers like Diogenes, for his ability to give the middle finger to every other source of authority and somehow get away with it (unlike Socrates, whose persecution was to Athens what Giordano Bruno’s was to the Catholic church.)
My friend said he would like to have gone to a Buddhist middle school,
an Islamic high school and a secular college, but if he had it all to
do over again he would have stayed clear of Christianity. Lately I
have become interested in philosophy, which is what happens when you
take the mysticism out of religion and encourage people to think about
everything for themselves. The writings of Kant are popular with
Atheists since he was an atheist who tried to find a solution to
combat nhilism. He was afraid society would fall into chaos once the
majority realized “God is dead, and we have killed him.” (Meaning once
we stop believing we cannot lay claim to Christian morals and have to
rethink everything. He doesn’t mean G o d ever existed except as a
At the moment though I am still more attracted to the Greek
philosophers, Plato, Socrates and Diogenes. Socrates was sort of
religious, but rejected the Greek gods and believed in his own spirit.
He was sentenced to execution by jury for two reasons 1) corrupting
young minds (by telling people to think) 2) not acknowledging the
local Greek gods.
How people believe any religion is truer than any other is beyond me.
I have found parallel persecutions by mobs for rejecting gods that
were locally popular in Israel, Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism
where heretics were murdered. Religion robs people of tolerance and
the ability to think and be at peace. Perhaps, my philosophies do not
jive with Nietzsche, because I think the price of preserving religion
for the sake of order is still far too high. Scientists have done
immoral experiments, and not every problem has a technological
solution because there are fundamental human conflicts of interest,
but I feel religion has done more harm than good.
Can philosophy replace religion? Unfortunately, probably not, because
it requires patience and higher thinking that frankly most people do
not have. Religion is the shortcut to a sense of morality, with a few
rules backed up by flashy mysticism that stimulates the imagination.
Moreover, the ancient philosophers who tried to teach were frequently
deified by followers, resulting in cults that followed
Zoroaster,Christ, Buddha or Muhammed. Even in modern days pseudo cults
have sprung up behind philosophers like Ayn Rand. Personally I think a
diversity of reads are better, but it’s even better to learn to think
critically and take a thought to its natural conclusion. This is why I
like Plato- boring though his writing is, it’s straight forward and
you don’t get lost because he doesn’t write like Nietzsche, a novelist
showing off. The premises are obvious and every final idea is worked
to in layers from the foundation.
Even if the solution remains out of reach, we need to jettison invalid
ideas and keep looking and sharing thoughts until someday we reach a
critical mass and a more harmonious society Is easier to create and
preserve. I do like nietzsche,’s idea that we are working to evolve
into an ubermenche, who won’t remember us. I have already thought of
that and many of his ideas though, so perhaps that is why he doesn’t
appeal to me. I do love his treatise on how Christianity fails at its
goals and keeps a person grovel in forever in sin, while Buddhism
succeeds in its stated goal of extinguishing distress, and harmful
emotions. Pure Buddhism should give more peace than the purest