I see the in tray is full again ...
Jayjay4547 wrote:Calilasseia wrote: Jayjay4547 wrote:If so, what would be part of communist ideology, in your view? I might well agree with you…Can you spell it out for me, in your view is there such a thing as communist ideology and if so, what exactly makes it an ideology?
Once again, I simply pointed out that
it is not just exponents of a particular ideology that have an interest in the requisite entities. What part of this elementary concept do you not understand, JayJay?
Furthermore, given the number of times I have covered the underlying assertions of Marxism, whilst documenting the aetiology of doctrine centred world views, the fact that you don't know what those assertions are, despite my having expounded upon them frequently, testifies to your complete absence of even the most elementary level of diligence. Others here can find the requisite posts with a few mouse clicks. But since you need your homework doing for you, JayJay, the two assertions in question are:
[1] The Labour Theory of Value assertion, which asserts that the value of a commodity is exactly equal to the value of the labour required to produce it;
[2] The Surplus Value assertion, which asserts that any additional cost of a commodity is the product of capitalist exploitation of the producers thereof.
The big problem with Marxist ideology, is that the first of these assertions, the critical assertion upon which all else within the ideology is based,
remains untested to this day. Not least because no one has defined a rigorous measure of 'value'.
Price is a different matter, and for that matter, a different quantity. For example, the
price I paid for a second hand digital camera, bears no relation to the
value I place upon it, because someone else could have paid exactly the same price for it, but not bothered putting it to the use I have to document the insect fauna of my locality, and simply left it in a cupboard unused for long periods of time, save for the occasional holiday abroad. I regard that relatively low
price I paid for that camera, to be pathetically inadequate as a measure of the
value I place upon it, as an entomological recording tool. That camera has allowed me to do more than snap a few pretty pictures, it has allowed me to produce a thorough visual knowledge base of the local insect fauna, which now runs to something like 22,000 photographs.
Of course, that's a substantial problem with capitalist economics, namely, it concentrates upon price whilst frequently having no conception of value. But that's properly a subject for its own thread.
The big problem with Marxist ideology, is that in large part, it's nothing more than a financial religion. Of course, Marx was disturbingly prescient in pointing out the flaws inherent in capitalism, but his proposed solution was a non-solution. First, not everyone is equipped to manage even small businesses, let alone large ones, which is one of the reasons we pay the specialists who are, to do the job. The problem with capitalism is that if hands out too much largesse to the venal and ruthless, at the expense of those with less avaricious appetites, but stopping everyone from pursuing enterprise manifestly doesn't work. Of course, Marx's proposed "solution" sounded extremely persuasive to those at the bottom of the socio-economic pyramid, particularly when they were suffering from ruthless, and in some cases, life-threatening exploitation, but instead of devising a way of rewarding
ethical practice and punishing rampant piratical rapacity, Marx simply declared by
fiat that the answer was to sweep the whole system away. I'm reminded at this juncture once again of the words of P. J. O'Rourke, when he said that any idiot can burn down the shit house, but it takes a skilled tradesman to install replacement plumbing. Marxist ideology is extremely appealing to lots of idiots who want to burn down the shit house, but offers bugger all coaching in the art of replacement plumbing.
I think this should be sufficientfor now, and if it isn't, then you really need to brush up on your basic comprehension.
More basic than the Marxist labour theory of value and of surplus value
Ahem, how can anything be "more basic" than
the foundational assertions Marx erected upon which he based his entire thesis?So already, at this starting point in your reply, you're going to make up more shit?
Jayjay4547 wrote:lay the workerist perceptions of the injustice of social inequalities and of the class system
I'm reminded here of the words in the preface to one edition of
Das Kapital, in which the translator wrote that whilst many of the oppresed workers in the 19th century were dissatistifed with the iniquities of the capitalist system as then pursued,
Marx was the first to suggest a detailed conceptual alternative, providing a framwork wihtin which that dissatisfaction could be channelled into aspirations for a purportedly better alternative. The fact that there existed serious flaws with his alternative is, of course, a separate issue.
Jayjay4547 wrote:and economics as the means to analyse and rectify them.
The average 19th century worker was too busy trying to stay alive and out of debt, to spend time engaging in academic deliberations.
Jayjay4547 wrote:It wasn’t just idiots that Marxist explanation appealed to.
Oh I'm intimately aware of the number of intellectuals who were seduced by Marxist theory, particularly in its early days. William Morris, founder of the Arts And Crafts Movement, and one of the contributors to the world of Pre-Raphaelite art that I've had a passion for spanning over two decades, was merely one such example. Morris was one of the earliest prominent Socialists, but of course he had the misfortune to be seduced by Marxisst theory
before its inherent flaws became starkly apparent in the real world, and indeed,
died before said evidence started to materialise. Morris died in 1898, fully 19 years before the October Revolution in Russia. One of the surpeme ironies being, of course, that Marx predicted that Russia would be the
last place that would host a communist revolution.
However, we now live in a different era, and those serious flaws in Marxist theory are eminently apparent to anyone who expends the relevant diligent effort studying Marx's ideas. That's
before we factor into the equation the manner in which dozens of attempts to "build Socialism" ended in abject failure.
Jayjay4547 wrote:I agree that a central flaw in Marxism was the notion that the human intellect could control an economy.
The funny part being, of course, that quite a few capitalists think this. They just differ in the details. They think that mass pursuit of avarice will somehow magically build a functioning economy.
Jayjay4547 wrote:Mind you that worked well enough during WWII, compared with the Russian performance in the previous war.
Actually, one of the problems Russia faced in WWII, was the manner in which Stalin's whims and caprices frequently
hindered Russian progress. It's a bit difficult to maintain a coherent and consistent military campaign, if your top generals keep being sent to Gulags.
Of course, one of the advantages the then Soviet Union had, was large tracts of land, out of reach of Nazi weapons, into which military production facilities could be moved. Which was one of the sensible moves that the Soviet Union undertook. It also had some eminently fine designers working for it, such as the people who designed the T-34 tank, which is the ancestor of all modern main battle tanks.
Jayjay4547 wrote:Ideology is a broader complex of beliefs than you make out.
No it isn't. Allow me to expound once again the process that takes place, a process that you will find is shared by
all ideologies if you analyse them. Namely:
[1] Erect one or more assertions, to be treated as purportedly constituting "axioms" about the world, to which the world is purportedly required necessarily to conform;
[2] Construct an edifice based upon the treatment of those assertions in the above manner.
Which, of course, is why, if you
subject assertions to test, and discard those failing said test, you are manifestly NOT pursuing an ideology. Do learn this elementary lesson, JayJay, I've dispensed it to you often enough.
Jayjay4547 wrote:You haven’t thrown light on why you claim that ideology does not include highlighting some aspects of the world (e.g. social class)|and backgrounding others.
I never erected any such claim, JayJay, this is another manifest fabrication of yours. Indeed,
concentrating upon specific details is inherent in the formulation of the foundational assertions underpinning an ideology. But just because ideologies happen to do this, doesn't mean for one moment, that
other disciplines not founded upon ideologies taake a similar approach, namely,
concentrate upon the details of a particular system of interest. It's the basis from which the entire current classification of scientific disciplines has arisen. And, for that matter, the classification of disciplines in the humanities as well. Just because, for example, physics concentrates upon matter and its behaviour, doesn't in the least make physics an "ideology". Do learn this elementary fact, JayJay.
Jayjay4547 wrote:Jayjay4547 wrote: Atheist ideology is also expressed in assertions for example, that there is no progress in evolution.
Calilasseia wrote:This isn't an "assertion", JayJay, it's
observed fact. There is NO teleology, NO externally applied goal arising from a magic sentience, nothing but "whatever works in the current environment".
Jayjay4547 wrote:When I see that word “teleology” I reach for my smelling salts because it always seems to precede some overreaching argument beyond the remit of real observers.
Calilasseia wrote:But that's
exactly what your fellow creationists routinely assert to be in place - a teleology enforced by their imaginary magic man in the sky. Once again, there is
zero evidence for any of this.
I speak only for myself.
As I've noted in detail previously, JayJay, I'm aware of this. That entire discourse on the manner in which your assertions would be considered heretical by many other creationists, being a part of said understanding.
Jayjay4547 wrote:And a central part of my thinking is about what the real observer can see.
Oh, you mean
REAL WORLD DATA, JayJay? Much of which you ignore when it fails to genuflect before
your ideology?
Jayjay4547 wrote:He can see progress in evolution without being able to see where it will lead.
Wrong. What observers routinely alight upon in evolution, is
movement towards LOCAL fitness maxima. There is NO SUCH THING as a GLOBAL fitness maximum.
Jayjay4547 wrote:Calilasseia wrote: Jayjay4547 wrote:We speak familiarly of technological progress without using that word [teleology], but from observing the same system behavior that, in the longer term, has been observed from the fossil record. Fact is, the word “progress” is banished from evolution for fear that its use would encourage politically incorrect thinking amongst some.
Bollocks. It hasn't been "banished" by some decree or
fiat, it's been
demonstrated to be inapplicable by the data. Fucking learn this once and for all , will you?
I will question this “data” later in my response.
As succinct a pointer to
your ideological agenda as one could wish for. That paper on stochastic modelling and its application to the evolution of cancer cells, is waiting for you.
Jayjay4547 wrote:Calilasseia wrote:Jayjay4547 wrote: atheism highlights reason over intuition.
I'm reminded here of the old aphorism about the process being 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration. Keep ignoring the 90% perspiration whilst peddling more apologetic fabrications, why don't you?
On the other hand, perspiration without inspiration can just flounder energetically.
Your hole digging in this thread being a classic example thereof.
Jayjay4547 wrote:Calilasseia wrote: Jayjay4547 wrote: The basic difference between atheists and theists is that theists see themselves as embedded in a hierarchy….Theists express this perception of the human condition in meditation, prayer, singing, dancing, great building and in narratives that are spiritual tools…Take “great building” that I cited above. The great cathedrals were spiritual tools
Actually, the only "experience" I have upon entering a cathedral, is to ask myself how much further we would be as a species, if we'd spent the money developing science instead of penis extensions for religion.
Science was developed by people who in many instances, worshipped in those same cathedrals.
Oh no, not the tiresome "Christian scientists" trope. Oh wait, most of those were "Christian"
in an era when failing to conform to doctrine led to a one way trip to an Inquisitional dungeon. Funny how most scientists now living in an era where they don't face this threat have
jettisoned religion, isn't it? Do I have to shove that
Nature paper under your nose again? Oh wait,
I dealt with your tiresome apologetics on this subject back on August 18th in this post, where I presented that very paper and its findings, in which it was established that the more prominent the scientists in question, the MORE likely they are to jettison religion.
Jayjay4547 wrote:If people wanted to depict a penis extension they could have done that more simply than by building a cathedral.
Oh wait, building gigantic edifices has been an essential part of making statements about power,
ever since the days of the Ancient Sumerians and their ziggurats. It's been an essential part of supernaturalists trying to say to the world "look how marvellous our magic man is" for
five thousand years. Planet Earth is
littered with supernaturalist buildings aimed at showing off the purported "power" of all manner of different religions, ranging from those ziggurats, through to the Egyptian Pyramids (which were constructed as portals facilitating a Pharoah's passage into the afterlife), the numerous Greek and Roman temples to various deities, the assortment of buildings in Mesoamerica constructed by the Aztecs and the Incas, such as Xochicalco, the enormous Angkor Wat temple complex in Cambodia, the Mayan temples of Chichen Itza, and of course the bizarre Moai of the ancient Rapa Nui civilisation on Easter Island. Indeed, in the case of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World, the Pyramids were religious buildings, the Colossus of Rhodes was a religious statue of the sun god Helios, the Temple of Artemis at Ephesus was a religious building, and the Statue of Zeus at Olympia was a religious statue.
Quite simply, every time human beings have decided to cook up mythological magic entities, and treat them as real, virtually the next step has been the business of building edifices of one sort or another, aimed at telling the rest of the world how powerful these entities are, and why everyone around should worship these entities. It''s been an essential aspect of supernaturalism for at least five thousand years, and indeed, prehistoric cave paintings dating back 20,000 years or more, are widely regarded by scholars to have arisen from similar motivations, not least because they were invariably painted in areas that were difficult to access, requiring special effort to see them, and consequently can be thought of as humanity's first ever sites of pilgrimage. Of course, it's rather difficult to determine what ideas were formulated by the requisite cave artists, given that their works pre-dated the invention of writing by over 10,000 years, but the difficulties haven't stopped scholars from poring over the evidence and arriving at consistent, coherent and evidentially defensible conclusions.
Indeed, the trend for building vast edifices as symbols of power, continues to the present, a supernaturalist trait that has manifested itself elsewhere, in buildings ranging from the palaces of kings, to the assembly halls of various governments, through to the modern-day giant temples to capitalism in the form of skyscrapers. For that matter, back in the 1980s, when I still watched television, BBC 2 broadcast a very interesting programme on this very subject, as part of the television material accompanying an Open University humanities degree course, which I remember extremely well, not least because, with respect to this matter of building giant edifices of power, the narrator made an interesting observation. Namely, that power has transferred, over time, from the Church, through to the State, and thence increasingly to corporate business. That same narrator also noted, quite presciently, that whilst in the past, both Church and State at least professed a concern for human rights, even if the actual record with respect thereto was somewhat chequered, corporate business quite simply isn't interested in anything other than the bottom line, and that transfer of power to corporate business therefore brings with it the worrying prospect of a wholesale undoing of Enlightenment advances in the field of human rights and responsible governance. Here we are, thirty years down the line, and those comments now bear a worryingly predictive aura.
Jayjay4547 wrote:The experience that cathedrals are built for is actually something more searching and abstract.
JayJay, it's a manifest exercise in power projection. One that has been a central manifestation of the supernaturalist aetiology for five thousand years. All of the
data tells us this. A particularly gigantic example can be found a 30 minute train ride from my home, in the form of Liverpool's Anglican Cathedral, which is a
colossal edifice. It's frequently cited as the heaviest stone built building on the entire planet, the longest cathedral in the entire world, and the largest Anglican building of any sort anywhere. It's also one of the world's tallest non-spired church buildings. It's built on a
vast scale, and houses two other record breaking artefacts, in the form of the world's largest and heaviest working ringing peal of bells (also situated at the greatest height above ground level of any church bells in the world), and the UK's largest pipe organ. The best part of
sixty thousand tons of sandstone were quarried to build it, which means that its mass was equal to that of
both the World Trade Center towers put together before the September 11th terrorist attacks. Usually, you don't build something that big, unless you
really want to make a huge impression upon people.
Which, of course, leads me to an interesting question. Why would any
real, existing god type entity, require us to build these massive edifices? Surely any genuine entity of this sort could happily make its presence felt without the need for all this architectural grandiloquence? Indeed, I gather this is
exactly the view held by the Quakers, who routinely regard ostentation of this sort as superfluous to requirements, and who will, if you ask them, quite happily tell you that they can experience the same "searching and abstract" experiences you assert above exist, whilst conducting far more modest ceremonies in each others' homes.
Oh, and while we're at it, JayJay, I would FAR rather that supernaturalists built something like THIS:
than some of the edifices they've been erecting of late. A classic example of
hideous supernaturalist architecture of recent vintage, being the US Air Force Academy Church, viz:
That latter building has so many creepy, fascist overtones, it's difficult to know where to start. It looks like the sort of thing that the Nazis in
Iron Sky would build. It even manages to out-fascist the
Zeppelinfeld at Nuremberg.
But then Americans have a habit of building tacky or creepy buildings in their slavish pursuit of Magic Man adulation. Just check out
any recently built "megachurch", and see what I mean.
Jayjay4547 wrote:It’s a tragedy for Europe, that these cultural works should now be so blindly and contemptuously treated by the descendants of the builders.
Oh please, spare us the cant, JayJay, because that's all it is. We simply recognise the
observable facts, namely that these buildings were very much exercises in power projection here on Earth. That some of them happen to be wonderful pieces of architectural aesthetics in their own right, is merely the icing on the cake. But it's entirely apposite to ask whether or not the labour and money expended thereupon, might have been better directed at, for example, providing us with a
genuine understanding of disease and its treatment two or three centuries before we actually alighted upon it. If given a choice between lots of impressive buildings, and the acquisition of antibiotics in the 16th century instead of the 20th, I'd take the latter any day. That you describe such a choice as "contemptuous treatment" of your beloved edifices, speaks volumes about
your ideological agenda.
Jayjay4547 wrote:Calilasseia wrote: Jayjay4547 wrote:We can recapture some of the cathedral experience by filling a cathedral with a similar ceremony. Even in my country, with a poor copy of the great cathedrals and a ceremony in a different language, by people of a different race, some of that experience comes back.
Mass hysteria, anyone?
Certainly a group experience.
Oh, you mean like that nonsense at Fatima? I can give you plenty of reasons why that
was nonsense.
Jayjay4547 wrote:Calilasseia wrote: Ideologies only "live" as long as there are beings with intent, possessing the intent to carry them out.
Jayjay4547 wrote: In the same way, a biological organism only exists so long as it is made of living cells.
Calilasseia wrote: But, oh wait, the biosphere is
littered with single celled organisms. Rather drives a tank battalion through your fatuous attempt to fabricate this bad analogy.
Jayjay4547 wrote: Even a single cell is a complex organism.
Calilasseia wrote:Modern ones benefiting from 3.5 billion years of evolution might be. This wasn't always the case. Oh, by the way, what about viruses?
Modern cells benefiting from what? From3.5 billion years of evolutionary
progress? development?
Fixed it for you.
Jayjay4547 wrote:Yes. And viruses are themselves complex organisms, being made from DNA that plays out in a marvelous way when in the appropriate environment.
One word. Chemistry. Learn about it.
Jayjay4547 wrote:Calilasseia wrote: Jayjay4547 wrote:Basically we are talking about stacked elements in a living hierarchy.
Except that the "hierarchy" isn't what you think it is. pick up some biology textbooks.
Or pick up Arthur Koestler’s
The ghost in the machine. .
Koestler had some bizarre ideas that don't translate into working hypotheses. I waded through some of his turgid offerings on holism in my teens.
Jayjay4547 wrote:Or Smuts’
Holism and evolution
Ah, the same Jan Smuts who founded Apartheid. Seems like we're getting all sorts of interesting clues about the origin of your ideology, JayJay.
Jayjay4547 wrote:Calilasseia wrote: Jayjay4547 wrote:The fact that one can have loyalty towards an ideology, identifies the ideology as greater than the individual.
Wrong. It merely demonstrates that
adherents treat it as such. Non-adherents don't by definition.
Non adherents typically serve opposing ideologies.
Poppycock. What part of the "NON" in "NON-adherents" don't you understand? If one is an adherent of ANY ideology, then the word "non-adherent"
simply does not apply.
Jayjay4547 wrote:Calilasseia wrote: Jayjay4547 wrote:I don’t know that every philosopher on the planet would agree that your “rigorous formulation” of atheism is useful.
Steve Gimbel is an example of one who does. Because, wait for it, his deliberations on the subject were part of the inspiration for my doing so….Try
this entire blog post. Read it in full. You can also check out his biography page [url=http://www.gettysburg.edu/academics/philosophy/faculty/employee_detail.dot?empId=02000322920013381&pageTitle=Steve+Gimbel]at the University of Gettysburg[/i], where he's a tenured professor of philosophy. He has a number of published works to his credit, including works on the scientific method, Decartes and Einstein.
I read clear through that interesting blog post without finding support for your defining atheism as “not accepting unproven assertions as fact”.
Oh, didn't you read this paragraph then?
Steve Gimbel wrote:Negative inductive atheism, we can call the first stance, is exactly the sort of inference you describe here. Are the respondents on this blog aliens from another planet? There is no evidence in favor of this hypothesis (well, little evidence) and since there is no good reason to believe it, I don't.
In the same way, one could argue as you do that there is someone making a claim of the existence of a being and therefore assumes the burden of proof for it and if they have not met that burden then rationally, one ought not believe in the existence claim.
Exactly how is is possible for you to read the above paragraph, and NOT arrive at the conclusion that what is being discussed therein, is
suspicion of unsupported assertions? Indeed, that is
exactly what Gimbel is telling his readers in that paragraph, namely, that
no unsupported assertion should be accepted as purportedly constituting fact. Which is precisely the basis for my entire thesis on the nature of assertions!
That you are unable to connect the
manifestly connectable dots here, JayJay, speaks far more about the palsying effects of the ideological blinkers you are wearing, than any amount of words on my part.
Jayjay4547 wrote:I asked him that, be interesting to see a reply.
Let's see that reply
in full, shall we, as opposed to quote mined snippets therefrom selected to try and bolster the presuppositions of
your ideology.
Jayjay4547 wrote:Calilasseia wrote: Jayjay4547 wrote: you dress up your definition pretentiously as “atheism, in its rigorous formulation”
Please, spare me the cheap
ad homimens, especially given your sneering tone in past posts with respect to the matter of rigour. I present that definition as rigorous,
because it's based upon the observable data.
It’s rich that you accuse me of ad hominem considering your posts.
What else is your insinuation that my approach is "pretentious", other than a manifest
ad hominem, given that I have provided
substantive reasons for the analysis I have presented, which is far more than you have ever done?
Jayjay4547 wrote:The pretentiousness in your claim to rigor is relevant to the discussion because you are fooling yourself that you are somehow above the messy trickiness of language (vide Gimbel) when actually your definition is linguistically manipulative.
Projection, again, JayJay?
Oh, and please, what else is your insinuation that my words are "lingustically manipulative" than
another blatant ad hominem? One wholly refuted by the
observable facts?You really do possess a
galactic level of
chutzpah here JayJay.
Jayjay4547 wrote:The closest one can actually get to a rigorous definition of atheism is more like the Wikipedia definition
Er, no. Once again, do learn the elementary facts here, JayJay. An atheist,
by definition, is someone who does NOT treat unsupported supernaturalist assertions as fact. That is the
critical defining feature of an atheist.
Jayjay4547 wrote:of someone who denies that God or any deity exists.
This presupposes that there actually
is such an entity to "deny" the existence of.
That is the very assertion atheists call into question. You really don't understand the elementary concepts at work here, do you? Because
denial implies
rejection of established fact. When there are no established facts present with respect to a particular subject matter, [i[]denial[/i] doesn't enter the picture. Indeed, the very use of the word
denial is an instance of
manifest linguistic manipulation on the part of supernaturalists, who want their unsupported assertions to be treated as fact by default.
Jayjay4547 wrote:Calilasseia wrote: Jayjay4547 wrote: Secondly your definition isn’t the accepted usual one
Not yet. But I haven't had the opportunity to disseminate my ideas in the relevant academic realm yet.
Yes, it’s a trial balloon like a lot of propositions on this forum.
Oh wait, one of the key concepts I keep impressing upon people at every opportunity, is that
definitions should reflect the observable data arising from the entities and interactions that those definitions purport to be informative about. And that's exactly what I've been doing here, JayJay, taking note, from that
observable data, what central defining feature unites all of those calling themselves 'atheist'. Quite simply, they do NOT regard unsupported supernaturalist assertions as fact, and apply this suspicion thereof consistently to
all supernaturalist assertions. What I add to the mix, is elementary facts regarding the nature of assertions, one key fact being that assertions
all possess the status "truth value
unknown" until they are
tested, and that as a corollary, it is utterly ridiculous to treat
any assertion as fact, until said test has informed us that we can do so. But of course, once a test
has informed us of this, then that assertion
ceases to be an assertion, and instead becomes
an evidentially supported postulate.
Indeed, you have been told repeatedly here,
substantive reasons why we are suspicious of supernaturalist assertions. Reasons such as:
[1] The complete absence of real evidence for
any of the multiplicity of asserted magic entities fabricated by human imaginations;
[2] The paradoxical, absurd or internally contradictory nature of several of the assertions presented with respect to these entities;
[3] The presence of manifest elementary errors in mythologies, that would never have appeared, if any
real god type entities had genuinely been responsible for those mythologies;
[4] The fact that science as we know it would be impossible, if some supernaturalist assertions were true;
[5] The fact that scientists have provided vast quantities of evidence, to the effect that testable natural processes are
sufficient to account for vast classes of observational entities and pheneomena, and as a corollary, that supernatural entities are superfluous to requirements and irrelevant;
[6] The complete failure of supernaturalists to agree amongst themselves, on a global scale, which of the numerous extant mythologies is purportedly the "right" mythology, and the manifest failure of adherents of a particular mythology to agree amongst themselves, what that mythology is purportedly telling us.
Indeed, it's rather telling that your magic man, if it exists, seems content to let it be represented here on Earth by mere pedlars of apologetics, whilst those of us who are
suspicious of said apologetics, frequently have
hard empirical science to call upon. Indeed, I recall Steve Gimbel's words on this very subject, that you
claim to have read, yet apparently remain blissfully unaware of the implcations, viz:
Steve Gimbel wrote:Positive inductive atheism would be what we could term the position in which
one argues that there is evidence to believe in the falsity of the magical, invisible man in the sky hypothesis. Folks with this view often point to the incredible successes of purely naturalistic explanations for phenomena that were thought at earlier times to be entirely unassailable by scientific methods. With all the things that had been thought to be the result of magic, spirits or supernatural causes that we now understand and can control by the use of science, there seems to be reason to be suspicious of claims that any part of the universe is beyond scientific understanding. This is an inductive argument based on the historical relation between science and religion, and judging that the successes that science has had in the past in realms like astronomy, biology, geology, and psychology will thus probably go all the way down to eliminating non-naturalistic elements in all our beliefs.
Jayjay4547 wrote:Calilasseia wrote: Jayjay4547 wrote:you say atheism consists of a refusal to accept unsupported assertions as fact “.
Actually, it consists of refusing to accept
a specific class of assertions as fact, namely assertions by supernaturalists that their pet mythological entities are purportedly real. And, of course, all the subsidiary assertions supernaturalists erect on top of this assertionist house of cards. Do pay attention to the
details..
You have often enough stated your proposition without that rider, so you haven’t always attended to your own details.
Ahem, even an elementary perusal of my posts will expose this fabrication of yours.
Jayjay4547 wrote:It’s true that the Christian faith has been pushed by the theist-atheist opposition into a rickety position about assertions of “historicity”.
Bollocks. Assertions of this sort have been a staple of Christian apologetics from the very start. The treatment of various fantastic events as historical fact, is even endemic to the Nicene Creed. Viz:
Nicene Creed, 381 CE Version wrote:he was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried,
and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven
The fantastic supernatural events treated as historical fact therein are highlighted in blue above. This was in place
long before atheism started to become even noticeable in Europe.
Jayjay4547 wrote:The spiritual value of a story like Noah’s Ark lies in its drawing of the relationship between man and what is greater than him; which is what man cannot learn about through experiment.
Please tell this to the world'[s physicists. I'm sure they'll be
so grateful for your assertions here. Oh wait, it was
physicists who were amongst those people informing us, that the universe was constructed on a
far grander scale, than the sad little stories contained in mythologies would have us think. The
real grandeur and majesty of the universe wasn't revealed to us by mythology, it was revealed to us by
science, and by
scientific experiments.
Once again, the
real world data destroys your assertions.
Jayjay4547 wrote:Historically, Jews, Christians, and Moslems have had full access to that meaning
Bollocks. Oh wait, which of their mythologies told us about the
real scale of the cosmos? Oh wait,
none of them.
Jayjay4547 wrote:but now there is anxiety that the story isn’t “historically true”.
Only amongst religious fundamentalists. If it wasn't for the manner in which religions have stolen discoursive and policy making privileges over the past millennia, atheists would regard the failure of mythologies in this vein, to be as much an irrelevance as those mythologies themselves. The only reason we're even bothering with these mythologies, is because there are lots of people trying to force us to treat those mythologies as fact.
Jayjay4547 wrote:Both the atheist and fundamentalist resolutions lose something;
Wrong.
Jayjay4547 wrote:the atheist loses the story as spiritual tool
Oh wait, the
very existence of so-called "spiritual" entities is
one of the assertions we're waiting to see supported with something other than apologetic hot air.
Jayjay4547 wrote:and the fundamentalist creates a tear line in his understanding of the world.
Well frankly, the only reason we bother with the fact that fundamentalists have their heads inserted into their rectal passages, is because these people have a habit of trying to force the rest of us to stick our heads up our arses in the same manner.
Jayjay4547 wrote: My handling of the issue comes from the starting point belief that the observer (me) is embedded in social and biological hierarchies and that the most accessible visioning of my relationship with what is greater, is the one presented to me in my own language and my own cultural or religious tradition.
In short, whatever made up shit sounds pleasing to you is preferable to actual facts. This is why we prefer science.
Jayjay4547 wrote:I get encouragement in that from CG Jung; that one’s job is to work on what one has been given by the past of one’s culture and family. So I think of Noah’s story as the way my culture has painted the ceiling so to speak.
I see my role as being to
learn the facts. But then that's a major difference between us.
Jayjay4547 wrote:None of these positions about historicity are fully comfortable for me but I certainly reject the proposition that I accept “unsupported assertions as fact”.
So, where's the
real evidence for your assertions? Apologetic fabrications don't count as evidence, and if you have to ask why, then that's part of your problem.
Jayjay4547 wrote:And a definition implying that I do, as non-atheist, is simply manipulative.
Bollocks. It's a recognition of observable fact. Because if you
had any real evidence to present, you'd have done this long ago. In fact, you wouldn't even have bothered with this forum for the purpose, because if you ever came into possession of
real evidence that a god exists, your first point of call would be
Nature and
Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Part A. Followed shortly afterwards by your award of a shiny gold medal from those nice Swedish people. The mere fact that this is the scale of the task to be undertaken, should be telling you that your apologetics is
woefully inadequate here.
Jayjay4547 wrote:Calilasseia wrote: Jayjay4547 wrote:Thirdly and most important, you use this definition to stifle discussion of the complex of beliefs that atheists have built up
Bullshit. The reason your above assertion is bullshit, is because
atheism, treated rigorously, involves DISPENSING WITH BELIEF ITSELF. Because
belief, as supernaturalists routinely demonstrate, consists of nothing more than treating unsupported assertions as fact. Those of us who take this matter seriously, reject the idea that such a fatuous proces leads to substantive knowledge, and indeed, the
observable evidence once again supports this.
I take this matter seriously and I find that plenty of scientists who have been Christian, have done well in building substantive knowledge. Newton for example.
Oh no, it's the "Christian scientists" trope again. Which I've already dealt with substantively above and in previous posts. Play another record, JayJay, this one's worn out.
Jayjay4547 wrote:Calilasseia wrote: Jayjay4547 wrote:to make them feel comfortable with their belief
Another tiresome supernaturalist fabrication. Yawn. The whole "atheist belief" bullshit IS bullshit, for the reasons I've just provided. Because
those of us who take the subject seriously, once again, DISPENSE WITH BELIEF ITSELF. We regard
belief as a pathetic joke.
One of your beliefs is that a cathedral is a penis extension.
This isn't "belief", JayJay, it's observable fact. See above on my extensive discourse with respect to large buildings as power political tools.
Jayjay4547 wrote:Another is that there is no progress in evolution.
This isn't "belief", JayJay, it's
observable fact. Because "progress" implies a
global fitness maximum applicable to all organisms, and this quite simply does not exist.
Jayjay4547 wrote:Calilasseia wrote: Jayjay4547 wrote:and contemptuous towards people who believe otherwise.
You've missed the point by several light years as per usual. What we are "contemptuous" of is
belief itself. We think it's a pathetic, inadequate substitute for real knowledge, one beloved of those who are too stupid or too indolent to do the hard work of finding out how reality
actually works, as opposed to the sad fairy tales about this cobbled together by assorted ignorant, superstitious, pre-scientific humans.
Lazy pathetic stupid people like Newton.
Except that, oh wait,
he provided EVIDENCE for the applicability of his physics. This is why we don't regard him as lazy or stupid. Indeed, even though his physics has been superseded, it's
still regarded as useful, where the error in application is too small to be measurable, and therefore not likely to result in catastrophe, not least because it's mathematically and computationally far simpler than general relativity or QM. But of course you're not going to let
facts such as this get in the way of your apologetic fabrications, are you?
Jayjay4547 wrote:Calilasseia wrote: Jayjay4547 wrote:Your “definition” is just a tool of your ideology.
Bullshit and lies. It's the product of
paying attention to the relevant observable data. Your pathetic attempt to misrepresent this as "ideology" is not only fatuous, but steamingly dishonest. Quite simply,
I and others here think belief is the whole fucking problem! Because it involves treating fairy tales as fact.
One problem is that you sound exactly like an ideologue
Bollocks. I'm just relentlessly honest. If I see bullshit, I don't mess about and go straight for the jugular.
Jayjay4547 wrote:with your language about opposition as “fatuous, steamingly dishonest”.
When
EVIDENCE exists that your fabrications are dishonest, JayJay, it's perfectly proper to draw attention to this. Your tiresome whingeing about this is becoming boring.
Jayjay4547 wrote:That places you and any reader in a poor position for considering the issue rationally.
Bollocks. What part of
taking account of observable fact do you not understand?
Jayjay4547 wrote:Calilasseia wrote: Jayjay4547 wrote: I can only defend what I think [respecting “supernaturalism] which is that we live within the body of a naturalistic god; God appears to me to be Nature.
And this is where once and for all, your "atheist ideology" trope is
utterly destroyed. The reason? Simple. Whilst I and others here might think your ideas are wrong, the
worst you will ever face from the assorted posters here you defame with your "atheist ideology" trope, is the savaging of those
ideas. Whereas, I know for a fact, that
other supernaturalists will see that above explicit declaration of your ideas, and regard you not merely as being wrong, but as being a HERETIC. And we all know what happens when supernaturalists start talking about heresy, don't we? In short, JayJay, there are plenty of supernaturalists out there, who, upon reading the above words of yours, won't be content with addressing your expressed ideas -
instead, they'll want to burn you at the stake. Or, in the case of Islamic State, want to subject you to a particularly brutal piece of cerebral topiary. In fact, quite a few of the more hardcore creationists in America will label you a
pagan, for expressing the above idea. And we all know what they want to do to those who don't conform - if you have any doubts about this, JayJay, just look up the fascist horror that is Dominionism, a creed to which a good number of American creationist subscribe, a creed whose tenets, when you read them, should make you quake in your boots.
These are people who want disobedient children stoning to death. These are people who want
gay people summarily executed. These are people who think
the hyper rich are entitled to treat the poor as slaves. These are people who think that
if you are struck down with a serious illness, it means that their god hates you, and you deserve to die.
This, JayJay, is what "ideology"
really means when taken to its logical conclusion. It means deciding that you have the power of life and death over others, because they don't conform. What's more, none are more suited to the business of deciding which human beings to round up and exterminate, than those ideologies purporting to tell adherents what a god wants them to do. In stark contrast, atheists such as myself simply want to stop these people from being in a position to turn their hideous desires into a nightmare reality. That's the difference, JayJay, we don't actually
care too much what ridiculous ideas you choose to treat as fact, other than from the standpoint of exposing the absurdities contained therein, whereas quite a lot of your fellow supernaturalists, upon reading that sentence of yours above, will want to kill you. Preferably by means involving as much searing agony as they can possibly inflict. Because with those words above, JayJay, they will consider you a heretic, and as such, fit only to be exterminated. You might want to dwell on this, next time you think about peddling your tiresome and manifestly false "atheist ideology" fabrication, because unlike some of your fellow supernaturalists, we're only interested in discarding your
ideas, whereas a lot of your fellow supernaturalists will want to discard
you. By contrast, this is one of the reasons I and many other atheists
reject ideology itself, because we're aware of the fulminating dangers it poses.
That tirade
It isn't a "tirade", JayJay, once again, it's
an appraisal of observable fact. Your summary dismissal thereof using the word "tirade", once again points to who is peddling the
real ideology here.
Jayjay4547 wrote:invites the response that, whatever some extreme sects might advocate, recent explicitly atheist governments have a bad record on human rights.
Oh dear, not this tiresome bullshit again ... yaawn, yawn, fucking yawn. How many times do I have to lead you through the nose, with respect to the preoccupation with god in
Mein Kampf, before you'll drop this bare faced lie? The governments you duplicitously try to misrepresent as "atheist", were in fact
committed to well defined REAL ideologies that had nothing to do with atheism. Hitler was a pedlar of racial ideologies. Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were peddling their own interpretations of Marxism, the very fact that "interpretations" thereof existed being informative here.
Once and for all, JayJay, drop the "atheist genocide" lies and bullshit, because we've done this bullshit to death.
Jayjay4547 wrote:I don’t defame atheists by talking about an atheist ideology.
Lie. It's a deliberate and duplicitous attempt to misrepresent proper suspicion of unsupported supernaturalist assertions, as purportedly being motivated by malice. It's such a frequently observed creationist trope, that we can see it coming from light years away. And it IS manifestly defamatory as a result.
Jayjay4547 wrote:I use that concept to argue that atheism has affected the understanding and presentation of evolution.
Lie. The ONLY thing that has affected evolutionary theory, has been the
REAL WORLD DATA. Stop posting lies, JayJay.
Jayjay4547 wrote:There is an extreme negative implication in my claim;
One that is another of your fantasy fabrications.
Jayjay4547 wrote:that atheist influence has all been in the direction of encouraging a possible lock-down of the planetary ecology into a slave system.
]
Bullshit and lies, JayJay. Oh wait, the people on this planet who gravitate most strongly toward a view of the biosphere, as purportedly nothing other than a source of burgers and fries,
are creationists. Especially the Rapture retard brigade. These are the people who oppose action on climate change, oppose preservation of biodiversity, and who, to use Ann Coulter's words, are the ones adopting the "rape it" mentality toward the planet. On the other hand, many of the people involved in conservation, climate change awareness, and a proper scientific understanding of the biosphere, are the very atheists you impugn with the manifest bare faced lies in your posts. Last time I checked, Ann Coulter wasn't an atheist.
Jayjay4547 wrote:So in religious terms, atheists are doing the work of Satan
Lies. The very same creationist lies peddled by Ken Ham and the duplicitous Arsewater In Genesis website.
Jayjay4547 wrote:to send us and all nature into perpetual hell.
Lies, lies, lies.
Jayjay4547 wrote:Pretty strong stuff. But I’m not saying you recognize the danger or are evil yourself.
Then why did you state above that this was
an implication of your claims about "atheist ideology"? Rather walked into that one haven't you?
Jayjay4547 wrote:I would be just as guilty as you; if there is such an extreme danger, then why am I just talking about it in a chat room? All of us aren’t serious enough, although it’s utterly obvious that the human race is involved in a planetary-scale crisis. But I do hope that even in my unseriousness I can work towards some clearer picture of the human condition.
This won't happen by making shit up, JayJay. We've seen where that leads us, and religion has been the biggest offender here.
Jayjay4547 wrote:Calilasseia wrote: Jayjay4547 wrote:I splice that onto Christianity by saying that Nature is the hands of the Creator. That’s not part of Christian doctrine but neither do I insist on the wording; it’s enough for me that God is Great.
But that
won't be enough for a lot of your fellow supernaturalists. Quite a lot of whom will come after you with the flaming pitchforks upon learning of your position. How does it feel, JayJay, knowing that you're actually safer among the atheists you sneer at and subject to
ad hominems, than amongst other supernaturalists?
I’m not a supernaturalist, in years of posting I’ve never had a cross word from a fundamentalist
You obviously haven't spent time in Georgia or Mississippi. Take my advice and don't. The locals there will probably lynch you the moment you step over the border, once they find out about the assertions you've posted here. This isn't a "tirade", JayJay, it's observable fact. If you want to see what you're likely to face, just take a peek at a certain episode of
Top Gear, where Clarkson and the other two overgrown schoolboys took a trip into the Deep South.
Jayjay4547 wrote: and I see a lot of merit in genuine fundamentalism- i.e. when it is tied to a Christian lifestyle, not just an excuse to jibe.
Another reason the Bible Belt in America is a place you should cross off your travel itinerary.
Jayjay4547 wrote:I don’t sneer at other posters or indulge in ad hominem
Boom, there goes another irony meter ... oh wait, you've accused me of being "linguistically manipulative", despite all the evidence pointing to this being a
creationist trait.
Jayjay4547 wrote:though under extreme pressure from your own language. And I’m not even safe from your vitriol. It affects my mental and maybe physical health; I can only write of these things in an hour or two in the early mornings.
If you're that delicate, JayJay, then please,
do not visit the Deep South. The treatment you'll receive there, once they find out about your views, won't be pretty to watch.
Jayjay4547 wrote:Calilasseia wrote: Jayjay4547 wrote:I deny that I am a “supernaturalist”; that word implies a belief in ghosts and ectoplasm.
Well for the purpose of
this part of the discourse, and my immediately preceding paragraphs, we'll treat this term as referring generically to anyone who accepts mythological assertions as fact, even if those assertions don't necessarily involve fantastic magic entities, just so that you feel comfortable.
Thanks but that won’t do either, I don’t accept mythological assertions as fact; I accept the stories in the Bible as numinous, not as fact.
Though I'm not usually a fan of dictionary expositions in my posts, not least because they've been used in the past for apologetic convenience by others, I decided to check out what "numinous" means, courtesy of
here. It made interesting reading.
adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or like a numen; spiritual or supernatural.
2. surpassing comprehension or understanding; mysterious: that element in artistic expression that remains numinous.
3. arousing one's elevated feelings of duty, honor, loyalty, etc.: a benevolent and numinous paternity.
[1] above renders your apologetics on this matter tautological, [2] introduces epistemological problems for your apologetics that your above-stated delicate constitution might find too onerous, and [3] appears at first sight inapplicable. Not a good start.
Jayjay4547 wrote:Calilasseia wrote:But, whilst providing you with this piece of largesse, you might want to take note of the fact that a lot of
other supernaturalists, are supernaturalists red in tooth and claw, so to speak, fully signed up to the idea that magic entities exist, and in the more florid cases, even resurrect the ridiculous vision of the world extant in mediaeval times. These are people who
hate viscerally the idea that testable natural processes can provide an explanation for
anything, who want the universe and its contents to be subject to the dominion of their doctrines and the assertions contained therein, and who entertain such fatuous notions as the idea that diseases are caused by "demons". Strange as it may seem to you, with a somewhat comfortable Anglican background, there are such people about, and in America, they have money and political connections that they are using, to try and make their hideous mediaeval world view rise to an anachronistic hegemony. These people would be amongst the first to put you to death as a pagan and a heretic, for expressing the views you've expounded above, and they would take
pleasure from doing this. Sordid, squalid, sadistic pleasure. Let that thought dwell for a while in your mind, JayJay, that quite a few of the people who describe themselves as "Christians", are actually Torquemada wannabees hoping to become the torturers on behalf of the theocracy that is their bizarre, outré and frankly psychotic masturbation fantasy. America is
littered with these people.
Well I rather like Americans generally. I was brought up partly amongst White, Afrikaans Nationalist, Dutch Reformed Church, Boers. Who also I rather like, though my own positions on many issues have been different. I imagine them as a bit similar to Southern Baptists in the USA. Guess I’m not a good hater.
I'm tempted to say
quelle surprise at this juncture.
Jayjay4547 wrote:Calilasseia wrote: Jayjay4547 wrote:And there are millions of Christians who think somewhat along my lines: the very people whose position is adjacent culturally, to that of atheists. So your insistence on “supernaturalist” instead of “theist” is part of atheist ideology to build the wall between your belief and adjacent ones.
But as I've just explained, JayJay, you and these millions of Christians aren't the only game in town. The fun part being, of course, that I've simply described the horrors awaiting you at the hands of some of the other "Christians" currently extant. I suspect that the hatred you would experience from the assorted head-choppers of Islamic State would make even the creepy, fascist Dominionists look tame.
So you say but I’m making a serious point that your demonizing of Christians based on extremism when the kind of Christianity you might possibly be attracted to is being discussed, is part of your ideology.
I don't have an "ideology", JayJay, you keep peddling this fabrication. What was that you accused me of again ... being "linguistically manipulative"?
As I have stated often in my posts, JayJay, I regard ideologies, regardless of content, with
suspicion. That you keep peddling this fabrication of yours, in the light of this information, means that the one being "linguistically manipulative" here is
you.
As for the idea that I could now find
any religion in the least "attractive", well that's about as plausible as Kent Hovind's tax returns.
Jayjay4547 wrote:Calilasseia wrote: Jayjay4547 wrote:It’s not quite true though, that I can only defend what I think; I also live in amity with Christian fundamentalists and I am prepared to defend their practices but as something appreciated not as what I believe.
Well some of their practices I do NOT defend in the slightest. Such as murdering doctors who work for reproductive health clinics. Or trying to pervert science education by forcing mythology into science classes. Or acting as a drag anchor on medical science for specious, fabricated reasons. When those practices have malign consequences for other human beings, not to mention society as a whole, that's when I say "stop".
You say a lot more than “stop” and to less blameworthy targets.
It's called diligence.
Jayjay4547 wrote: For example you say that a cathedral built by your ancestors is a penis extension.
Go back and read my extensive discourse above, on large buildings as power political projection tools.
Jayjay4547 wrote:Part 3 follows later.
Oh I can
hardly wait.
by 
