You are not real atheists

Previous page 1 2 3 4« Previous thread | Next thread »
- olweasel
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: You are not real atheists
Reply #90 - August 12, 2011, 05:05 PM

^ Yep.

"Life is not a matter of holding good cards, but of playing a poor hand well."
- Robert Louis Stevenson
- Lucem Ferre
- Ex-Muslim
- Bada Bing
- offline
Re: You are not real atheists
Reply #91 - August 13, 2011, 03:47 AM

Quote from: asbdsp#J on August 11, 2011, 08:19 PM
I sense a lot of disdain for philosophy in this thread. But you only really need to feel annoyed by philosophy if you feel at all threatened by any of their arguments, which can be averted by simply ignoring them like the rest of humanity has done since time immemorial.

Quick response to this, philosophers of the past where often at the forefront of science and mathematics a few examples from the top of my head Pythagoras, Alan turing, Blaise Pascal, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Philosophers have also been at the forefront of philology and linguistics. Recently philosophers have been the ones interoperating scientific findings for example scientist reveal that the mind is neurons firing this could mean that we can replicate the human brain, philosophers deal with the issues of what is consciousness and identity, are we just being of function etc. So you look stupid when you insult philosophy as it continuous working alongside science. Science has many sub categorise within it biology, physics etc and these can be broken into further speciality s the same applies to philosophy, you cannot generalise it .

philosophy definition is simply "love of wisdom"

even my nonsensical standards your comment is unbelievably stupid

"A belief in hell and the knowledge that every ambition is doomed to frustration at the hands of a skeleton have never prevented the majority of human beings from behaving as though death were no more than an unfounded rumour."
Aldous Huxley
- asbie
- Actually just a dude
- Poster of the Month
- Past, present, future...
- offline
Re: You are not real atheists
Reply #92 - August 13, 2011, 04:03 AM

Quote from: Lucem Ferre on August 13, 2011, 03:47 AM
Quick response to this, philosophers of the past where often at the forefront of science and mathematics a few examples from the top of my head Pythagoras, Alan turing, Blaise Pascal, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Philosophers have also been at the forefront of philology and linguistics. Recently philosophers have been the ones interoperating scientific findings for example scientist reveal that the mind is neurons firing this could mean that we can replicate the human brain, philosophers deal with the issues of what is consciousness and identity, are we just being of function etc. So you look stupid when you insult philosophy as it continuous working alongside science. Science has many sub categorise within it biology, physics etc and these can be broken into further speciality s the same applies to philosophy, you cannot generalise it .

philosophy definition is simply "love of wisdom"

even my nonsensical standards your comment is unbelievably stupid

Meh, I'm part of the new generation of what have you done for me lately. And in the last 250 years since the Enlightenment it really hasn't amounted to jack shit, regardless of this interoperation nonsense you talk about. It doesn't take a philosopher to make the leap in your example and quite honestly the vast majority of modern philosophers are inadequately trained to touch scientific discovery with a 10 foot pole.

I will concede though that philosophy was at the forefront of the human intellectual endeavor for quite a while, but unfortunately many of its tools have been taken and supplanted by the efforts of other fields, at the forefront of which are the sciences.

Quote from: yeezevee on February 11, 2016, 02:05 PM
how fuck works without shit??

Let's Play Chess!

harakaat, friend, RIP
- Alex Lam Meem
- Restricted
- offline
Re: You are not real atheists
Reply #93 - August 13, 2011, 04:12 AM

Quote from: musivore on August 12, 2011, 07:53 AM
^^ Yeah, I'm with you on that one bro. I've spent many a night staring out of my window, and across the Pennines, imagining the Goddess that resides there. On these nights, I curse my luck. For had I not been born so dumb, and so ugly, and so prone to goofiness, I may not then have felt so bad about sharing the same oxygen as her. It is then that I hold my breath for an instance, and consider holding it forever. For the air for her would be cleaner without a lowlife like me sharing it with her; and there would be more of it, without a scoundrel like me stealing it from her...

One day, you will awake and you will not hear from me again, dear Alex. On that day, look out for a news report about a man in Yorkshire who has died, naked, with small penis in hand, and a plastic bag round his head, staring blissfully across the Pennines. On that day, you alone will be privy to my last thoughts, and you alone will understand who I died for.

@thread: back on topic: I agree, I'm not a real atheist... because I believe Ishina is God.

My dearest brother Musivore,

I am officially your biggest fan since reading the above. Of course, I will not award you the first place in my heart, for how could I when she is breathing the air that should be hers alone, which you keep steeling, you lowlife

I will also be searching daily on googlez the phrase "naked man suffocated penis" just to be sure I don't miss the special news report.

"That it is indeed the speech of an illustrious messenger" (The Koran 69:40)
- Lucem Ferre
- Ex-Muslim
- Bada Bing
- offline
Re: You are not real atheists
Reply #94 - August 13, 2011, 06:01 AM

"honestly the vast majority of modern philosophers are inadequately trained to touch scientific discovery with a 10 foot pole".

lol what qualifies you to make this statement, philosophy is tought(sp?) in a manner where it supplement scientific data in the current education model. Half the modules you take are related to science, you cannot study philosophy any more without studying science or keeping up to date with scientific advancements. Science cannot progress without a constant conversation with philosophy

read this

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/spirkin/works/dialectical-materialism/ch01-s04.html

[/quote]I will concede though that philosophy was at the forefront of the human intellectual endeavor for quite a while, but unfortunately many of its tools have been taken and supplanted by the efforts of other fields, at the forefront of which are the sciences[/quote]

you are a moron. Seeds grow crop, we have harvested and have flour now so does this mean we should get rid of all seeds and no longer plant? Philosophy works that we keep it

"A belief in hell and the knowledge that every ambition is doomed to frustration at the hands of a skeleton have never prevented the majority of human beings from behaving as though death were no more than an unfounded rumour."
Aldous Huxley
- Prince Spinoza
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: You are not real atheists
Reply #95 - August 13, 2011, 06:06 AM

Enough of this shameless flirting. Gentlemen - define your terms. What is philosophy?
- Lucem Ferre
- Ex-Muslim
- Bada Bing
- offline
Re: You are not real atheists
Reply #96 - August 13, 2011, 10:09 AM

Prince Spinoza you should know better then anyone how even the most romantic philosophy (spinoza) sits comfortably wit science, in fact spinoza gave science a special place in his pantheist philosophy.

"A belief in hell and the knowledge that every ambition is doomed to frustration at the hands of a skeleton have never prevented the majority of human beings from behaving as though death were no more than an unfounded rumour."
Aldous Huxley
- Lucem Ferre
- Ex-Muslim
- Bada Bing
- offline
Re: You are not real atheists
Reply #97 - August 13, 2011, 10:10 AM

Quote from: Prince Spinoza on August 13, 2011, 06:06 AM
Enough of this shameless flirting. Gentlemen - define your terms. What is philosophy?

the old definition is the best
love of wisdom

"A belief in hell and the knowledge that every ambition is doomed to frustration at the hands of a skeleton have never prevented the majority of human beings from behaving as though death were no more than an unfounded rumour."
Aldous Huxley
- Prince Spinoza
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: You are not real atheists
Reply #98 - August 13, 2011, 03:46 PM

Quote from: Lucem Ferre on August 13, 2011, 10:09 AM
Prince Spinoza you should know better then anyone how even the most romantic philosophy (spinoza) sits comfortably wit science, in fact spinoza gave science a special place in his pantheist philosophy.

Oh I think Philosophy and Science go hand in hand, but if you have one definition of philosophy and he has another, then this isn't an argument... so I was hoping you'd both take a leaf out of a philosopher's book - "if you wish to converse with me - define your terms." (Voltaire)
- Alex Lam Meem
- Restricted
- offline
Re: You are not real atheists
Reply #99 - August 13, 2011, 04:02 PM

Prince: elevating quality of discussions one thread at a time (since reading that philosophy book MaB recommended). Admirable.

"That it is indeed the speech of an illustrious messenger" (The Koran 69:40)
- asbie
- Actually just a dude
- Poster of the Month
- Past, present, future...
- offline
Re: You are not real atheists
Reply #100 - August 13, 2011, 05:13 PM

Lucem Ferre: Please give me an example in modern times of the conversation between philosophy and science leading to new breakthroughs.

I don't disagree that basic philosophical tools are used by scientists, heck the basis of the scientific method had its foundation in philosophy. However I still feel that the overall scope of philosophical subject matters does not lend itself to a many fruitful conversations with science.

Also "Love of Wisdom" is a terrible definition for philosophy, please try to do better than that.

Quote from: yeezevee on February 11, 2016, 02:05 PM
how fuck works without shit??

Let's Play Chess!

harakaat, friend, RIP
- Prince Spinoza
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: You are not real atheists
Reply #101 - August 13, 2011, 05:15 PM

^Where is yours, sir?
- asbie
- Actually just a dude
- Poster of the Month
- Past, present, future...
- offline
Re: You are not real atheists
Reply #102 - August 13, 2011, 05:17 PM

Quote from: Lucem Ferre on August 12, 2011, 02:27 PM
I have said it before and will say it again since it seems that you atheist ex-Muslim bigots fall asleep after reading one word..................................waking up at the at the last. I am not arguing a philosophical point, i don't now any philosophy and have no talent for it.

I just wanted to see how my little lab-rats fared behind the plexiglass, I had let them run amuck for so long and I am glad to inform you that they did not fail to entertain. So thank you all for participating in this little game you can all go back to your cages know.

Damn missed this.

Why the fuck am I arguing with a self-admitted troll? You win Lucem Ferre. Now go on shoving your dick into pencil sharpeners or whatever the hell it is you psuedo-intellectual theism apologists do for kicks.

Quote from: yeezevee on February 11, 2016, 02:05 PM
how fuck works without shit??

Let's Play Chess!

harakaat, friend, RIP
- asbie
- Actually just a dude
- Poster of the Month
- Past, present, future...
- offline
Re: You are not real atheists
Reply #103 - August 13, 2011, 05:19 PM

Quote from: Prince Spinoza on August 13, 2011, 05:15 PM
^Where is yours, sir?

Using reason to examine and study problems.

Quote from: yeezevee on February 11, 2016, 02:05 PM
how fuck works without shit??

Let's Play Chess!

harakaat, friend, RIP
- Lucem Ferre
- Ex-Muslim
- Bada Bing
- offline
Re: You are not real atheists
Reply #104 - August 14, 2011, 02:41 AM

Quote from: asbdsp#J on August 13, 2011, 05:13 PM
Lucem Ferre: Please give me an example in modern times of the conversation between philosophy and science leading to new breakthroughs.

Artificial intelligence would be one example, its on the up and the rise with advances in neuroscience and technology

Also "Love of Wisdom" is a terrible definition for philosophy, please try to do better than that.

that is its literal translation from the Greek

you are a complete (proving everything i said regarding the new atheists to be true) for example liberalism, democracy, the state, conservatism etc. all come under philosophy and before they where implemented they where written as philosophy. these things are not theoretical they are the frame work of our societies and how we think and live our lives and these things determine the laws that we agree on in court. PPE is one of the top subjects at Oxford. philosophy is omnipresent within everything. did you bother to read the short article i posted

"A belief in hell and the knowledge that every ambition is doomed to frustration at the hands of a skeleton have never prevented the majority of human beings from behaving as though death were no more than an unfounded rumour."
Aldous Huxley
- Lucem Ferre
- Ex-Muslim
- Bada Bing
- offline
Re: You are not real atheists
Reply #105 - August 14, 2011, 03:07 AM

The Hawking Paradox
fascinating documentary
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0078y7h/Horizon_20062007_The_Hawking_Paradox/

"A belief in hell and the knowledge that every ambition is doomed to frustration at the hands of a skeleton have never prevented the majority of human beings from behaving as though death were no more than an unfounded rumour."
Aldous Huxley
- strangestdude
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: You are not real atheists
Reply #106 - August 14, 2011, 11:38 PM

I've been thinking about philosophy since I came across this thread and it's pretty stupid that I treated it with disdain without moving beyond rudimentary research, I think Hamza Tsortzis and Lucem Ferre types put me off it.

I'll withhold judgement until after I've read Sophie's world by Jostein Gaarder.

An alternative to religion;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2nfXfTg92E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWNW-NXEudk
- Lucem Ferre
- Ex-Muslim
- Bada Bing
- offline
Re: You are not real atheists
Reply #107 - August 15, 2011, 09:48 AM

@strangestdude please do not disregard the pursuit of philosophy based on me, but i do not see how you could read anything without remembering what was on the previous page as i have mentioned many times that i make no claim to knowing anything and have no talent for philosophy. intellectually dishonest new atheists ignore things they do not like to accept.......that I know nothing about philosophy. But this does not mean that I cannot defend it just because i am unable to fully appreciate it. arrogant prick

"A belief in hell and the knowledge that every ambition is doomed to frustration at the hands of a skeleton have never prevented the majority of human beings from behaving as though death were no more than an unfounded rumour."
Aldous Huxley
- Lucem Ferre
- Ex-Muslim
- Bada Bing
- offline
Re: You are not real atheists
Reply #108 - August 15, 2011, 11:06 AM

I have used simple lexis and have written in a language that is common to every day locution.

I would like to demonstrate how science is not objective, science itself (if you want to get platonic and view science as a platonic form" may be objective but science as perceived through the human mind cannot be objective)

I was reading Plato s symposium when I reached Socrates account of love, why reproduction is an object of love (not an act of love).

Socrates: "because reproduction is the closest mortals can come to becoming alive and immortal"
By immortal Socrates is talking about living on (science narrative DNA, GENES) hence goes as far stating

"he (person) is never said to have the same constitutes" this is genuise considering science was not so developed, Socrates then goes on to talk about how our body's change including our knowledge and how new replaces old (skin, bones etc) whilst we maintain this same 'self' or 'I'

Socrates also goes onto mention that "this point made to humans applies to animals" and the others engaged in dialogue apply there idea to nature in its entirety

I know that Socrates cannot be talking about genes because he did not know what genes where, but it sounded surprisingly similar to Dawkins 'selfish gene' and a essayists may chose to use the similarity to prove that science was the ultimate goal of philosophers (this would not be true as Socrates was talking about far loftier ideas). Despite this the essayists won’t be wrong either and the comparison would make perfect sense and the Socratic dialogue would get along well with Dawkins. This would require the essayists to chose the narrative of either Socrates and replace the ‘selfish gene’ with the 'loving gene' or vice versa. Which ever narrative he chooses, the narrative chosen would slightly tweak the other narrative.

The point I am attempting to demonstrate is this

Imagine A and B coming towards each other

Two narratives amongst the millions of narratives that can be applied could be

1) A and B are charging towards each other in order to compete for survival. If A wins it will consume B and form AB as the stronger dominant

2) A and B are drawn towards each other, they wish to harmonise and form a conclusion which is AB

It is science that A and B are heading in a direction towards each other; any explanation of this using language gives rise to a narrative. Narratives are not science and are in danger of losing what is signified as all narratives within the post modern eventually get mixed with other narratives and you end up with signifier s signifying signifier s and it goes on.

So Dawkins calling the gene a 'selfish gene' is attaching a narrative to science and has therefore in affect reducing it to another inane narrative that does not qualify as a truth or a falsity but an idea of exchange.

I am not a naïve; nothing can make sense withought a narrative. In the past we had Meta-narratives (all unifying narrative) where science relied on structures of meta-physics and Critiques of reason (epistemology) presented by philosophers. But metaphysics died soon after religion and so came the end of the meta-narrative ergo the end of history as we used to understand it. This was partially due to structuralism, existentialism, disenchantment due to wars and failure of Marxism, end of meta-physics and religion, rise of technology and late capitalist commodity and consumer society (think of how twitter and blackberry has changed communication for ever and as a consequence how human relations have changed, how riots can emerge within seconds whereas in the past they require planning which meant that the organisers held a cause whereas the modern riots show no unified cause/directing of events). Returning to the point I was making, science needs a narrative hence the creation of the evolution theory as the narrative that unifies science across all fields (including human sciences psychology). But as we have established this only a narrative, narratives can be taken and placed in other contexts or changed and still hold the data together. Narratives are not stable, they are not truths. Science is based on truths and sure enough science may have truth, but can this truth ever reach us? Hence is science ever objective.

Elaborating on the nature of narratives, there is no better example then Islam, Scholars BEILIEVE that the narrative in the Quran applies to scientific findings so they unify science with their grand narratives. Narratives are constantly reused (like a prostitute) and with each use she gets a bit more haggard but also gets a bit more money so she can afford that plastic surgery (change) so religious people are no more deluded then anyone else when they find ways to incorporate scientific finding with religion and change interpretations along the way.

We cannot dismiss language as it is the tool that helps us make sense of all our scientific finding, the tool that pushed us in that direction in the first place and the tool that allows us to reason and think, the tool that is thinking itself. You cannot be a honest scientist and disregard the most important apparatus that you have ‘’language’. Withought language we cannot make sense of our world , we cannot differentiate cat from dog as we wont know what a cat or dog is, we wont even know that It has four legs as we wont know what four legs is. Taking this into account post-modernity and its study of language leads us to serious concerns when it comes to claimes of objectivity. There is no difference between the new-atheists and the religious person (as the terry Eagleton lectures explain)

I evolved from organisms
But I am not a evolutionist (Think it over)

Get rid of the narrative and keep naked science and you would find that it fits religion. Darwinism is a ideology, ‘atheists against religion’ is also an ideology lol

We have come to accept that we do not have free will, the acceptance has in fact liberated us and we are as free as ever. Time for the new-atheists to accept they are following an ideology so that their battle against the theists is a battle of two ideologies. Science itself is indifferent but we only understand science as ourselves (subjective humans intertwined in a complex networks of belief, symbols, and signs Etc). Me personally….I think its all absurd ....fuck it and live how you wish

Forgive my poor grammar

"A belief in hell and the knowledge that every ambition is doomed to frustration at the hands of a skeleton have never prevented the majority of human beings from behaving as though death were no more than an unfounded rumour."
Aldous Huxley
- strangestdude
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: You are not real atheists
Reply #109 - August 15, 2011, 03:36 PM

You're trying to troll me, but I won't bite and it's pissing you off. LOL.

An alternative to religion;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2nfXfTg92E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWNW-NXEudk
- Lucem Ferre
- Ex-Muslim
- Bada Bing
- offline
Re: You are not real atheists
Reply #110 - August 15, 2011, 05:25 PM

strangestdude how did i troll you?
if you look back i have pointed out that this thread is not about strict philosophy ?
it might hard for you understand this...but not all humans are arrogant pricks..i know that i don't know anything much , i didn't want you to be put of by my ignorance and not study philosophy for yourself

"A belief in hell and the knowledge that every ambition is doomed to frustration at the hands of a skeleton have never prevented the majority of human beings from behaving as though death were no more than an unfounded rumour."
Aldous Huxley
- strangestdude
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: You are not real atheists
Reply #111 - August 15, 2011, 11:44 PM

I read this post after you posted it, and then 2 hours later you put the 'arrogant prick' bit at the end. I must have really pissed you off for you to add those 2 words to your post 2 hours later.

Quote from: Lucem Ferre on August 15, 2011, 09:48 AM
@strangestdude please do not disregard the pursuit of philosophy based on me, but i do not see how you could read anything without remembering what was on the previous page as i have mentioned many times that i make no claim to knowing anything and have no talent for philosophy. intellectually dishonest new atheists ignore things they do not like to accept.......that I know nothing about philosophy. But this does not mean that I cannot defend it just because i am unable to fully appreciate it. arrogant prick

An alternative to religion;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2nfXfTg92E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWNW-NXEudk
- Lucem Ferre
- Ex-Muslim
- Bada Bing
- offline
Re: You are not real atheists
Reply #112 - August 16, 2011, 04:12 AM

strangestdude no worry s its all love........

"A belief in hell and the knowledge that every ambition is doomed to frustration at the hands of a skeleton have never prevented the majority of human beings from behaving as though death were no more than an unfounded rumour."
Aldous Huxley
- Homer
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: You are not real atheists
Reply #113 - August 18, 2011, 05:53 AM

Until someone can define what exactly this "complex concept of god" is.....I see little reason in believing in, much less worshiping it

That's just my philosophy

The foundation of superstition is ignorance, the
superstructure is faith and the dome is a vain hope. Superstition
is the child of ignorance and the mother of misery.
-Robert G. Ingersoll (1898)

"Do time ninjas have this ability?" "Yeah. Only they stay silent and aren't douchebags." -Ibl
- z10
- Pub Regular
- Imago Dei
- offline
Re: You are not real atheists
Reply #114 - August 18, 2011, 05:56 AM

it's a good one to have

At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
- Homer
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: You are not real atheists
Reply #115 - August 18, 2011, 06:09 AM

LOL, I just read the article this thread was based on.....

I think I now know what the problem with philosophers is.....they arent actually very good at philosophy, if that article is any indication.

The foundation of superstition is ignorance, the
superstructure is faith and the dome is a vain hope. Superstition
is the child of ignorance and the mother of misery.
-Robert G. Ingersoll (1898)

"Do time ninjas have this ability?" "Yeah. Only they stay silent and aren't douchebags." -Ibl
- truth_seeker
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: You are not real atheists
Reply #116 - August 18, 2011, 11:51 AM

i became an atheist because i realized islam isn't real.

it has very little to do with science, and more to do with being rational; if I didn't believe in christianity, judaism, hindusim, buddhism, taosim, ancient norse and greek religions that have absolutely no proof of being real, why should i believe in islam which also has absolutely no proof of being real?
- Solara
- After the Fall
- Ex-Muslim
- Life goes on.
- offline
Re: You are not real atheists
Reply #117 - August 19, 2011, 10:54 PM

All hail the all knowing Richard Dawkins!

Life is what happens to you while you're staring at your smartphone.

Eternal Sunshine of the Religionless Mind
- Prince Spinoza
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: You are not real atheists
Reply #118 - August 19, 2011, 11:52 PM

Derp.
Previous page 1 2 3 4« Previous thread | Next thread »