Posts by Kracklite
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Up Front: The Up-Front Guides: The…, in reply to Lilith __,
Atheism is not a faith, quite the opposite. It says that whatever we accept as true must be derived rationally, from evidence.
A = without, theo = God
Actually, that’s positivism. In it’s pragmatic form, it’s more or less “The burden of proof”.
-
And there aint no unseen order it’s chaos out there.
Here's where my aspie obsessiveness kicks in. Inevitably, anything governed by physical law potentially reveals a basic orderliness. The purpose of science is to describe the expression of natural law into perceptible manifestation, so this statement makes no sense except as some vague statement of nihilism. Of course that which is not yet known is unseen. Do you mean currently unseen or unseeable? Please elaborate.
-
Up Front: The Up-Front Guides: The…, in reply to andin,
I must be in an agreeable mood these days. I just don’t feel the urge, despite my own agnosticism, to characterise Christians as rabid fascists or idiots devoid of intellectual sophistication.
Thus Jesus,
As I understand it, more liberal Christians use the example of Jesus – not necessarily the objective historical person or the mythical divinity as a fulcrum of a strategy to comprehend the relation of parochial, mundane existence, with all the requirements and obligations or morality, empathy, beauty and so forth with the seemingly impersonal cosmos.
I can’t say that I accept that strategy or it’s philosophical results, but I appreciate the attempt. Generally, the existentialists have had the best go at it, tho I see Kierkegaard veered most into an exclusively Christian paradigm.
And he wasnt referring to GOD just his sense of the divine.
I’m perfectly well aware of that, thank you.
You would be referring to the Einstein who
No, actually. I was referring to the Einstein who referred to Spinoza.
Believe me, I strongly resist anthropomorphism, even as a metaphor, but I’m one with, say, Stanislaw Lem, who thinks that brains evolved to comprehend an African veldt far enough to enable survival and no more are not on their own able to comprehend a universe that is far broader than that. Inevitably much is going to be incomprehensible, and description will appear to be superficial at best. Note that I make a distinction between comprehension and description – comprehension may not be truer, but it is existentially more easy to integrate with our cognition.
On the “sense of the divine” thing, some aspects of classical Greek philosophy and language made no distinction between the sense and presence of the divine. I find that simplicity quite elegant.
I do regard any of the anthropomorphic elements of religion as inadequate, and science as the best available contingent means of describing how the universe works. It’ll do in that role until something better comes along, and so far nothing has. Very likely, nothing that fits our brains in their current configuration will. Change the configuration however… well, in a couple of centuries, ask me again if I’m still around (I won’t be).
And there aint no unseen order it’s chaos out there.
What do you mean by “chaos” exactly? Chaos in the scientific sense has now been more often referred to as “emergent order.” Your phrasing implies nihilism. Is that correct?
Actually, the integral paradox of absolute atheism is that it is itself a statement of faith - faith that there is nothing. It is in fact logically impossible to prove a negative, thus belief in nothing is untenable on its own terms. I can say that I feel no faith honestly, but I cannot prove that there is nothing.
Tho scientists working on the Higgs Boson say its properties are godlike. Oh shit perhaps we are all zombies controlled from the subatomic world.
????? Does not compute.
Who needs heaven or Blake.
Oh dear.
You dont understand tribalism.
Without you offering a definition, that makes no sense, or thank the Great Green Arkleseizure that I don’t. Assume that I took "tribalism" to mean a kind of Manichaeism combined with "You're with us or against us."
DexterX
Physicists generally resent the “God Particle” tag as sub atomic particle theory has nothing to do with “God”
Indeed, it pisses them off no end, especially as it has been appropriated by fundies lately.
-
if you’re involved in feminism, or LGBT rights, or racial issues, or anything like that, you’ve been told that your issues are a distraction from the important things
Yeah, that's it for me - "Someone else's rights" are my rights, otherwise we're in a society ranked by privileges, if you get what I mean.
I have no argument, I just want world peace. I hope the bill passes.
It will. I'm glad there's someone in the Labour party with actual principles and ideals and who isn't waiting for a response from their media advisor and focus groups. Maybe there's hope for them yet... but it's a pity it's a conscience and not a party policy vote.
-
Up Front: The Up-Front Guides: The…, in reply to Sofie Bribiesca,
:)
I'm just concerned that paleoleftists such as Trotter will deliberately use the chimera of "identity politics" to make false priorities or choices between unrelated progressive concerns in order to preserve their own privileges.
-
Up Front: The Up-Front Guides: The…, in reply to Sofie Bribiesca,
can we please save our water, our electricity for all nz people , at the same time as, support for the bill to a local MP. Who otherwise do we need to convince for the sake of the law to be passed?
Indeed you’ll have no disagreement from me or many others here, but why on earth then is it even by implication being made a matter of relative priorities? At the very least could asset sales be made a topic for another thread?
Sorry, it's late and really, I'm sure there's no fundamental disagreement here.
-
Up Front: The Up-Front Guides: The…, in reply to Sofie Bribiesca,
I’m defending Steve
I don't wish to attack Steve, really. I'm sure he's speaking in good faith.
And why not save our infrastructure instead
This I find incomprehensible - why is it "instead"?
-
.... but I have to say "emotive piece of legislation muddying the waters " is pretty patronising.
-
Up Front: The Up-Front Guides: The…, in reply to Steve Barnes,
I understand this issue is a biggie for quite a few people but I also can see the timing of such an emotive piece of legislation muddying the waters to the advantage of those greedy fuckers
Sorry, but I’m definitely with Craig on this one. I’m sure that you don’t oppose marriage equality, but is the questioning of “priority” really relevant? Yes, some things take “priority” and may be “more important” – but my quote marks are there to suggest that maybe priorities differ for some people, especially when the civil rights one personally needs are apparently safe and secure and other people’s are “nice to have” (OK, I’m overdoing it with the ” “""""” ” ’s).
However, history does not move down a checklist in an orderly fashion. Instead, it deals with problems when the opportunity arises. The opportunity for marriage equality is now.
I’m definitely not accusing you of this at all, but I do note that paleoleftists like Chris Trotter do definitely use the “X must be solved first and Y will be automatically be rendered irrelevant come the revolution, so in the meantime, get in line behind me.” In Trotter’s case, it is almost certainly motivated by a desire to preserve his privileges as he views rights as a zero-sum game. Don’t fall into that trap.
-
Up Front: The Up-Front Guides: The…, in reply to Sacha,
It's going - deliberately - slowly and carefully. And delightfully. There's none of this "I will politely overlook the fact that you believe in a sky-fairy and his zombie son", instead it's more of, "So an infinite being, who can not be less than infinite is relatable generally via providence and immediately at a human scale by the incarnation...alright, Einstein talked about the immanence of divinity in the orderliness, indeed the beauty of the universe in that order, and Blake wrote about heaven in a wild flower... OK, I can work with that."
Whether it's willingness to accept a "metaphor" or "tolerance" of an alternative way of expressing one's existential relationship with the cosmos is uncertain, but the process of negotiation is fruitful and that's what I'm glad to see that here - but that's what I love about PA, the ability to discuss matters civilly without retreating into tribalism.
Again, I'm pleased that people have stuck to the topic of understanding what it is is that makes a marriage, despite disagreements at levels that seem to be quite fundamental while in fact intentions are much closer.