Atheism and Feminism - A Necessary Alliance?

Argotitan
Posts: 88
Joined: 2013-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Atheism and Feminism - A Necessary Alliance?

As a staunch anti-feminist, I have to wonder whether or not atheists can be trusted quite often.  This is especially when it comes to the geek-feminist movement which insists on the supremacy of teaching children science, technology, engineering, and math in school before language arts.  Atheists support STEM education as an alternative to religiously dogmatic brainwashing.

When I was growing up, I actually supported STEM myself primarily against multiculturalism.  I was sick and tired of being taught nonsense language arts while growing up, and thought that people should understand "how it's made" when it came to consumer goods rather than having the right to mindlessly indulge in pop culture.  Multiculturalism is a failed movement because it tolerates irrational lifestyles just for the sake of "diversity".

As I got older, however, I realized that STEM wasn't all it's cracked up to be.  It leads to what I call the "nerd paradox" where previous generations of engineers will design technology for future generations of pop culture.  In turn, future children who aspire to become engineers will become socially alienated.  They won't be able to focus on their studies because of pop culture surrounding them so much.  That is the pursuit of STEM actually requires a preservation of language arts in society, but STEM fueled pop culture actually inhibits this.

Geek-feminists support this, however, especially since multiculturalist consumerism unweaves the social fabric behind language arts integrity which they believe has lead to feminine oppression.  In turn, males become socially alienated due to feminism's influence in Statist public education which props females up despite how social fabric is unweaved in general against all children...

...so I'm curious how atheists view this.  I'm not familiar with many atheists who are concerned about language arts curriculum in public education.  They seem to share feminist concerns over STEM.

 

 

 


GodsUseForAMosquito
Moderator
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
Argotitan wrote:I've asked

Argotitan wrote:

I've asked you to explain how tolerating illegal immigration respects due process.  You've shifted burden of proof onto the negative as if people are obligated to assume the risk of damages.

No, You made the positive claim that illegal immigration creates damage in the first place. You did it in post 15:

"Tolerating illegal immigration is like saying people are expected to drink stagnant, polluted, or unfiltered water.  You're forcing people to assume the risk of growing up in an unreliably, insecure environment."

The positive claim is right there.

 

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13211
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Argotitan wrote:Vastet

Argotitan wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Argotitan wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Argotitan wrote:
In other words, you don't recognize~snip
Blah blah blah. Still no evidence. Still all bullshit. Thanks for the victory!

Blah blah blah. Still no reliability. Still all nonsense. Thanks for the victory!

Always nice to watch a fool implode and lose everything. :D

Why are you making fun of yourself?

Classic projection. Smiling

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Argotitan
Posts: 88
Joined: 2013-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

Argotitan wrote:

I've asked you to explain how tolerating illegal immigration respects due process.  You've shifted burden of proof onto the negative as if people are obligated to assume the risk of damages.

I never made the claim that tolerating illegal immigration respects due process. I haven't even used the phrase due process at all. All I have done is dispute your claim that illegal immigration is responsible for the housing market collapse or for obesity. 

So now that your strawman has been knocked down, will you explain to me exactly how illegal immigrants are responsible for the housing market and obesity?

Respecting due process is necessary for civil society.  If you don't claim that, then I don't see a reason to believe you're civilly minded.


Argotitan
Posts: 88
Joined: 2013-01-18
User is offlineOffline
GodsUseForAMosquito

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

Argotitan wrote:

I've asked you to explain how tolerating illegal immigration respects due process.  You've shifted burden of proof onto the negative as if people are obligated to assume the risk of damages.

No, You made the positive claim that illegal immigration creates damage in the first place. You did it in post 15:

"Tolerating illegal immigration is like saying people are expected to drink stagnant, polluted, or unfiltered water.  You're forcing people to assume the risk of growing up in an unreliably, insecure environment."

The positive claim is right there.

 

 

No.  Damage is a negative claim.  Literally, it's destructive.

The positive claim is showing how a behavior preserves structure.  Even in you're quote, I referred to assumption of risk where structural preservation is endangered in an unreliable, insecure environment.


Argotitan
Posts: 88
Joined: 2013-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Argotitan

Vastet wrote:
Argotitan wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Argotitan wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Argotitan wrote:
In other words, you don't recognize~snip
Blah blah blah. Still no evidence. Still all bullshit. Thanks for the victory!

Blah blah blah. Still no reliability. Still all nonsense. Thanks for the victory!

Always nice to watch a fool implode and lose everything. :D

Why are you making fun of yourself?

Classic projection. Smiling

You have nothing better to do and say than project?


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi OP

I'm very happy that you pointed this out. I've pointed this out in the past and most responses are similar to the dung monkeys fling.

Atheism and Feminism are like a hand and a glove. Their views by default correlate almost perfectly. The problem however is that sometimes the "men" who are "atheistic" have trouble with feministic views that degrade the role of man. This causes a contradiction and confusion between the biology of man and the theology of their atheism which agrees.

Feminism is actually NOT feminism, but the attack ON feminism also. By supressing the natural function and role of woman, they end up hurting themselves. This is why there are so many lesbians today due to this stealth attack.

Only Christianity truly understands and conducts science in the pursuit of intellectual understanding. It is really impossible to understand the full scope of science as a non christian whiich is why you have having problems with this extreme contradiction of terms that you have relayed that are currently thriving in our pagan soceity of today.

The reason why "atheists" are not interested in language is because it is a refuation to their Darwinian evolution. Dr. Johonson wrote a book trying to reconcile this difference but failed. They also hate language because it is a means to protect the United States.

Language, Boarders, and Culture are the essentials for the survival of any country, logically since they hate this country and want it to be rebooted as communism the apathy towards these subjects is to be expected.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4221
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Argotitan wrote: Why are

Argotitan wrote:

 

Why are you comparing or suggesting disorderly ontological schematics?

You're not making any sense now.  It sounds like you're uttering gibberish and expecting answers to spontaneously generate.

no, you just fail to understand me.  i'm not talking in terms of ontology at all.  i already made it clear that i dismiss ontology in general.  i'm talking about consciousness.

my statement was neither syntactically nor semantically "gibberish."  you asked me why consciousness is necessarily orderly.  i replied that "orderly" and "disorderly" are relative terms, and since we have absolutely nothing outside of consciousness to relate it to, then terms like "orderly" and "disorderly" are not applicable.

as for expecting answers, when have i asked you a question?  you asked me a question.  i don't expect an answer or anything else from you.

if you cannot comprehend this, i would rather you just stop talking to me.

 

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4221
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:I'm very

Jean Chauvin wrote:

I'm very happy that you pointed this out. I've pointed this out in the past and most responses are similar to the dung monkeys fling.

Atheism and Feminism are like a hand and a glove. Their views by default correlate almost perfectly. The problem however is that sometimes the "men" who are "atheistic" have trouble with feministic views that degrade the role of man. This causes a contradiction and confusion between the biology of man and the theology of their atheism which agrees.

Feminism is actually NOT feminism, but the attack ON feminism also. By supressing the natural function and role of woman, they end up hurting themselves. This is why there are so many lesbians today due to this stealth attack.

Only Christianity truly understands and conducts science in the pursuit of intellectual understanding. It is really impossible to understand the full scope of science as a non christian whiich is why you have having problems with this extreme contradiction of terms that you have relayed that are currently thriving in our pagan soceity of today.

The reason why "atheists" are not interested in language is because it is a refuation to their Darwinian evolution. Dr. Johonson wrote a book trying to reconcile this difference but failed. They also hate language because it is a means to protect the United States.

Language, Boarders, and Culture are the essentials for the survival of any country, logically since they hate this country and want it to be rebooted as communism the apathy towards these subjects is to be expected.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

oh good, the king of half-baked analytical thomism is here.  now it's a fucking circus.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
IW

Exhibit A = Flying Monkey Dung!

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Argotitan
Posts: 88
Joined: 2013-01-18
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:Argotitan

iwbiek wrote:

Argotitan wrote:

 

Why are you comparing or suggesting disorderly ontological schematics?

You're not making any sense now.  It sounds like you're uttering gibberish and expecting answers to spontaneously generate.

no, you just fail to understand me.  i'm not talking in terms of ontology at all.  i already made it clear that i dismiss ontology in general.  i'm talking about consciousness.

my statement was neither syntactically nor semantically "gibberish."  you asked me why consciousness is necessarily orderly.  i replied that "orderly" and "disorderly" are relative terms, and since we have absolutely nothing outside of consciousness to relate it to, then terms like "orderly" and "disorderly" are not applicable.

as for expecting answers, when have i asked you a question?  you asked me a question.  i don't expect an answer or anything else from you.

if you cannot comprehend this, i would rather you just stop talking to me.

 

 

Why are you saying order's relative?  I'm not referring to a particular orderly result where we judge what parts are coherent.  I'm referring to a universal orderly process when we understand how units are founded; you can't put things together unless you have things to put together.  Order is based on the analysis of things into existence from nothing without prior experience.  It doesn't matter whether one part is compared to another.

I'm not sure why you believe consciousness necessarily does this.  Consciousness can synthesize as well.


Argotitan
Posts: 88
Joined: 2013-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:I'm very

Jean Chauvin wrote:

I'm very happy that you pointed this out. I've pointed this out in the past and most responses are similar to the dung monkeys fling.

Atheism and Feminism are like a hand and a glove. Their views by default correlate almost perfectly. The problem however is that sometimes the "men" who are "atheistic" have trouble with feministic views that degrade the role of man. This causes a contradiction and confusion between the biology of man and the theology of their atheism which agrees.

Feminism is actually NOT feminism, but the attack ON feminism also. By supressing the natural function and role of woman, they end up hurting themselves. This is why there are so many lesbians today due to this stealth attack.

Only Christianity truly understands and conducts science in the pursuit of intellectual understanding. It is really impossible to understand the full scope of science as a non christian whiich is why you have having problems with this extreme contradiction of terms that you have relayed that are currently thriving in our pagan soceity of today.

The reason why "atheists" are not interested in language is because it is a refuation to their Darwinian evolution. Dr. Johonson wrote a book trying to reconcile this difference but failed. They also hate language because it is a means to protect the United States.

Language, Boarders, and Culture are the essentials for the survival of any country, logically since they hate this country and want it to be rebooted as communism the apathy towards these subjects is to be expected.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

I don't know if I'd blame atheism for that.  A lot of progressive liberation of women stems from the Great Awakenings in defining the Social Gospel which lead to consumerism screwing around with organic relationships.  Many atheists are trying to conduct a renaissance in order to get back in touch with reason such that organic relationships can be rationally reconstructed.

The problem is atheists have a very poor grasp of aesthetics.  I don't really understand why you're talking about science, but I agree that the problem at hand is the dismissal of culture.  Without culture, we become driven towards workaholic meritocracy and forget how the relations of production get along.  We forget the narrative behind how a sustainable lifestyle is achieved.

As for the "natural role of women", I wouldn't say there's a "natural role" because people are diverse, but female talents aren't being suppressed by any stretch of the imagination.  They're being spoiled and mutated into bureaucratic, administrative, and managerial busy work:

http://www.antifeministtech.info/women-are-mostly-in-make-work-jobs/
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/10/04/stimulus-supported-jobs-employing-women-set-to-disappear/
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0616.pdf
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0620.pdf


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13211
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Argotitan wrote:Vastet

Argotitan wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Argotitan wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Argotitan wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Argotitan wrote:
In other words, you don't recognize~snip
Blah blah blah. Still no evidence. Still all bullshit. Thanks for the victory!

Blah blah blah. Still no reliability. Still all nonsense. Thanks for the victory!

Always nice to watch a fool implode and lose everything. :D

Why are you making fun of yourself?

Classic projection. Smiling

You have nothing better to do and say than project?

Do you have nothing better to do than project?
You already lost at least 6 arguments, and none of us has even made an argument yet. This is seriously a record level of stupidity. I'd really like to know how you've managed to survive. You don't seen to have any brains.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13211
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:~snip Oh

Jean Chauvin wrote:
~snip

Oh how cute, the two mental rejects get along. Warms my heart.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Oh how cute,

caposkia wrote:

Oh how cute, the two mental rejects get along. Warms my heart.

Hopefully that will change when Argotitan finds out Jean enjoys the thought of other people being tortured for eternity...

 


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4221
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Argotitan wrote: Why are

Argotitan wrote:

 

Why are you saying order's relative?  I'm not referring to a particular orderly result where we judge what parts are coherent.  I'm referring to a universal orderly process when we understand how units are founded; you can't put things together unless you have things to put together.  

all of this is axiomatic.  i can't falsify any of this, but neither can you falsify solipsism (for example).

Argotitan wrote:

Order is based on the analysis of things into existence from nothing without prior experience.  It doesn't matter whether one part is compared to another.

I'm not sure why you believe consciousness necessarily does this.  Consciousness can synthesize as well.

sure, consciousness can.  consciousness can do plenty of things; the problem is, we don't know what consciousness actually does because ultimately we cannot stand outside of consciousness and observe it.  i can't show you consciousness, you can't show me being.  all we have is perception and those means of knowing based on perception (inference, etc.).  even kant will tell you the thing-in-itself can never be directly observed.

i haven't made any claim to belief in anything i've said.  i'm just showing you that ontology is not falsifiable and therefore we cannot take it for granted as proven.  that's why ontology exists as a philosophy and not a science.  i confess i was being tongue-in-cheek when i said "there is no ontology."  i don't know that for certain.  i just don't take it for granted, nor do i speculate about it much because whether or not some immutable substrate of being actually is has no bearing at all on the choices i make in life.  regardless of whether or not there is "true being," the empirical universe "exists" pragmatically, and it is all i can experience.  therefore, i base my choices on empiricism.  i don't say empiricism is all there is in any definitive sense, but for humans as they currently are it's all there is, pragmatically speaking.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4221
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Argotitan wrote:The problem

Argotitan wrote:

The problem is atheists have a very poor grasp of aesthetics. 

if you honestly think you can get away with saying buddhists, yogins, advaita vedantins, and jains have a poor grasp of aesthetics, you're a moron.  shankaracarya developed a systematic metaphysics that makes thomas aquinas look like wayne grudem.  as for the fine arts, i think tibetan sand mandalas and the giant buddhas of sri lanka speak for themselves.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


GodsUseForAMosquito
Moderator
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
Argotitan

Argotitan wrote:

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

Argotitan wrote:

I've asked you to explain how tolerating illegal immigration respects due process.  You've shifted burden of proof onto the negative as if people are obligated to assume the risk of damages.

No, You made the positive claim that illegal immigration creates damage in the first place. You did it in post 15:

"Tolerating illegal immigration is like saying people are expected to drink stagnant, polluted, or unfiltered water.  You're forcing people to assume the risk of growing up in an unreliably, insecure environment."

The positive claim is right there.

 

 

No.  Damage is a negative claim.  Literally, it's destructive.

The positive claim is showing how a behavior preserves structure.  Even in you're quote, I referred to assumption of risk where structural preservation is endangered in an unreliable, insecure environment.

Ha ha ha - classic.

This is not how the burden of proof works mate. The 'positive claim' is anything that is stated that is assertive; it doesn't have to be 'positive' in the good or constructive sense.

Consider the claim: "I can shoot 20 people in one minute with my rifle"

This is an assertion with negative connotations that requires evidence to be believed. The burden of proof is on the positive claim / assertion of the claimant to show that what they say is true. (Not that we'd want them to try and prove it in this case).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof#Holder_of_the_burden

 

Now would you like to back up and reassess where you've got to with Beyond, and respond to him now you've been suitably educated in who holds the burden?!

 

 

 

 

 

 


GodsUseForAMosquito
Moderator
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:Argotitan

iwbiek wrote:

Argotitan wrote:

The problem is atheists have a very poor grasp of aesthetics. 

if you honestly think you can get away with saying buddhists, yogins, advaita vedantins, and jains have a poor grasp of aesthetics, you're a moron.  shankaracarya developed a systematic metaphysics that makes thomas aquinas look like wayne grudem.

Yes, because atheists have such a poor grasp of aesthetics, Brazil commissioned Oscar Niemeyer, a confirmed atheist, to build the Cathedral Brasilia... How ugly.

 


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5479
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Argotitan wrote:Respecting

Argotitan wrote:

Respecting due process is necessary for civil society.  If you don't claim that, then I don't see a reason to believe you're civilly minded.

What difference does it make if I am civilly minded or not? We are not talking about due process and we are not talking about me. The question is, how does illegal immigration cause the housing market collapse and obesity?

This isn't that difficult, I am not even asking you to prove your claim, just asking for you to explain it. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Argotitan
Posts: 88
Joined: 2013-01-18
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:Argotitan

iwbiek wrote:

Argotitan wrote:

 

Why are you saying order's relative?  I'm not referring to a particular orderly result where we judge what parts are coherent.  I'm referring to a universal orderly process when we understand how units are founded; you can't put things together unless you have things to put together.  

all of this is axiomatic.  i can't falsify any of this, but neither can you falsify solipsism (for example).

Argotitan wrote:

Order is based on the analysis of things into existence from nothing without prior experience.  It doesn't matter whether one part is compared to another.

I'm not sure why you believe consciousness necessarily does this.  Consciousness can synthesize as well.

sure, consciousness can.  consciousness can do plenty of things; the problem is, we don't know what consciousness actually does because ultimately we cannot stand outside of consciousness and observe it.  i can't show you consciousness, you can't show me being.  all we have is perception and those means of knowing based on perception (inference, etc.).  even kant will tell you the thing-in-itself can never be directly observed.

i haven't made any claim to belief in anything i've said.  i'm just showing you that ontology is not falsifiable and therefore we cannot take it for granted as proven.  that's why ontology exists as a philosophy and not a science.  i confess i was being tongue-in-cheek when i said "there is no ontology."  i don't know that for certain.  i just don't take it for granted, nor do i speculate about it much because whether or not some immutable substrate of being actually is has no bearing at all on the choices i make in life.  regardless of whether or not there is "true being," the empirical universe "exists" pragmatically, and it is all i can experience.  therefore, i base my choices on empiricism.  i don't say empiricism is all there is in any definitive sense, but for humans as they currently are it's all there is, pragmatically speaking.

You should read Immanuel Kant's second critique to understand pragmatism more reliably...

...but before that, you should read his first.  Practical reason depends on pure reason.  Without a duty to ontology AKA deontology, the source of practice is being taken for granted.

Seriously, if you want to understand German idealism, throw Marx away and go to the source.


GodsUseForAMosquito
Moderator
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
Argotitan wrote:iwbiek

Argotitan wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

Argotitan wrote:

 

Why are you saying order's relative?  I'm not referring to a particular orderly result where we judge what parts are coherent.  I'm referring to a universal orderly process when we understand how units are founded; you can't put things together unless you have things to put together.  

all of this is axiomatic.  i can't falsify any of this, but neither can you falsify solipsism (for example).

Argotitan wrote:

Order is based on the analysis of things into existence from nothing without prior experience.  It doesn't matter whether one part is compared to another.

I'm not sure why you believe consciousness necessarily does this.  Consciousness can synthesize as well.

sure, consciousness can.  consciousness can do plenty of things; the problem is, we don't know what consciousness actually does because ultimately we cannot stand outside of consciousness and observe it.  i can't show you consciousness, you can't show me being.  all we have is perception and those means of knowing based on perception (inference, etc.).  even kant will tell you the thing-in-itself can never be directly observed.

i haven't made any claim to belief in anything i've said.  i'm just showing you that ontology is not falsifiable and therefore we cannot take it for granted as proven.  that's why ontology exists as a philosophy and not a science.  i confess i was being tongue-in-cheek when i said "there is no ontology."  i don't know that for certain.  i just don't take it for granted, nor do i speculate about it much because whether or not some immutable substrate of being actually is has no bearing at all on the choices i make in life.  regardless of whether or not there is "true being," the empirical universe "exists" pragmatically, and it is all i can experience.  therefore, i base my choices on empiricism.  i don't say empiricism is all there is in any definitive sense, but for humans as they currently are it's all there is, pragmatically speaking.

You should read Immanuel Kant's second critique to understand pragmatism more reliably...

...but before that, you should read his first.  Practical reason depends on pure reason.  Without a duty to ontology AKA deontology, the source of practice is being taken for granted.

Seriously, if you want to understand German idealism, throw Marx away and go to the source.

 

You're hilarious. I highly highly doubt you understand Kant when you don't even understand the philosophical burden of proof. Someone posted elsewhere that they think you're still in school - your arrogance in thinking you understand more than you really do would lead me to believe you are indeed quite young. The quote from William Morris (atheist) regarding Beauty and youth springs to mind:

“With the arrogance of youth, I determined to do no less than to transform the world with Beauty. If I have succeeded in some small way, if only in one small corner of the world, amongst the men and women I love, then I shall count myself blessed, and blessed, and blessed, and the work goes on.”

 Or perhaps you just find the idea of aesthetics difficult yourself - am I right Mike?

 

 


Argotitan
Posts: 88
Joined: 2013-01-18
User is offlineOffline
 Strike that.  I jumped to

 Strike that.  I jumped to your conclusion instead of reading the middle.

The problem is you're ignoring how the thing in itself is an abstract idea that's detected through sensation.  Perception has noumenal and phenomenal categories.  Phenomenal categories are subjective in that they don't universally apply.  That is the phenomenal world varies over time and space.

Ontology is necessary to evaluate schematics and then recognize them in the phenomenal world.  For example, there is no such thing as a real square.  Squares are ideal schematics and then approximated in the real world.

Consciousness doesn't necessarily do this though.  It takes commitment to imagine schematics.  They don't just spontaneously generate in your mind a la visions from divine inspiration.  Likewise, learning from experience doesn't tell you what the ideal is.  It only tells you the real.


Argotitan
Posts: 88
Joined: 2013-01-18
User is offlineOffline
GodsUseForAMosquito

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

Argotitan wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

Argotitan wrote:

 

Why are you saying order's relative?  I'm not referring to a particular orderly result where we judge what parts are coherent.  I'm referring to a universal orderly process when we understand how units are founded; you can't put things together unless you have things to put together.  

all of this is axiomatic.  i can't falsify any of this, but neither can you falsify solipsism (for example).

Argotitan wrote:

Order is based on the analysis of things into existence from nothing without prior experience.  It doesn't matter whether one part is compared to another.

I'm not sure why you believe consciousness necessarily does this.  Consciousness can synthesize as well.

sure, consciousness can.  consciousness can do plenty of things; the problem is, we don't know what consciousness actually does because ultimately we cannot stand outside of consciousness and observe it.  i can't show you consciousness, you can't show me being.  all we have is perception and those means of knowing based on perception (inference, etc.).  even kant will tell you the thing-in-itself can never be directly observed.

i haven't made any claim to belief in anything i've said.  i'm just showing you that ontology is not falsifiable and therefore we cannot take it for granted as proven.  that's why ontology exists as a philosophy and not a science.  i confess i was being tongue-in-cheek when i said "there is no ontology."  i don't know that for certain.  i just don't take it for granted, nor do i speculate about it much because whether or not some immutable substrate of being actually is has no bearing at all on the choices i make in life.  regardless of whether or not there is "true being," the empirical universe "exists" pragmatically, and it is all i can experience.  therefore, i base my choices on empiricism.  i don't say empiricism is all there is in any definitive sense, but for humans as they currently are it's all there is, pragmatically speaking.

You should read Immanuel Kant's second critique to understand pragmatism more reliably...

...but before that, you should read his first.  Practical reason depends on pure reason.  Without a duty to ontology AKA deontology, the source of practice is being taken for granted.

Seriously, if you want to understand German idealism, throw Marx away and go to the source.

 

You're hilarious. I highly highly doubt you understand Kant when you don't even understand the philosophical burden of proof. Someone posted elsewhere that they think you're still in school - your arrogance in thinking you understand more than you really do would lead me to believe you are indeed quite young. The quote from William Morris (atheist) regarding Beauty and youth springs to mind:

“With the arrogance of youth, I determined to do no less than to transform the world with Beauty. If I have succeeded in some small way, if only in one small corner of the world, amongst the men and women I love, then I shall count myself blessed, and blessed, and blessed, and the work goes on.”

 Or perhaps you just find the idea of aesthetics difficult yourself - am I right Dak?

 

 

If anything's hilarious, it's how this is the first forum I've encountered that lacks a default edit function.

That lack of imagination shows a clear cut doubt of Kantian understanding.


Argotitan
Posts: 88
Joined: 2013-01-18
User is offlineOffline
GodsUseForAMosquito

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

Argotitan wrote:

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

Argotitan wrote:

I've asked you to explain how tolerating illegal immigration respects due process.  You've shifted burden of proof onto the negative as if people are obligated to assume the risk of damages.

No, You made the positive claim that illegal immigration creates damage in the first place. You did it in post 15:

"Tolerating illegal immigration is like saying people are expected to drink stagnant, polluted, or unfiltered water.  You're forcing people to assume the risk of growing up in an unreliably, insecure environment."

The positive claim is right there.

 

 

No.  Damage is a negative claim.  Literally, it's destructive.

The positive claim is showing how a behavior preserves structure.  Even in you're quote, I referred to assumption of risk where structural preservation is endangered in an unreliable, insecure environment.

Ha ha ha - classic.

This is not how the burden of proof works mate. The 'positive claim' is anything that is stated that is assertive; it doesn't have to be 'positive' in the good or constructive sense.

Consider the claim: "I can shoot 20 people in one minute with my rifle"

This is an assertion with negative connotations that requires evidence to be believed. The burden of proof is on the positive claim / assertion of the claimant to show that what they say is true. (Not that we'd want them to try and prove it in this case).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof#Holder_of_the_burden

 

Now would you like to back up and reassess where you've got to with Beyond, and respond to him now you've been suitably educated in who holds the burden?!

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you don't understanding how constructive and positive go hand in hand, I'm not sure you know what those words mean.

People can make skeptical statements in suspecting others of negligence.  Those who have duty of care are expected to uphold their responsibilities in proving they're completed.

When a government is suspect of not upholding due process as in the case of illegal immigration, it has to prove that it's upholding duty of care.  Otherwise, it's negligent and can't make an argument aside from an appeal to (self-)authority.

 


Argotitan
Posts: 88
Joined: 2013-01-18
User is offlineOffline
GodsUseForAMosquito

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

Argotitan wrote:

The problem is atheists have a very poor grasp of aesthetics. 

if you honestly think you can get away with saying buddhists, yogins, advaita vedantins, and jains have a poor grasp of aesthetics, you're a moron.  shankaracarya developed a systematic metaphysics that makes thomas aquinas look like wayne grudem.

Yes, because atheists have such a poor grasp of aesthetics, Brazil commissioned Oscar Niemeyer, a confirmed atheist, to build the Cathedral Brasilia... How ugly.

Thank you for proving my point.

Aesthetics are not merely about appearances.  There's an application to them as well.

When you merely refer to the work of art without its role or influence in society, you prove you don't know what aesthetics are about.  Aesthetics are not something to take lightly.  They sensationalize and encourage forms of thought.  Literally, aesthetics are forms, and they evoke imaginative schematics.

If you want, show how atheists understand the influence of forms in society with regards to social movements in establishing a sustainable culture.


GodsUseForAMosquito
Moderator
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
 Mike, instead of getting

 Mike, instead of getting all defensive, why not try and learn something from these forums? I'll break this to you gently - Your use of big words and complicated sentences with references to concepts you clearly don't fully understand is fooling few and impressing none. You won't take this on board because you clearly think you're very clever, but we've seen many like you round here, and let me tell you, you're nothing special. Some people on these boards have proven track records in actually being very clever, with all the letters after their names to prove it - they're really very nice, but in this board, as everywhere, you need to earn respect.

 

PS - I know what all the words in this forum mean, in all their contexts. You have proven that you don't. And twisting the burden of proof of your claim on the the _government_ is another classic! Stick to backing up your own assertions here - Obama isn't listening to you.

 

 

 

 


GodsUseForAMosquito
Moderator
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
Argotitan wrote: Aesthetics

Argotitan wrote:

 

Aesthetics are not merely about appearances.  There's an application to them as well.

When you merely refer to the work of art without its role or influence in society, you prove you don't know what aesthetics are about.  Aesthetics are not something to take lightly.  They sensationalize and encourage forms of thought.  Literally, aesthetics are forms, and they evoke imaginative schematics.

If you want, show how atheists understand the influence of forms in society with regards to social movements in establishing a sustainable culture.

Wait, which branch of Aesthetics are you talking about? If you read Kant recently you'd know that his third Moment states that beautiful things should be purposive but serve no definite purpose.. So IF we're talking about Kantian Aesthetics, you've just contradicted yourself that a work of art (or other beautiful thing) has a role. He states that art critics must necessarily abstract the purpose behind such are in order to form an Aesthetic judgement.

But perhaps you're not talking about Kant.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4221
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Argotitan wrote: You should

Argotitan wrote:

 

You should read Immanuel Kant's second critique to understand pragmatism more reliably...

...but before that, you should read his first.  Practical reason depends on pure reason.  Without a duty to ontology AKA deontology, the source of practice is being taken for granted.

Seriously, if you want to understand German idealism, throw Marx away and go to the source.

what the hell?  seriously, what the fuck?  how did we get on this shit?

number one, where, in all our conversations, have i even mentioned marx?  why bring up marx at all?  and yes, i know i shouldn't read marx to understand german idealism because marx wasn't a fucking idealist.

number two, i'm not going to read kant to understand pragmatism, because that would be like reading marx to understand idealism.  if you want pragmatism, you go to james or dewey.

number three, please understand, i am not a person who recognizes authorities.  just because i reference kant does not mean i take him as any sort of authority--in kant's case, quite the opposite.  i know ontology is essential to idealism, and since i have already stated multiple times that i do not recognize ontology as valid, it should be obvious i am not an idealist, so why should i take kant seriously?  i was not saying he does not have an ontology, and a close reading of what i said will make that obvious.  of course the idea of the thing-in-itself is an ontological idea.  i was merely stating the fact that even kant maintains that being cannot be directly perceived, which supports my assertion that ontology is nonfalsifiable.

also, just because i mention a philosopher does not mean i claim to be an authority on his philosophy.  i have read kant's critiques in extracts and summaries, and for me that was more than enough.  his philosophy does not appeal to me enough to sacrifice weeks slogging through those overlong cinderblocks of his. 

i'm beginning to think you're only skimming what i say, you saw "kant" in there and thought, "a-ha!  i'll school him on kant!"

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


RobbyPants
atheist
RobbyPants's picture
Posts: 148
Joined: 2011-11-30
User is offlineOffline
As a staunch

As a staunch anti-vegetarian, I have to wonder whether or not people who play Halo can be trusted quite often.  This is especially when it comes to the pro-mushroom vegetarian movement which insists on the supremacy of eating mushrooms on pizza over pepperoni.  Halo players support eating mushrooms on pizza as an alternative to eating pepperoni. 

When I was growing up, I actually used to like mushrooms.  I didn’t like pepperoni because it was too spicy. 

As I got older, however, I realized that mushrooms weren’t all they’re cracked up to be.  They taste gross, but pepperoni tastes awesome. 

Pro-mushroom vegetarians support this, however, especially since pepperoni contains meat and they don’t eat it.  In turn, people eating pepperoni become socially alienated due to vegetarianism's influence in private pizza shops which props vegetarians up despite how social fabric is unweaved in general against all pizza buyers...

...so I'm curious how Halo players view this.  I'm not familiar with many Halo players who are concerned about eating pepperoni on their pizza.  They seem to share vegetarian concerns over pizza toppings.

 

That's literally how much sense the OP made to me, both in terms of bizarre assumptions and overall content.

 


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4221
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
RobbyPants wrote:As a

RobbyPants wrote:

As a staunch anti-vegetarian, I have to wonder whether or not people who play Halo can be trusted quite often.  This is especially when it comes to the pro-mushroom vegetarian movement which insists on the supremacy of eating mushrooms on pizza over pepperoni.  Halo players support eating mushrooms on pizza as an alternative to eating pepperoni. 

When I was growing up, I actually used to like mushrooms.  I didn’t like pepperoni because it was too spicy. 

As I got older, however, I realized that mushrooms weren’t all they’re cracked up to be.  They taste gross, but pepperoni tastes awesome. 

Pro-mushroom vegetarians support this, however, especially since pepperoni contains meat and they don’t eat it.  In turn, people eating pepperoni become socially alienated due to vegetarianism's influence in private pizza shops which props vegetarians up despite how social fabric is unweaved in general against all pizza buyers...

...so I'm curious how Halo players view this.  I'm not familiar with many Halo players who are concerned about eating pepperoni on their pizza.  They seem to share vegetarian concerns over pizza toppings.

 

That's literally how much sense the OP made to me, both in terms of bizarre assumptions and overall content.

 

 

i almost ruined my laptop with a mouthful of beer.

 

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Sinphanius
Sinphanius's picture
Posts: 284
Joined: 2008-06-12
User is offlineOffline
But think of the Kerfuffles

Indeed.  Well everyone, I think we can all go home now.  RobbyPants clearly just won the thread.

When you say it like that you make it sound so Sinister...


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
...

While they try to become reasonable in theory, they fail absolutely in practice thus causing a schizophrenic like hypocrisy. Though the term atheist is a term impossible to achieve unless redefined apart from linguistic laws of definition.  The progressive liberation movement was fueled by "atheistic" tendencies. This is why all atheists (consistent atheists) are progressive politically since their politics and philosphy correspond.

I absolutely agree with you that "atheism has a poor grasp on aesthetics. I would argue that have complete ignorance on the subject. A demonstration of this absurd ignorance would be the Post-Modern Art we see today. There is no Mona-Lisa in Atheism. The study of beauty, art, music is interesting.

John Cage demonstrates atheistic music

Jackson Polluck and Duchamp demonstrate atheistic paintings

Movies like blowup demonstrate atheistic type productions in cinema.

Logically, since atheism is a philosophy of fragmentation, we see this fragmentation intensely in aesthetics (e.g. Duchamps descending staircase).

However, if you compare the ideas of Christianity and examine the art that represent this philosophy, you find the strongest forms of aesthetics in the world. Look at the Golden Age of Art In Dutch (1625 -1700). This realism is recognized as some of the most beautiful art in the world.

From around 1650-1700 you find the sciences and art intensified regarding virtually ALL subjects via a liberal arts framework.

We do understand there is a natural role for a woman and a man. This is the valid dichtomy between ontology and economics

The ontological relationship between a man and a woman are equal.

The economical relationship between a man and a woman are NOT equal. Man is designed with a more logical means of leadership and by the biology and spiritual aspect, we see a different role.

It is with this economical aspect I say it is unwise for a woman to be in politics, or the military, or for a woman to dig for oil.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13211
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
RobbyPants wrote:As a

RobbyPants wrote:
As a staunch anti-vegetarian, I have to wonder whether or not people who play Halo can be trusted quite often.  This is especially when it comes to the pro-mushroom vegetarian movement which insists on the supremacy of eating mushrooms on pizza over pepperoni.  Halo players support eating mushrooms on pizza as an alternative to eating pepperoni.~snip

Holy shit lol. That was just perfect.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Argotitan
Posts: 88
Joined: 2013-01-18
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:Argotitan

iwbiek wrote:

Argotitan wrote:

 

You should read Immanuel Kant's second critique to understand pragmatism more reliably...

...but before that, you should read his first.  Practical reason depends on pure reason.  Without a duty to ontology AKA deontology, the source of practice is being taken for granted.

Seriously, if you want to understand German idealism, throw Marx away and go to the source.

what the hell?  seriously, what the fuck?  how did we get on this shit?

number one, where, in all our conversations, have i even mentioned marx?  why bring up marx at all?  and yes, i know i shouldn't read marx to understand german idealism because marx wasn't a fucking idealist.

number two, i'm not going to read kant to understand pragmatism, because that would be like reading marx to understand idealism.  if you want pragmatism, you go to james or dewey.

number three, please understand, i am not a person who recognizes authorities.  just because i reference kant does not mean i take him as any sort of authority--in kant's case, quite the opposite.  i know ontology is essential to idealism, and since i have already stated multiple times that i do not recognize ontology as valid, it should be obvious i am not an idealist, so why should i take kant seriously?  i was not saying he does not have an ontology, and a close reading of what i said will make that obvious.  of course the idea of the thing-in-itself is an ontological idea.  i was merely stating the fact that even kant maintains that being cannot be directly perceived, which supports my assertion that ontology is nonfalsifiable.

also, just because i mention a philosopher does not mean i claim to be an authority on his philosophy.  i have read kant's critiques in extracts and summaries, and for me that was more than enough.  his philosophy does not appeal to me enough to sacrifice weeks slogging through those overlong cinderblocks of his. 

i'm beginning to think you're only skimming what i say, you saw "kant" in there and thought, "a-ha!  i'll school him on kant!"

Go back to post #72.  I apologized for reading you haphazardly.

Also, if you want pragmatism, you should understand that it originates from Peirce referring to Kant.  Peirce's problem is he only studied the first critique, never moving onto the second: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/peirce/#bio


Argotitan
Posts: 88
Joined: 2013-01-18
User is offlineOffline
GodsUseForAMosquito

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

Argotitan wrote:

 

Aesthetics are not merely about appearances.  There's an application to them as well.

When you merely refer to the work of art without its role or influence in society, you prove you don't know what aesthetics are about.  Aesthetics are not something to take lightly.  They sensationalize and encourage forms of thought.  Literally, aesthetics are forms, and they evoke imaginative schematics.

If you want, show how atheists understand the influence of forms in society with regards to social movements in establishing a sustainable culture.

Wait, which branch of Aesthetics are you talking about? If you read Kant recently you'd know that his third Moment states that beautiful things should be purposive but serve no definite purpose.. So IF we're talking about Kantian Aesthetics, you've just contradicted yourself that a work of art (or other beautiful thing) has a role. He states that art critics must necessarily abstract the purpose behind such are in order to form an Aesthetic judgement.

But perhaps you're not talking about Kant.

Correct.  They are purposive without purpose.  They need to symbolize something without the underlying ontology.  

The problem is you haven't demonstrated what those aesthetics are symbolizing, nor have you demonstrated the variety of abstractions that are judged.  


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4221
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Argotitan wrote:Perception

Argotitan wrote:

Perception has noumenal and phenomenal categories. 

of course.  however, the perception of phenomena does not necessitate ontology.  noumenal and phenomenal categories do nothing other than prove the (conceptual)existence of themselves.  phenomenal perception does not prove a "real" existent object.  in other words, were there no consciousness, and this no perception, it does not necessarily follow that there would be objects with the potential of being perceived.  there might be, there might not be: we cannot stand outside our own consciousness as an observer, so there's no point in basing a worldview on it.  ontology does not depend upon perception.  phenomena do.

Argotitan wrote:

Ontology is necessary to evaluate schematics and then recognize them in the phenomenal world.  For example, there is no such thing as a real square.  Squares are ideal schematics and then approximated in the real world.

ridiculous.  we can just as easily say that we evaluate our world based on our experiences.  that's the whole point of inference.  i see an object with four corners and it makes an impression in my mind.  later, i see a nearly identical object and immediately associate it with the one i've seen before and conclude they're more or less the same type of object.  later on, someone i trust tells me a four-cornered object is called a square, so i apply that label to the object in my mind.  there is no need for some "form" to tie them all together.  if there are "forms" anywhere, they are in our own psyches.  ontology is not necessary, and idealism is an insult to the organizational and associative skills of the human brain.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Argotitan
Posts: 88
Joined: 2013-01-18
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:of course.

iwbiek wrote:
of course. however, the perception of phenomena does not necessitate ontology. noumenal and phenomenal categories do nothing other than prove the (conceptual)existence of themselves. phenomenal perception does not prove a "real" existent object. in other words, were there no consciousness, and this no perception, it does not necessarily follow that there would be objects with the potential of being perceived. there might be, there might not be: we cannot stand outside our own consciousness as an observer, so there's no point in basing a worldview on it. ontology does not depend upon perception. phenomena do.

 

Kant has a famous quote about this, "Thoughts without content are empty.  Intuitions without concepts are blind."

Without schematic perception, all you have is a world of whizzing atoms.  Sensation does not necessitate organization.  I almost get the impression you believe in the teleological proof of God or intelligent design as if the proper appearance of objects is just blatantly obvious.  

There's even a visual empirical example of this - optical illusions.  The mere existence of something does not mean it necessarily has a singular proper perceptive appearance.  The same thing applies to music.  People can listen to the same tones in different modes.

iwbiek wrote:
ridiculous. we can just as easily say that we evaluate our world based on our experiences. that's the whole point of inference. i see an object with four corners and it makes an impression in my mind. later, i see a nearly identical object and immediately associate it with the one i've seen before and conclude they're more or less the same type of object. later on, someone i trust tells me a four-cornered object is called a square, so i apply that label to the object in my mind. there is no need for some "form" to tie them all together. if there are "forms" anywhere, they are in our own psyches. ontology is not necessary, and idealism is an insult to the organizational and associative skills of the human brain.

You're begging the question.  The mere conclusion of experiences does not necessarily mean sensations have been naturally perceived into ontological schematics.  You do not "see" corners.  What you see is a manifold of an infinite amount of locations of light being reflected.

At some level, a choice must be made to organize those locations.  Otherwise, you again just have a world of whizzing atoms.

 


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4221
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Argotitan wrote: Kant has a

Argotitan wrote:

 

Kant has a famous quote about this, "Thoughts without content are empty.  Intuitions without concepts are blind."

i don't care what kant said.  i thought i made that clear.

Argotitan wrote:

Without schematic perception, all you have is a world of whizzing atoms. 

and?  plenty of thinkers have argued just that, among them heraclitus and the sautrantika school of mainstream buddhism.

Argotitan wrote:

I almost get the impression you believe in the teleological proof of God or intelligent design as if the proper appearance of objects is just blatantly obvious. 

what????  how on earth could i take teleology seriously if i don't take ontology seriously?  my point is there is no such thing as "proper appearance," you dullard!  everything is arbitrary.  everything.  a chair might as well be a snuffleupagus for all the meaning the universe has.  any standard--any standard--cannot be demonstrated to be anything more than our own superimpositions.  how is that anywhere near teleology???? 

Argotitan wrote:

There's even a visual empirical example of this - optical illusions.  The mere existence of something does not mean it necessarily has a singular proper perceptive appearance.  The same thing applies to music.  People can listen to the same tones in different modes.

precisely my point!  and this necessitates ontology how?

Argotitan wrote:

You're begging the question. 

because the question has no answer.

and i don't even ask it in the first place.  christ...

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
RobbyPants wrote:As a

RobbyPants wrote:

As a staunch anti-vegetarian, I have to wonder whether or not people who play Halo can be trusted quite often.  This is especially when it comes to the pro-mushroom vegetarian movement which insists on the supremacy of eating mushrooms on pizza over pepperoni.  Halo players support eating mushrooms on pizza as an alternative to eating pepperoni. 

When I was growing up, I actually used to like mushrooms.  I didn’t like pepperoni because it was too spicy. 

As I got older, however, I realized that mushrooms weren’t all they’re cracked up to be.  They taste gross, but pepperoni tastes awesome. 

Pro-mushroom vegetarians support this, however, especially since pepperoni contains meat and they don’t eat it.  In turn, people eating pepperoni become socially alienated due to vegetarianism's influence in private pizza shops which props vegetarians up despite how social fabric is unweaved in general against all pizza buyers...

...so I'm curious how Halo players view this.  I'm not familiar with many Halo players who are concerned about eating pepperoni on their pizza.  They seem to share vegetarian concerns over pizza toppings.

 

That's literally how much sense the OP made to me, both in terms of bizarre assumptions and overall content.

 

ROFLMAO !

That is about as much sense as it made to me as well.

In fact, that could be what the OP is trying to say for all I know at this point.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Argotitan
Posts: 88
Joined: 2013-01-18
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote: what???? how

iwbiek wrote:
what???? how on earth could i take teleology seriously if i don't take ontology seriously?

You're contradicting yourself now:

iwbiek wrote:
ontology is not necessary

_________

iwbiek wrote:
my point is there is no such thing as "proper appearance,"

Again, you're contradicting yourself:

iwbiek wrote:
we can just as easily say that we evaluate our world based on our experiences. that's the whole point of inference. i see an object with four corners and it makes an impression in my mind.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13211
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I wonder when this crackpot

I wonder when this crackpot who hasn't a clue will give up.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4221
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Argotitan wrote:iwbiek

Argotitan wrote:

iwbiek wrote:
what???? how on earth could i take teleology seriously if i don't take ontology seriously?

You're contradicting yourself now:

iwbiek wrote:
ontology is not necessary

_________

iwbiek wrote:
my point is there is no such thing as "proper appearance,"

Again, you're contradicting yourself:

iwbiek wrote:
we can just as easily say that we evaluate our world based on our experiences. that's the whole point of inference. i see an object with four corners and it makes an impression in my mind.

how can i speak to someone who seems quite literally to have no skills in comprehension??????

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


GodsUseForAMosquito
Moderator
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
 Seconded - I see not

 Seconded - I see not contradictions in these statements you made - only corroboration.