bert are you actually odinist or do you just find it fascinating/ enjoy studying and participating in that mythos?
bert are you actually odinist or do you just find it fascinating/ enjoy studying and participating in that mythos?
Well, I don’t like to use the term Odinist, for one it makes it seem there’s allegiance to one god (which isn’t out of question to have specific “god cults” in polytheistic systems), but someone also put it well as “Odinism: Asatru for prison gangs and white supremacists.” It’s just a matter of semantics, and Heathen is the best fit. To your question it’s a bit of both. As far as the beliefs, values, views, etc. go I find myself in tune with it, but studying it is a task, well, reconstruction on a whole is a task. People who’ve spent 30 years involved in reconstructing it can tell you there’s a lot of work, but it can pay off. When you get deeper into people will reconstruct and follow more specific folk customs/traditions, I’m still on the broad line of it, especially since I’m not part of any kindred. On a whole religion/myth interests me. I also have an interest in Hinduism, the literature and gods are just as crazy as the Norse and it stands out to me, but I have no interest in practicing that on the exception of meditative yoga. (Someone once referred to my interests as a “holy trinity” regarding the 3 H’s: Heathen, Hellenic, and Hindu.)
@ Clayton
Thanks, that clarifies it more. I still don’t “get” it, but I will reread. Some times it takes me a while to digest things like this.
Accuracy of our sense perceptions to what? The Matrix? People within the Matrix can construct trancendental arguments just as well as people outside of it. That means that my ability to construct a transcendental argument does not preclude the possibility that I am actually embedded in the Matrix.
Skepticism is the realm of the weak and puerile. If you can’t handle the possibility that the world could, at root, be very different from what you perceive it to be, that’s a personal problem. And the fact that some people can react in this manner doesn’t prove we need to get more certain lest the same fate overtake us. It simply proves that mental fear, doubt and intimidation gets the better of some people.
I have no reason to doubt that the world is anything other than it appears to be. That doesn’t preclude the possibility that the world is very different than it appears to be. But I don’t need to be certain that the world is not something other than it appears to be. I have no use for such worry and I doubt that anyone else does, either.
Finally, I reject the idea that anyone - Pope, prophet, scholar, etc. - has any better idea about what the world really is than I have. Call it hubris if you like. Those who attempt to intimidate others with the insinuation that they have some kind of inside track on reality are just charlatans. If they have something useful to contribute to human knowledge, let them speak up. Otherwise, they should quit trying to instill fear into other people for whatever purpose.
Clayton -
Fell free to email me: bknotyalc@gmail.com (reverse the part before the ‘@’).
Relativism is a logical consequence of subjectivism, I affirm subjectivism so I affirm subjectivist-relativism.
However, I think it is safe to say that most academics deny subjectivism to one degree or another - at least, when you get to subjective valuation. Most people tend to deny this. Even smart, educated people deny it despite the fact that it entails logical contradictions to deny it. What they really mean when they speak of “relativism” is a kind of tyranny-of-the-consensus-opinion. Just look at the global warming debate, for example. Since all truth is relative, the individual has “just one vote” on what is true or false. But the collective represents “objective reality” and, therefore, should supersede the relative truth of the individual.
But you’re right, I need to clean up that section to be more clear about this.
Clayton -
Maybe my opening post is not true, in case that Authority can’t be a primary way of knowing, in the sense that we First know things by authority, and only then by reason and sense.
If the idea that Authority is a primary way of knowing is self contradictory, then fundamentalism makes no sense. Otherwise, it is even reasonable to assert that if god orders killing, then it is morally right. Since god is the Authority.
As I point out extensively in the linked discussion evolution can only lead to superior survival chances not superior knowledge unless you define knowledge in a purely pragmatic sense.
It does not follow from saying that our senses were designed for true knowledge that they always work in the way in which they were designed. My argument only provides the grounds for the possibility of true knowledge, not necessarily the probability that we’ll discover true knowledge. The doctrine of the Fall explains well that despite being designed well we are faulty and can come to incorrect conclusions about what is. However without the pre-fallen well designed state we have no canvas on which to paint are good, and even more so our bad, pictures.
‘only lead to’ , thats very greedy, its like saying that evolution could only lead to superior surival chances but not to superior music appreciate or ability to experience love
In the realm of domesticated dogs, evolution has lead not only to superior survival chances but also to superior ‘cuteness’,‘friendliness’ etc, in those breeds which have been geared towards the production of pleasing family pets.
evolution does not exclude great achievement, it certainly does not preclude developing senses throughwhich increasingly better modes of perceiving the external world .
On your second point, you seem to have completely missed that the human visualisation system, has a design which if one was to impart a teleology to the designer (which is a false step) one would have to conclude that he was a deceiver. Do you know what a blind spot is ? You introduce the notion of ‘the fall’, are you saying that the devil monkeyed around with eyeball mechanics so as to introduce a systematically deceiving flaw ? interesting theology you have there.
Point 1- Naturalistic evolutionary theory can only lead to better survival chances which does not correspond with true knowledge. See my link above for extensive argumentation on this issue.
Point 2- Following Point 1, it is still the case evolution cannot provide the grounds for the possibility of true knowledge.
Regarding the fall- suppose that man is a car and he is running as designed. Then the car decides to cease refueling with unleaded petrol and instead refuels with cheap cider. One would expect problems to occur which are down to the responsibility of the car not the designer unless you argue that giving freedom of the will to the car was a wrong decision. Now also assume the car can reproduce these mechanical problems would be passed down through the ages. Even if the son of the original car began refuelling with unleaded there would still be mechanical damage which needs repairing- it needs an overhaul.
The Fall is cutting off our fuel supply from God causing physical problems whereas the overhaul is the new body in the resurrection.
NB. You still haven’t established evolution giving grounds for true knowledge. The design by a good designer does irrespective of the issues that go with it.
Point 1- Naturalistic evolutionary theory can only lead to better survival chances which does not correspond with true knowledge. See my link above for >>extensive argumentation on this issue.
I don’t know what you mean when you say ‘true knowledge’. If you mean ability to know whether or not a tiger is in the room with you, then certainly you must be able to grant that an evelotionary designed system can achieve that. Do I need to give you a computer model of mice, and show you how evolutionary forces can dictate that over time the population of software mice have superior abilities at recognising where digital food is than their ancient forbears?
Are you saying that adam and eve’s eyeballs had a different construction before and after eve bit a magic apple. and that their ancestors are persumably perfectly inerited copies of these defective post fall eyeballs ? I want to understand your position on this before I offer a critique.
Point 1. I don’t want to repeat myself on this issue so please read my posts on this thread and respond based upon them.
Point 2. I dislike your wording of construction since it implies a re-design rather than a good design gone wrong but I think you ahve the jist of it.
I think this has turned fruitless, so I’ll say to the gallery that I cant think of any excuse other than that there is a deficiency in the brain caused by the fall of man from perfection that could explain why anyone would pronounce ‘As argued extensively here evolution cannot account fro truth seeking senses’ when it should be quite obvious to those with a passing familiarity with evolutionary science that evolution does offer an account for how truth seeking sense develop. So obviously god exists.
Obviously evolutionary science offers an account for how ‘truth seeking senses’ develop, just as Marxists have provided rejoinders to the subjective theory of value. The question is whether or not these accounts are successful. Moreover, the argument is an inference to best the explanation, so it doesn’t conclude with what you think it does. It just says given certain facts, the most plausible framework is a theistic one, so it’s slightly more subtle than you might be making it out to be in all fairness.
Knowledge and accounting for knowledge are two separate problems. The quote in the OP of the thread Physiocrat linked to says it all:
It really doesn’t matter how we know, all that matters is that we know. Now, the larger metaphysical question regards the exhaustivenes of our knowledge, that is, do we know absolutely or is our knowing susceptible to exception? Given a mild assumption about the nature of the human mind (that our minds can’t solve uncomputable problems), we can prove that the human knowledge is necessarily susceptible to exception so the problem of our knowledge not being absolute is a red herring. Of course it’s not absolute. Of course it’s possible that we are deluded about the “real reality”. The proper response to this is: so what? To tangle oneself in such metaphysical angst is simply to give up one’s peace of mind for nothing in return. It is folly, at best, and those who push such metaphysical problems onto others are fear-mongers.
Clayton -
God is a sloppy designer (if he exists) and it took him billions of human years to develop the universe… that’s just retardedly slow. It’s easy to disprove theistic God, or at least, to show, how he/she is not different from other human beings - he makes errors, is quite retarded, psychotic, megalomaniac and probably a jew. But it’s quite impossible to disprove deistic God. It changes its form once a science makes some break through towards the nature of the universe and how it was “born”. However, that doesn’t prove its existence either. Paraphrasing JuniorBacon, “define God, point to something that I can conceive what it is. Otherwise it is nonexistent.”
what is your basis for comparison?
“retardedly slow” relative to what?
funny how something “easy” still hasnt been performed, despite generations of attempts. also, I would like an example of God in error, an explanation of how God could be “quite retarded,” and explanations of how He could be psychotic and of course megalomaniacal.
this is also false, deistic God doesnt change form, ever. Deistic God is the initial first cause of the universe (that is not an effect of anything).
sounds like theological noncognitivism, which is the philosophical equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and screaming “YOU CANNOT MAKE ME UNDERSTAND” over and over until people stop trying. The term “God” is easily defined, and has been for years.
God-ontologically supreme entity
God-creator of the universe, author of existence
God-initial first cause of the universe, the uncaused cause.
God-omniscient and omnipotent being that exists independently of the universe, and upon whose will the universe exists.
I also think its funny how you had all kinds of assumptions about something that supposedly couldnt even be defined. Looks like your two problems were related.
“what is your basis for comparison?”
Human technology.
““retardedly slow” relative to what?”
To producing something being quite high intelligent, like.. humans do, when they make computers, nano chips and discover the origins of their own species. The universe is as old as it would be if it came into existence though natural means (by itself and without supreme being intervention). One has to suspend his disbelief if one claimed that for supreme highly intelligent being it must have taken BILLIONS of years to produce the universe… that dosn’t make sense. Unless you are fundamentalist, a walking contradiction, a crocoduck.
“funny how something “easy” still hasnt been performed, despite generations of attempts.”
You mean, you weren’t convinced, but the millions of people were convinced, that the Earth is not flat, we didn’t came from Garden of Eden and the Earth is much older than bronze age nomads could have imagined while writing the Bible and Quaran. So I call you bullshiting. Just because you still believe in magic, that doesn’t mean, that it is considered truth nowdays. Those stories are dying out.
“also, I would like an example of God in error, an explanation of how God could be “quite retarded,” and explanations of how He could be psychotic and of course megalomaniacal.”
Did you read any religious text? It’s full of internal contradictions (despite being inspired by “supreme being”) and are actually untrue on many things. Mass murder, demand for obedience, psychotic (demands human sacrifice etc.) but wait wait… he still LOVES people. Now I ask you: if this is not a sign of God’s psychosis, I don’t know what is. We are all probably comepletely healthy, and God is a rainbow.
“this is also false, deistic God doesnt change form, ever. Deistic God is the initial first cause of the universe (that is not an effect of anything).”
No, first it was the Egg, then the Turtle or whatever creature (will have to check ancient myths), after scientists discovered singularity etc, this deistic god became a singularity (big bang, whatever). I think that’s perfect example of its form changing. Sorry, that you disagree. That just shows that you won’t accept the new evidence and you can’t be convinced by rational arguments - perfect example of fundamentalistic thinking.
“God-ontologically supreme entity”
You are not pointing to anything. What it means “supreme entity”? How is it supreme? What is the characteristics of supremacy? You are just wasting my time with such definitions, really.
“God-creator of the universe, author of existence”
Again, it points to NOTHING, it’s a world play. I could equally say, that Easter Bunny is the creator of the Universe. That doesn’t make it more rational. That’s just your imagination and willful thinking. I even would call it a lie.
“God-initial first cause of the universe, the uncaused cause.”
See above. Empty words defining NOTHING. Switching between concepts and calling a bed a rock doesn’t make it into the rock. Bed is bed, rock is rock.
“God-omniscient and omnipotent being that exists independently of the universe, and upon whose will the universe exists.”
more magical thinking. That’s pure assertion, a bold lie. If such being existed with such characteristics… don’t you think it would be easier for him/her to create universe, than to make ERRORS time after time in human evolution for example… why do we need wisdom teeth? Apendix? Belly button? I could go on and on. It’s sloppy desing, just like what you would expect if humans were evolved naturally without divine intervention.
If we are made by the image of God, then we are doomed. I’d rather have Bush as Creator of the Universe than God, which is described in the Bible or Quaran.
also, I would like an example of God in error, an explanation of how God could be “quite retarded,” and explanations of how He could be psychotic and of course megalomaniacal.
So you claim that an bunch of grapes is sloppy but a bbq pork sandwich isnt?
I’m sorry, you arent being very clear here. “God producing the universe in billions of years is retardedly slow relative to producing something being quite high intelligent” just doesnt make any sense. Try again.
this statement requires support. How do you purport to know how long it would have taken the universe to reach its current state in the absence of Divinity?
your argument is what does not make sense. Among other things, you appear to assume that God must necessarily have been working as fast as He possibly could, rather than doing things solely according to His schedule. It is no concern to me whatsoever that God has been “working too slowly” for your liking.
argumentum ad populum. Try again.
the Bible refers to a round Earth (proverbs 8:27). You need to go to sunday school.
actually the Garden of Eden is the period in human history where humans existed in harmony with creation in what we now refer to as aboriginal societies. So the science supports the Bible here too.
do you think you could reference the scripture where the earth is dated? Or is it a matter of interpretation, and I am expected to take an atheist’s interpretation of scripture as more authoritative than the interpretations of people who actually, you know, read the Bible?
if it was easy, you would have done it instead of devolve to a series of non sequitur. So youre the one with the b.s. It seems.
I have a passing familiarity with some texts, and I cant seem to recall any meaningful internal contradictions. Regardless, you could find contradictions in every extant religious text on the planet, and it would not support your series of ridiculous claims.
I am still wondering why you seem to want to argue about “religious texts” when we were discussing God. If the book is untrue, then it isnt very good evidence for your claims about God.
so I am wondering how God could murder someone, even theoretically. Wouldnt that require reference to a moral standard? From whence came these morals by which you claim to judge the divine? Right now it seems like an obfuscatory means of saying “I DONT LIKE IT!” your incomprehension of a deity that demands obedience would seem indicative of your own unfamiliarity with religious texts (its a common theme).
I couldnt find a question in there, but I know you said you were asking me something…perhaps you arent the best person to make accusations of mental illness.
Actually, it was philosophy and religion that postulated a beginning to the universe, scientists tended to adhere to the steady state theory until science discovered evidence to support the theology. As for your mention of ancient myths, I can find atheists who believe different things as well, we both know that discovery of contradicting opinions doesnt disprove another ideology. Try again.
I’m sorry, what was the evidence again? All I saw was your refusal to engage.
well, “ontologically supreme” means that if one were to rank everything extant in ordinal fashion, the noun that is modified by this phrase would be at the top of the list. In this case, “entity” refers to a being. “How is it supreme?” in every way. “What are the characteristics of supremacy?” Precedence in every respect. You are wasting my time with your willful refusal to countenance entire portions of the English language. I cant be the only person who knows how to google a word and click on links.
of course you would, because you are doing everything possible to avoid engaging my arguments. Clearly, we werent trying to define “the easter bunny” so your attempted noncognition is obvious. Your argument may be that there is no such being. Regardless, I have satisfactorily defined the term.
am I to understand, then, that you reject the causality axiom?
are you an austrian? Because if so, you should already be aware that definitions are assertions. You asked for a definition, and you got it. The fact that you immediately default to emotion-based denial, rather than reacting by attacking my arguments, is quite revealing.
are you claiming that evolution is directed by God? Because I always thought it was automatic. Also, why would God be concerned with what is “easiest”? Are you defining God to be someone that is lazy?
first of all, I dont claim that the existence of God necessarily depends on His intervention in evolutionary processes. Thats part of your theology/religion, not mine, please dont ask me to accept it. As for the biological necessity of human tissue, the wisdom teeth are there to chew food, the appendix is a reservoir for gut flora, and the belly button is where the umbilical cord is attached. The design seems fine to me. Your arguments are exceedingly sloppy, however.
at least you finally came clean and admitted what is really the issue here. Your preferences.
Eh, to hell with it:
Now, what is a myth? The dictionary definition of a myth would be stories about gods. So then you have to ask the next question: What is a god? A god is a personification of a motivating power or a value system that functions in human life and in the universe — the powers of your own body and of nature. The myths are metaphorical of spiritual potentiality in the human being, and the same powers that animate our life animate the life of the world.
- Joseph Campbell
Maiku, if you look at the Norse, Greek, Roman, Hindu, etc., all the gods/goddesses are about as crazy and fallible as humans. The projections/archetypes are more in line with representing human nature than that of an all knowing, all powerful, omnipotent, omniscient first creator who’s form is everything and nothing at once and is apparently vain enough to turn the title “god” into it’s own name. Sometimes I feel that it’s almost pantheistic to have this line of thinking. How I view deities isn’t the monotheistic way, and sadly to a lot of people the monotheistic way has become the rule, not the exception.