http://bitchspot.jadedragononline.com/2018/12/19/atheism-and-the-burden-of-proof/
got me thinking, trying to resolve cognitive dissonance of Kant, Plato, and reality. I think I have, and religion still loses. There is no physical god, just the eidos of a god in the mind of the believers. Eidos is a Greek word, the root of idea, but meaning more like an concept. It is like Plato's form, and Kants division of a priori, not physical but realish in our minds, but some of them have real counterparts, some do not. Gods are one that the eidos has no real counterpart.
We can divide our thinking into two main groups of objects, those who represent real objects, and those who have no real counterpart. Those with no real counterpart may have evidence of existence as processes, amplifiers, or have no evidence, as fiction or something else. No evidence suggests it is false. Like gods. It is all that simple.
There is no point arguing with people who have a wrong concept locked in. It is belief that is emotionally tied to their thinking, and must be chipped off, one tentacle at a time. The belief is interlocked with their concept of self. Nothing is going to change their mind until they start to question the belief.
Kant was a philosopher that separated morality and his beliefs, he defined good will as the greatest good, followed by happiness. He realized he was contented with Pietism splinter of Lutharanism, and never explored options; good will and happiness as it was, was sufficient. He did not depend on religion for moral direction, education, medicine, but was content with religion for his social needs. Please note that good will and goodwill are different. Will is about what drives us, while goodwill is a friendly attitude, compassion, charity. We need to have a drive to the good, not just posses virtue but also to act. We can be virtuous and be a hermit, do very little. Or we can be active doing... but all the while maintaining virtue. These are different reproaches.
Kant was famous for splitting knowledge, experience based and a priori. A priori can further be split into real and fiction, with the fiction dropping as trivial, to be "flung on the fire forthwith." That is where the god concept belongs.
Friday, December 21, 2018
Friday, December 14, 2018
Temporal vs. Sensible
Temporal vs. Sensible
After reading a bit of Plato and Kant, it is clear that there are two worlds, a temporal world and a sensible world. This is an important distinction going forward.
By temporal I do not mean anything to do with time, but between the temples, and that is the in the brain, not religious structures. For clarity, the temporal world must exist, but represents the sensible world, but has no physical existence, but as we can examine it, share it through communication of ideas, concepts, and the Greek word, eidos to reduce confusion. Eidos is the root of ideas, yet has a more temporal denotation... the original concept of what I am on about here.
The sensible world here is the physical world that we can measure, and sense through the senses. So now that we have two separated "worlds", we can look at each separately. Anything, even god can exist in the temporal world, for the word exists, yet it has no powers beyond those we assign it, and no partner in the sensible world. Pythagoras Theorem exists in the temporal world (tworld), and has a partner in the sensible world (sworld), as many thing do. Not so for gods, fairies, elves, gremlins, satin, etc. That which is not partnered in the sworld, is, well, fake.
Philosophy is work in the tworld, and we must always be sure that it has a partner in the sworld, else, it to, is fake.
This may be the Kant's green glasses.
But not so fast here!! What about the Nominal world of Kant, it that is what he caobjects lled the actual world that is the world that we sense? So now we have three worlds, actual, what we sense, and what we think we sense that resides only in our mind. In the Buddhist tradition there is the Mangala of the Nine objects of a finger pointing at the moon.Is this the same damn thing?
After reading a bit of Plato and Kant, it is clear that there are two worlds, a temporal world and a sensible world. This is an important distinction going forward.
By temporal I do not mean anything to do with time, but between the temples, and that is the in the brain, not religious structures. For clarity, the temporal world must exist, but represents the sensible world, but has no physical existence, but as we can examine it, share it through communication of ideas, concepts, and the Greek word, eidos to reduce confusion. Eidos is the root of ideas, yet has a more temporal denotation... the original concept of what I am on about here.
The sensible world here is the physical world that we can measure, and sense through the senses. So now that we have two separated "worlds", we can look at each separately. Anything, even god can exist in the temporal world, for the word exists, yet it has no powers beyond those we assign it, and no partner in the sensible world. Pythagoras Theorem exists in the temporal world (tworld), and has a partner in the sensible world (sworld), as many thing do. Not so for gods, fairies, elves, gremlins, satin, etc. That which is not partnered in the sworld, is, well, fake.
Philosophy is work in the tworld, and we must always be sure that it has a partner in the sworld, else, it to, is fake.
This may be the Kant's green glasses.
But not so fast here!! What about the Nominal world of Kant, it that is what he caobjects lled the actual world that is the world that we sense? So now we have three worlds, actual, what we sense, and what we think we sense that resides only in our mind. In the Buddhist tradition there is the Mangala of the Nine objects of a finger pointing at the moon.Is this the same damn thing?
Tuesday, December 4, 2018
Negative People
Perhaps I am just a negative person? Or perhaps realistic.
Sir David Attenborough addresses the UN climate change summit in Poland with a stark warning:
Skeptics are just negative people who are proud of being negative. Well maybe, at least they claim to be looking carefully at what is being offered, but through their own biases. That is the real problem, have they ever examined their own biases, and they are all to happy to interrupt any discussion, to displace any argument. They are not listening learning, but shut down and carry on type thinking. Oh well, reject that group as something to label myself as.
Ethic limit become the defined limit of behavior that is acceptable to the people. We may not agree, but it is an attempt to define. Consider the UN Delectation of Human Rights; it has one item about freedom of religion which will contribute to everlasting trouble. The right for people to teach their children hatred, and wrong information, in the form of religion. If we want peace, all religion should be considered a partly correct historical belief system. By doing mash ups, we can see what is correct and what is not. Reject the incorrect, accept the correct.
We need to exhibit characteristics like compassion but not to devote our life to them. It is what we get from those characteristics that drives us forward, all the while knowing that there are people who depend on those characteristics to make a living. These people we can ignore... for they are users. This eliminates helping of the habitual and those who live off the habitual like charities. Collecting for the orphans in Africa is for others to support. We need to educate and support local first. I do that through my taxes, as much is wasted through welfare.
Some see my attitude as negative, and that is there choice. I do not give to paid collectors. Any organization that does not provide an audited statement on line or in print of their paid out to collections ratio are businesses, not charities. And they call me negative.
Sir David Attenborough addresses the UN climate change summit in Poland with a stark warning:
If we don’t take action, the collapse of our civilisations and the extinction of much of the natural world is on the horizon. … The world’s people have spoken. Time is running out. They want you, the decision-makers, to act now. Leaders of the world, you must lead. The continuation of civilisations and the natural world upon which we depend is in your hands.Overpopulation is how I define this problem. A world wide one child policy, and UN declaration of "do not teach hatred or violence to your children" would be a good start.
Skeptics are just negative people who are proud of being negative. Well maybe, at least they claim to be looking carefully at what is being offered, but through their own biases. That is the real problem, have they ever examined their own biases, and they are all to happy to interrupt any discussion, to displace any argument. They are not listening learning, but shut down and carry on type thinking. Oh well, reject that group as something to label myself as.
Ethic limit become the defined limit of behavior that is acceptable to the people. We may not agree, but it is an attempt to define. Consider the UN Delectation of Human Rights; it has one item about freedom of religion which will contribute to everlasting trouble. The right for people to teach their children hatred, and wrong information, in the form of religion. If we want peace, all religion should be considered a partly correct historical belief system. By doing mash ups, we can see what is correct and what is not. Reject the incorrect, accept the correct.
We need to exhibit characteristics like compassion but not to devote our life to them. It is what we get from those characteristics that drives us forward, all the while knowing that there are people who depend on those characteristics to make a living. These people we can ignore... for they are users. This eliminates helping of the habitual and those who live off the habitual like charities. Collecting for the orphans in Africa is for others to support. We need to educate and support local first. I do that through my taxes, as much is wasted through welfare.
Some see my attitude as negative, and that is there choice. I do not give to paid collectors. Any organization that does not provide an audited statement on line or in print of their paid out to collections ratio are businesses, not charities. And they call me negative.
Thursday, November 29, 2018
Which Group do I fit with
There are the skeptics. These are a negative bunch, always taking every statement apart, and demanding references, then taring up those references as being not good enough or false, unless it agrees with their opinions. And some of their favorite concepts are just wrong.
People are not uniform. Any actual characteristic or physical value we study has a standard distribution, more or less. Social need is one such, and I fall well below one standard deviation below the norm, Oh well, but I do need some interaction. As Eide found in his dyslexia study, all dyslexics have long column spacing and fewer neuron connections, but not all long and few's are dyslexics. Likewise all autistic are short and many's but not all short and many's are autistic. So what does it mean, our genes, and development combine to give us variation, some get more, some get less. Oh well.
Then there are the humanists that cannot make a decision, nor organize meetings or gatherings without a consistence... so nothing ever happens, unless someone make a free choice, and free choice is Riverside Lounge, if it is open and if not, Garneau Lounge, but parking is too expensive, and there is never a preset topic, so we go off the rails.
There is the Society of Edmonton Atheists, who like to hold meetings in the north and west ends of the city... the next city, along way from home, and frequently in ale houses. If I lived closer... oh well. These are a bunch of activists, that happen to be all atheists, but most are activists in other areas...mostly. I just do not care about gays, abortions, some Alberta political parties, nor peoples. They just do not matter. I struggle with understanding the people and their motives.
There is the no authority (no god) ethics group, who love to talk and hear themselves explore... but after I took the time to read two textbooks on ethics and several other books, perhaps ten, I realize that much is just beating of gums, not real but just noise. Existential philosophy as MacQuarrie preaches is ok for those who made a conscious decision to "keep on living", but we are responsible without that decision. His revelation was just that; a point in time that the revelation occurred; we were always responsible, even if we never realized we were, even if we never got so low as to contemplate suicide. But ethics has value, and need to be studied. We as a people can draw an arbitrary line in the sand on any subject.
So I shoot archery at a club, and coach a few on Saturdays, well actually I do the "introduction to archery," traditional archery that is, for try out first timers. If they come back a couple of time, they become potential members. But that is two days a week, and I still need more. This has nothing to do with philosophy, eating/not eating, and is just a bit of exercise.
People are not uniform. Any actual characteristic or physical value we study has a standard distribution, more or less. Social need is one such, and I fall well below one standard deviation below the norm, Oh well, but I do need some interaction. As Eide found in his dyslexia study, all dyslexics have long column spacing and fewer neuron connections, but not all long and few's are dyslexics. Likewise all autistic are short and many's but not all short and many's are autistic. So what does it mean, our genes, and development combine to give us variation, some get more, some get less. Oh well.
Then there are the humanists that cannot make a decision, nor organize meetings or gatherings without a consistence... so nothing ever happens, unless someone make a free choice, and free choice is Riverside Lounge, if it is open and if not, Garneau Lounge, but parking is too expensive, and there is never a preset topic, so we go off the rails.
There is the Society of Edmonton Atheists, who like to hold meetings in the north and west ends of the city... the next city, along way from home, and frequently in ale houses. If I lived closer... oh well. These are a bunch of activists, that happen to be all atheists, but most are activists in other areas...mostly. I just do not care about gays, abortions, some Alberta political parties, nor peoples. They just do not matter. I struggle with understanding the people and their motives.
There is the no authority (no god) ethics group, who love to talk and hear themselves explore... but after I took the time to read two textbooks on ethics and several other books, perhaps ten, I realize that much is just beating of gums, not real but just noise. Existential philosophy as MacQuarrie preaches is ok for those who made a conscious decision to "keep on living", but we are responsible without that decision. His revelation was just that; a point in time that the revelation occurred; we were always responsible, even if we never realized we were, even if we never got so low as to contemplate suicide. But ethics has value, and need to be studied. We as a people can draw an arbitrary line in the sand on any subject.
So I shoot archery at a club, and coach a few on Saturdays, well actually I do the "introduction to archery," traditional archery that is, for try out first timers. If they come back a couple of time, they become potential members. But that is two days a week, and I still need more. This has nothing to do with philosophy, eating/not eating, and is just a bit of exercise.
Monday, November 26, 2018
US gases Children
https://i0.wp.com/freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/files/2018/11/gassedfamilies.jpg?ssl=1
This picture is the west end of the existing border wall. All that is seen is US property, south of the wall. In fact, the people are already within the US. The south bank of the drainage ditch is about the US-Mexico border here.
So here we have a physical barrier at a different location than the actual political border. This becomes a no man's land, or is it part of the US?
This picture is the west end of the existing border wall. All that is seen is US property, south of the wall. In fact, the people are already within the US. The south bank of the drainage ditch is about the US-Mexico border here.
So here we have a physical barrier at a different location than the actual political border. This becomes a no man's land, or is it part of the US?
Sunday, November 25, 2018
That warm fuzzy feeling
https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2018/11/25/christian-astrophysicist-has-5-unconvincing-reasons-shes-no-longer-an-atheist/
- Christianity gives me meaning and hope.
So there is nothing wrong with the warm fuzzy feeling, but when you need to suspend reality to induce that feeling....
There are two parts to the placebo effect; feeling better and being better. That is the deceptive part, we get a breath of fresh air and we feel better, but our body, reality has not changed. We have the same problem.
So what is the point of helping people to see reality of religion as a fraud, promising something they cannot deliver? And at the same time a religion that prospers from those frauds. It does not matter, we all just die in the end.
Canada allows the import of guns that have no purpose but to kill people. We allow the sale of said weapons to civilians. And we get upset when someone uses them? Get a hold of something and give your head a shake. The US has it worse since they manufacture said guns. It you want to correct the problem, start at the source.
- Christianity gives me meaning and hope.
So there is nothing wrong with the warm fuzzy feeling, but when you need to suspend reality to induce that feeling....
There are two parts to the placebo effect; feeling better and being better. That is the deceptive part, we get a breath of fresh air and we feel better, but our body, reality has not changed. We have the same problem.
So what is the point of helping people to see reality of religion as a fraud, promising something they cannot deliver? And at the same time a religion that prospers from those frauds. It does not matter, we all just die in the end.
Canada allows the import of guns that have no purpose but to kill people. We allow the sale of said weapons to civilians. And we get upset when someone uses them? Get a hold of something and give your head a shake. The US has it worse since they manufacture said guns. It you want to correct the problem, start at the source.
Friday, November 23, 2018
Asymmetrical Thinking
Asymmetrical Thinking
Symmetrical thinking, we humans should be equal, our input and output should equal. Christians and Muslims should be open to honest and deep negotiations to find the truth with Atheists.Logic should rule the world. But this is not the case; we are buried in asymmetrical thinking.
The US sells guns that are good for nothing besides killing each other, and becomes upset when some one uses them. They sell the Saudi's bombs and guns, and become upset when they use them on their own citizens and neighbors. We already know what a bunch of savages the Muslims and Christians are.
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2018/11/u-s-missionary-killed-by-remote-andaman-islands-tribe-he-wanted-to-convert-to-christianity/
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/nosacredcows/2018/11/christian-group-wants-native-tribe-brought-to-justice-for-death-of-missionary/
So the Christians want to apply their laws to an area that their laws do not apply? What a bunch of wank-a-doodles.
It is not the situation that causes the problem but our thinking about the situation. Asymmetrical is one of those thinking problems that we must identify and overcome.
Societal Inertia
Society inertia, that is the direction that our society is heading, and the drag pressure of that society takes us into dangerous and just wrong thinking as well. What are we individual citizens to do when the society we live in is dragging into problems? Abandon the society? Ignore the society? Anchor deep and resist? Go with the flow? Try to change society? Create a new and separate society?
The obesity problem is really an overeating problem as a result of the society we live in. Could the real problem be our environment and the effectiveness of advertising; causing the increased pressure/temptation to eat?
Symmetrical thinking, we humans should be equal, our input and output should equal. Christians and Muslims should be open to honest and deep negotiations to find the truth with Atheists.Logic should rule the world. But this is not the case; we are buried in asymmetrical thinking.
The US sells guns that are good for nothing besides killing each other, and becomes upset when some one uses them. They sell the Saudi's bombs and guns, and become upset when they use them on their own citizens and neighbors. We already know what a bunch of savages the Muslims and Christians are.
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2018/11/u-s-missionary-killed-by-remote-andaman-islands-tribe-he-wanted-to-convert-to-christianity/
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/nosacredcows/2018/11/christian-group-wants-native-tribe-brought-to-justice-for-death-of-missionary/
So the Christians want to apply their laws to an area that their laws do not apply? What a bunch of wank-a-doodles.
It is not the situation that causes the problem but our thinking about the situation. Asymmetrical is one of those thinking problems that we must identify and overcome.
Societal Inertia
Society inertia, that is the direction that our society is heading, and the drag pressure of that society takes us into dangerous and just wrong thinking as well. What are we individual citizens to do when the society we live in is dragging into problems? Abandon the society? Ignore the society? Anchor deep and resist? Go with the flow? Try to change society? Create a new and separate society?
The obesity problem is really an overeating problem as a result of the society we live in. Could the real problem be our environment and the effectiveness of advertising; causing the increased pressure/temptation to eat?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)