i can prove god's existence! in a way...

[tambourine_man]

unfortunately, the general consensus of the forum seems to be that belief in god implies belief in doctrine, and in orthodox notions of the supernatural.

but, in my case, belief in god is niether of those things. belief in god is merely the belief in a reality, a consciousness, transcendent of sensory and intellectual perception.
how can such a reality be denied?
is it readily observable? yes, for the individual.
can it be documented on a graph, rationalized and reduced to statistical data? no, and i sincerely hope that no one ever tries.
objection that such a "reality" does not really exist will consequently arise...
but, in response, i consult art, literature, emotion. can anyone honestly deny that the likes of keats, wordsworth, blake, etc. were deeply influenced by something other than material existence? the insight into the human condition that the artists inspire is really too great to be confined to materialist terms.
so, the belief in such a "god" - that is, the belief in a reality (be it a personal state of being/consciousness, awareness, etc.) infinitely more in tune with human emotion than is the immediate material reality - inspired not by despair or external influence, but by personal recognition and embrace of the irrational aspects of existence, is not something that can be repudiated. no, you cannot repudiate mankind's awareness, since his birth, of non-material beauty.
maybe i have committed heresy in a world of almost dogmatic communist materialism. maybe i'll be restricted or something...hopefully not. i love humanity!

[LSD]

belief in god is merely the belief in a reality, a consciousness, transcendent of sensory and intellectual perception.
how can such a reality be denied?

With logic, reason, and thought.

can anyone honestly deny that the likes of keats, wordsworth, blake, etc. were deeply influenced by something other than material existence?

YES!

can it be documented on a graph, rationalized and reduced to statistical data?

No ...and that's the problem.

Your argument is basically an "I believe it so so should you" fallacy. You believe that litterature and such had to have been influence by a higher power ...but you offer no justification.

Saying that something must be true because "it's just true" is not an argument, certainly not "proof" as you claimed!

It is more logical to assume that Keats was simply talented than that he was "touched" by "god". Indeed it denegrates his memory to claim that he "couldn't have done it on his own".

Rational thought is fundamentally based on the premise that that which cannot be logically demonstrated to exist must be assumed to not exist. You have offered no logical support for the existance of supernaturality or "god", therefore we must still assume that no such being exists.

[tambourine_man]

the point is that irrational thought - that is, thought that does not necessarily follow the materialist view of the world, and that embraces beauty, emotion, and a consciousness beyond that of the intellective - offers the greatest insight into the human condition...and so should not be dismissed as nonsense. here, i am not referring to theistic dogmatism, or organized religion, or any "religion" that implies any guidelines of belief whatsoever, but, as i said before, to a deeply personal understanding and acknowledgement of the significance of the non-material.

can anyone honestly deny that the likes of keats, wordsworth, blake, etc. were deeply influenced by something other than material existence?

YES!

as for keats & the romantic poets, i used them as a particularly potent example of the depth of insight that "irrational" thought provides. but virtually every artist demonstrates that.

also, on a specific note, the entire basis for the romantic movement was to escape the rationalization, documentation, calculation of the human soul, and to, instead, glorify nature and the impulses of man. i don't think you can possibly argue that the romantics were materialists.
i.e. "Art is the tree of life. Science is the tree of death." - william blake

It is more logical to assume that Keats was simply talented than that he was "touched" by "god". Indeed it denegrates his memory to claim that he "couldn't have done it on his own".

i did not mean that keats was inspired by god in that sense...i did not mean that "god" literally and deliberately caused his talent (again, that god is a self-conscious being with attributes is only one perspective). i am saying that his (keats&#39 profound and indisputably amazing work was resultant from a deep personal appreciation of human beauty, emotion, natural wonder, spirituality, etc. that transcends the confines of materialist thought.

irrational thought is based on the premise that the obsession with logic, rationality, and science neglects and, indeed, attempts to downplay, the significance of human emotion in its most personal sense. the objectification and routinization of life, even in the name of ideals so great as those of communism, is, ironically, a freedom-destroying process. it implies the unequivocal authority of some certain established institution (say, science, for example), and subtly imposes a regimented lifestyle on the people. technocracy is technocracy, whether communist or capitalist.

(sorry for being repetitive, i'm bad at organizing things)

[redstar2000]

I couldn't help but notice how you sub-titled your thread...

please don't be narrow-minded.

Why not?

That is, what is it about "narrow-mindedness" in and of itself that makes it, in your view, a "bad thing to be"?

Aren't there ideas that we should be "narrow-minded" or even "closed-minded" about?

Things like wage-slavery, imperialism, racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.

Do those ideas have "a good side" that we are ignoring in our "narrow-mindedness"?

Sometimes, we are not narrow-minded enough.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid Diethylamide@May 18 2005, 09:26 PM
Rational thought is fundamentally based on the premise that that which cannot be logically demonstrated to exist must be assumed to not exist. You have offered no logical support for the existance of supernaturality or "god", therefore we must still assume that no such being exists.

I agreed with you until this point. Obviously this would be the best assumption but why assume? Why pick the best of two unproven concepts? I would go on the theory that god doesn't exist but I don't assume such (the "weak" atheist position). Logic does not necessitate any assumptions but quite the opposite as far as I can see.

[Orange Juche]

Originally posted by redstar2000@May 19 2005, 01:56 AM
I couldn't help but notice how you sub-titled your thread...

please don't be narrow-minded.

Why not?

That is, what is it about "narrow-mindedness" in and of itself that makes it, in your view, a "bad thing to be"?

Aren't there ideas that we should be "narrow-minded" or even "closed-minded" about?

Things like wage-slavery, imperialism, racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.

Do those ideas have "a good side" that we are ignoring in our "narrow-mindedness"?

Sometimes, we are not narrow-minded enough.

Theres a difference between being close-minded or narrow-minded, and enforcing your narrow-mindedness on other people. That where you Leninists get it all fucking wrong.

It is good to be narrow-minded about wage-slavery, imperialism, racism, sexism, and homophobia. But to instill a state which tells you that you cannot even ADVOCATE such things is absurd, and oppressive. Just because in your viewpoint something is wrong, does NOT make it wrong. There IS NO right and wrong, it is all ones perception. To enforce YOUR "right" over everyone makes your views have the same worth of those of a fascist.

And what the hell does this have to do with religion anyways? Some of these things are found in some religions, true, but not all religions and you cannot just make general statements of such.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by MeetingPeopleIsEasy
There's a difference between being close-minded or narrow-minded, and enforcing your narrow-mindedness on other people. That where you Leninists get it all fucking wrong.

You should really be a bit more careful; suggesting that I am a "Leninist" may sharply increase the risk of heart attack and stroke for the real Leninists on this board.

Meanwhile, you think it's "a bad thing" for revolutionaries to "enforce our narrow-mindedness on other people".

Ok...what do you propose? Should we go ahead and "let people be capitalists", or imperialists, racists, sexists, homophobes, etc.? Or at least, let them advocate that shit?

What would we gain by that...aside from your approval, of course?

If we want to really smash all this old crap, what do we stand to lose by trying as hard as we can to actually "do it"?

After all, if you want to accomplish something, how is that going to happen if you don't try? And is it not the case that the harder you try (all other things being equal), the more likely you are to succeed?

Just because in your viewpoint something is wrong, does NOT make it wrong. There IS NO right and wrong, it is all one's perception.

Well, we simply disagree about that. I think Marxism is right and the capitalists, etc. are all wrong...and no-good rotten bastards to boot!

To enforce YOUR "right" over everyone makes your views have the same worth of those of a fascist.

I suggest that you do some reading on fascism -- it's not just a "cuss word" to throw at someone you disagree with.

And what the hell does this have to do with religion anyways? Some of these things are found in some religions, true, but not all religions and you cannot just make general statements of such.

No, actually all of those things are found, in varying forms and degrees, in all of the major religions and most of the minor ones. There may be trivial exceptions here and there...but generally you can locate religious "justification" for pretty much any really rotten thing that you might want to do.

Sorry about that.

[LSD]

I agreed with you until this point. Obviously this would be the best assumption but why assume? Why pick the best of two unproven concepts? I would go on the theory that god doesn't exist but I don't assume such (the "weak" atheist position).

Maybe this is a semantic disagreement, but "going on the theory" means assuming.

Logic does not necessitate any assumptions but quite the opposite as far as I can see.

I would disagree.

Logic is predicated on several fundamental axiomatic assumptions. One of the key ones is that that which we cannot demonstrate to exist must be taken to not exist.

Otherwise, how can we differentiate between the true and the false?

If we don't intitially assume the nonexistance of that for which we have no reason to believe exists, logical reasoning becomes impossible. It is essential to begin with the premise that only that which we can reationaly show to be real ...is real.

[codyvo]

Originally posted by tambourine_man@May 19 2005, 02:40 AM
please don't be narrow minded

You mean like believing that you can prove the existence of a god or supernatural power.

[t_wolves_fan]

Here is my proof of God, and my proof that God is a man:

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan
Here is my proof of God, and my proof that God is a man

Women, Beer, and Football, eh?

Well, that's certainly a sharp improvement over most of the wretched arguments we get in this sub-forum!

But how is it that attractive women are few while unattractive women are numerous? Or that good beers are difficult to locate while cat-piss beer flows in rivers? Or that some clubs put a decent team on the field every year while many are consistently lousy?

Was Woody Allen right?

Is God an underachiever?

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by redstar2000+May 19 2005, 05:43 PM--> (redstar2000 @ May 19 2005, 05:43 PM)

t_wolves_fan

Here is my proof of God, and my proof that God is a man

Women, Beer, and Football, eh?

Well, that's certainly a sharp improvement over most of the wretched arguments we get in this sub-forum!

But how is it that attractive women are few while unattractive women are numerous? Or that good beers are difficult to locate while cat-piss beer flows in rivers? Or that some clubs put a decent team on the field every year while many are consistently lousy?

Was Woody Allen right?

Is God an underachiever?

[/b]

Because of free will, we fucked it up.

Lots of fat women because women eat too much.

Lots of cheap beer because we're lazy and stingy.

[Redmau5]

So you're saying it's only fat women who are ugly ? There's plenty of ugly skinny women as well.

[STI]

But how is it that attractive women are few while unattractive women are numerous?

I guess you've never been to Montreal? :P

There IS NO right and wrong, it is all ones perception.

In the "Moral" sense, I agree with you. But, as far as this thread is concerned, I think the term "wrong" was used in the sense of "factually incorrect".

[LSD]

In the "Moral" sense, I agree with you. But, as far as this thread is concerned, I think the term "wrong" was used in the sense of "factually incorrect".

Exactly.

"Morality" is relative, but there are things that are objectively true and things that are false. Its just an unfortunate feature of language that the words "right" and "wrong" are used to refer to both morality and factuality. But that doesn't mean that the concepts are interchangable!

I guess you've never been to Montreal? :P

Represent!

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid Diethylamide@May 19 2005, 10:45 AM
Maybe this is a semantic disagreement, but "going on the theory" means assuming.

Yeah... I wasn't sure how to go about that, this probably does amount mostly to semantics but I wanted to be sure.

Logic does not necessitate any assumptions but quite the opposite as far as I can see.

I would disagree.

Logic is predicated on several fundamental axiomatic assumptions. One of the key ones is that that which we cannot demonstrate to exist must be taken to not exist.

By "quite the opposite" I was referencing how logic generally sidesteps assumptions in pursuit of factual evidence and as such, has the least assumptions possible.

True, but is this taken as fact; or is this simply running theory? Is logic dogmatic? We can omit anything not unproven existent but we have no reason to CLAIM, it does not exist; I would say that is more rhetoric than logic.

Otherwise, how can we differentiate between the true and the false?

We cannot always; EXAMPLE: True or false; I am wearing a hat. You may never know... but I wont keep you in suspense; no, I am not.

If we don't initially assume the nonexistence of that for which we have no reason to believe exists, logical reasoning becomes impossible. It is essential to begin with the premise that only that which we can relationally show to be real ...is real.

I agree and perhaps we come to semantics once again. The difference is that this is assumption and so logical theory not fact but simply assuming this premise for functionality. We cannot logically say "god doesn't exist," except as a premise to test and not as a fact. Atheism as I know it states "god does not exist," as a fact and as such is excluded from logical deduction.

Good discussing semantics with you

[LSD]

We cannot always; EXAMPLE: True or false; I am wearing a hat. You may never know...

There is a critical difference between discussing the presence of something and discussing the existance of something.

You're right, I can't say if you're wearing a hat and so I cannot logically assume either. However, the issue of whether or not you are wearing a hat is an entirely paritical issue. I have no reason to doubt either possibility.

I do have reason to doubt the existance of something which, by its fundamental nature, contradicts available information regarding the universe.

That is, the existance of the supernatural is itself conceptual dichotimous with what I do know based on logic and rational scientific analysis as well as the logic and rational analyses of others.

"God" nescessarily requires the acceptance of the principle of the supernaturalistic and, as such, nescessitates the introduction of a coneptual paradigm not currently present.

Such drastic changes can only be made if there are rational reasons to do so. Since there are not, for the sake of logical integrity, we must assume that the supernatural, and therefore "God", does not exist.

I agree and perhaps we come to semantics once again. The difference is that this is assumption and so logical theory not fact but simply assuming this premise for functionality. We cannot logically say "god doesn't exist," except as a premise to test and not as a fact.

But we can.

In fact we must.

Much as how we say that the entire world is not inside of a gigantic purple turtle. We cannot prove this, but because the concept would require the introduction of previously nonpresent paradigmatic models, we assume it to be false.

Remember assumption does not require rigidity. On the contrary, if it were scientifically proven that "God", or gigantic turtles, did in fact exist, we would throw out the assumptions in a second.

But while such evidence is not present, we must logically deduce that gigantic turtles that surround the entire universe as well as "Gods" so not exist.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by tambourine_man
The point is that irrational thought - that is, thought that does not necessarily follow the materialist view of the world, and that embraces beauty, emotion, and a consciousness beyond that of the intellective - offers the greatest insight into the human condition...and so should not be dismissed as nonsense.

I question, first of all, whether "irrational thought" can, properly speaking, be considered thought at all.

Isn't rationality strongly implied when we use the word "thought"?

What's the difference between "irrational thought" and just simple delusions?

And moreover, how can delusions offer us "insight" into "the human condition"?

What does a phrase like "the human condition" actually mean?

Also, on a specific note, the entire basis for the romantic movement was to escape the rationalization, documentation, calculation of the human soul, and to, instead, glorify nature and the impulses of man.

Yes, that's a reasonable summary. You neglected to mention how a lot of their ideas were borrowed by the early developers of fascist ideology.

Irrational thought is based on the premise that the obsession with logic, rationality, and science neglects and, indeed, attempts to downplay, the significance of human emotion in its most personal sense. The objectification and routinization of life, even in the name of ideals so great as those of communism, is, ironically, a freedom-destroying process. It implies the unequivocal authority of some certain established institution (say, science, for example), and subtly imposes a regimented lifestyle on the people. Technocracy is technocracy, whether communist or capitalist.

Even if your caricature of rational thought -- "Technocracy" -- were accurate, your alternative is clearly worse.

The 19th century romanticist/neo-romanticist "movement" was fundamentally reactionary -- it arose as a reaction to the disintegration of feudalism and against the idea that ordinary people had entered upon the stage of history. Its motive was to "repeal 1789".

And, as I noted, it ended up in fascism.

[tambourine_man]

I question, first of all, whether "irrational thought" can, properly speaking, be considered thought at all.
Isn't rationality strongly implied when we use the word "thought"?

um, i don't think the contextual meaning of what i wrote would be changed much if i substituted a different word for "thought." in my opinion, you've arrived at that "strong implication" all on your own.

What's the difference between "irrational thought" and just simple delusions?

"simple delusion" could surely be a pejorative substitute term for "irrational thought," and, in fact, such careless belittlement was just the subject of discussion...

And moreover, how can delusions offer us "insight" into "the human condition"?

What does a phrase like "the human condition" actually mean?

first, when i say "human condition" i refer to that infinite scope of human existence not fitted for any certain argument, but in its natural form, inclusive of any and all sentiments ever experienced by mankind.

that said, i think it is obvious how thought not constrained by the rigidity that science and materialism demand of "acceptable," "rational" thought, would contribute to our understanding of humanity. that is, materialism confines the scope of human experience to measurable, calculable terms, when, clearly, the very existence of emotion (how else can emotion be "measured" but by the degree of "irrationality" it imposes on thought and action?), argues otherwise.

Even if your caricature of rational thought -- "Technocracy" -- were accurate, your alternative is clearly worse.

okay

The 19th century romanticist/neo-romanticist "movement" was fundamentally reactionary -- it arose as a reaction to the disintegration of feudalism and against the idea that ordinary people had entered upon the stage of history. Its motive was to "repeal 1789".

And, as I noted, it ended up in fascism.

the romantic movement in its pristine form was hardly reactionary. this movement that glorified the likes of the french revolution, the overthrow of monarchy and aristocracy, and the importance of the individual, is better characterized as revolutionary (pushkin?). i understand that you may have misinterpreted the romanticist nostalgia for the past as a literal yearning for the good old days of feudalism and complete aristocratic tyranny. in fact, rousseau's idea of "the noble savage" was clearly anti-hierarchy and anti-aristocracy, and was reactionary only in the sense that he disdained the corruption of freedom that the growth of "civilization" necessarily causes, and instead saw the implementation of the collective will by government as a step towards real freedom (i.e. through democracy & the abolition of private property).
blaming the romantic movement for the rise of fascism is much like blaming marxism for the rise of stalinism. fascism did not build upon romantic principles, but perverted them intentionally. the ultra-centralized state, the all-powerful totalitarian government, the reactionary social policies of fascism are the anti-theses of the principles of romanticism. the one similarity i can see between the two is that romanticism tended to promote nationalism, and fascism is based on fervent nationalism. i do not subscribe to the claim that hitler and his nazi friends were fundamentally anti-science and anti-technology. they were only such in the instances where science and technology threatened the viability of their ideology. otherwise, they were completely in support of the systematic, scientific elimination of all opponents and "impure."

sorry if there are any typos, i am so tired i don't want to check

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by tambourine_man
"Simple delusion" could surely be a pejorative substitute term for "irrational thought," and, in fact, such careless belittlement was just the subject of discussion...

What is "careless" about it?

I'm asking a simple question: what is the difference between "irrational thought" and a delusion?

How do you tell the difference?

Is, for example, the Nazi concept of "blood and soil" an illustration of the "wisdom" of "irrational thought"...or is it just a simple delusion with no real world counterpart?

First, when I say "human condition" I refer to that infinite scope of human existence not fitted for any certain argument, but in its natural form, inclusive of any and all sentiments ever experienced by mankind.

This sounds rational...though not very useful. The "human condition" is discovered by adding up everything that humans have ever experienced and getting a sub-total...because we also have to allow for everything all future humans will experience as well.

The total would not be infinite, obviously, but certainly very large.

What's difficult for me to grasp is what would we do with this sprawling incoherent mass of experiences?

Well, I suppose we'd start looking for patterns, similarities and differences, changes over time periods...in fact, we'd turn to science to "make sense" of it all.

One of the earliest discoveries would undoubtedly be that it doesn't make sense to speak of "the human condition" at all. There are a multitude of "human conditions" that are historically specific.

Only in a very crude sense are we today anything like a medieval serf, a Roman tribune, an Egyptian priest. Their "human conditions" were very different from ours and from each other's as well.

And things appear to be speeding up...for example, I find most literature from the 19th and early 20th century to be nearly as unreadable as an old Greek or Roman manuscript. People don't think like that any more...or at least I don't.

That said, I think it is obvious how thought not constrained by the rigidity that science and materialism demand of "acceptable," "rational" thought, would contribute to our understanding of humanity. That is, materialism confines the scope of human experience to measurable, calculable terms, when, clearly, the very existence of emotion (how else can emotion be "measured" but by the degree of "irrationality" it imposes on thought and action?), argues otherwise.

No, I think materialism and science can incorporate an understanding of emotion as well...in fact, better than any possible form of "irrational thought".

We know that emotions are generated by a particular part of the brain and are the product of some complex chemical interactions.

Even today, we can reproduce -- at least in a crude sense -- emotions completely divorced from external situations. If you have ever ingested a small dose of sodium penathol, then you know what true happiness "feels like"...the blissful sensation of floating in space utterly without cares or worries.

Or consider the family of amphetamine drugs, some of which increase mental acuity to the point where you feel "like a genius"...that there is no problem too complicated for you to solve quickly and accurately and no field of study that you could not master if there were need to do so.

Of course, more complex emotions are still beyond our understanding at this time, but I see no reason why that should always be so. Perhaps before the end of this century, we should be able to "summon up" any emotion on demand.

Want to spend a few hours "feeling like a god"? Take 5 mg. of "God To Go" with a glass of water.

The romantic movement in its pristine form was hardly reactionary.

Well, its contemporaries did not see it that way, I'll grant you.

I understand that you may have misinterpreted the romanticist nostalgia for the past as a literal yearning for the good old days of feudalism and complete aristocratic tyranny.

Yeah...if that truly is a "misinterpretation", then it's "on me".

What is Nietzsche's celebration of the "overman" if not a yearning to see the emergence of a new and vigorous aristocracy?

Blaming the romantic movement for the rise of fascism is much like blaming marxism for the rise of stalinism.

Yes, I must concede that I overstated matters when I said that "romanticism leads to fascism".

And certainly it would be even more erroneous to suggest that romanticism "caused" fascism.

Fascism "borrowed" some important elements from romanticism but borrowed other elements from the technophiliac "futurists"...and, if you like, "perverted" everything it borrowed.

But fascism did not just borrow nationalism from the romantics. It also borrowed all that "nature sentiment" as well -- the Nazis passed the first laws in modern history to conserve "old-growth forests" in Germany.

Perhaps it would be most fair to say that romanticism was full of internal contradictions and inconsistencies, some of which pointed in the direction of fascism.

I do not subscribe to the claim that Hitler and his Nazi friends were fundamentally anti-science and anti-technology.

Well, they certainly had an odd view of science -- that it "springs from the race" and exists only "to serve the race". This meant that they could embrace some scientific discoveries and continue to develop some kinds of technology...but in the long run, I think they would have had to reject science altogether. Modern biology, for example, has discarded "race" as a meaningful concept altogether. If the Third Reich existed today, their "German biology" would be regarded as junk science.

Before the Nazis, German science was widely regarded as "world class" and even "the best in the world"...now, it barely gets mentioned at all. I think that says something about the "hit" that science took under the Nazis.