| Author |
Message |
meirman
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2004 5:35 am
Post subject: Re: Seeking a philosophical label. |
|
|
In alt.english.usage on Wed, 21 Jul 2004 10:34:24 -0500 "Scott T.
Jensen" <stj@charter.net> posted:
| Quote: | "Michael DeBusk" <m_debusk@despammed.com> wrote:
Scott T. Jensen <stj@charter.net> wrote:
What do you then call someone who knows they're just
an animal and that when they die, that's it?
I'd want to know how they know.
I think they would state simply that all verifiable facts support such a
view and no verifiable facts contradicts such a view.
Belief-wise, though, as opposed to knowledge-wise:
|
ARRRRGH. Regarding belief, though, as opposed to knowledge. Or some
other phrasing.
| Quote: | Probably along the same lines that they know there isn't a Santa Claus. To
|
The story of Santa Clause, iiuc, has him as a physical person existing
in the same 4 dimensions we all exist in. Later was added that he
lived at the North Pole. Now, reliable people have been to the North
Pole and they didn't see anything, and we have aerial photographs of
the whole area, and they don't even show a door into the ice.
In addition now he is supposed to visit every home (of some subset of
homes) and leave presents. Yet most families will say that they
bought the presents they have. Maybe not to their children, but to
adults who ask.
So the Santa Claus in the current description doesn't exist. I think
there may have been some guy named Nicholas who had one or two of the
attributes of Santa Claus. He did exist but he's dead now.
This is not at all the situation with dead people, who or the souls of
whom are thought to exist in some place we can't visit. Or of dead
animals who apparently have a multitude of heavens, such as gerbil
heaven, horse heaven, elephant heaven, and maybe even rhinocerous
heaven or jellyfish heaven.
| Quote: | them, it isn't a matter of belief but simply an acceptance of facts.
|
But how do they know they are facts? In fact, what facts? What facts
are they accepting?
s/ meirman If you are emailing me please
say if you are posting the same response.
Born west of Pittsburgh Pa. 10 years
Indianapolis, 7 years
Chicago, 6 years
Brooklyn NY 12 years
Baltimore 20 years
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
meirman
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2004 5:43 am
Post subject: Re: Seeking a philosophical label. |
|
|
In alt.english.usage on Wed, 21 Jul 2004 18:13:42 GMT "raymond o'hara"
<reoh@comcast.net> posted:
| Quote: |
"Scott T. Jensen" <stj@charter.net> wrote in message
news:10ft4g7pau4ie95@corp.supernews.com...
"raymond o'hara" <reoh@comcast.net> wrote:
"Scott T. Jensen" <stj@charter.net> wrote:
Anyone know of such a label?
Freethinker.
The dictionaries I've looked at wouldn't rule out that such a freethinker
could come to his own conclusion that there is god(s) and/or an afterlife.
All they need to be to still be a freethinker is that they come to such a
conclusion on their own.
Religion is groupthink, freethinking is generally condidered the opposite
of that.
|
The opposite of groupthink but not necessarily the opposite of
religion.
s/ meirman If you are emailing me please
say if you are posting the same response.
Born west of Pittsburgh Pa. 10 years
Indianapolis, 7 years
Chicago, 6 years
Brooklyn NY 12 years
Baltimore 20 years |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
raymond o'hara
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2004 5:56 am
Post subject: Re: Seeking a philosophical label. |
|
|
"meirman" <meirman@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:ioutf0p4jj60md6m1ph7m6r08its54tgf5@4ax.com...
| Quote: | In alt.english.usage on Wed, 21 Jul 2004 10:34:24 -0500 "Scott T.
Jensen" <stj@charter.net> posted:
"Michael DeBusk" <m_debusk@despammed.com> wrote:
Scott T. Jensen <stj@charter.net> wrote:
What do you then call someone who knows they're just
an animal and that when they die, that's it?
I'd want to know how they know.
I think they would state simply that all verifiable facts support such a
view and no verifiable facts contradicts such a view.
Belief-wise, though, as opposed to knowledge-wise:
ARRRRGH. Regarding belief, though, as opposed to knowledge. Or some
other phrasing.
Probably along the same lines that they know there isn't a Santa Claus.
To
The story of Santa Clause, iiuc, has him as a physical person existing
in the same 4 dimensions we all exist in. Later was added that he
lived at the North Pole. Now, reliable people have been to the North
Pole and they didn't see anything, and we have aerial photographs of
the whole area, and they don't even show a door into the ice.
It's cleverly concealed, that's why. |
In addition now he is supposed to visit every home (of some subset of
| Quote: | homes) and leave presents. Yet most families will say that they
bought the presents they have. Maybe not to their children, but to
adults who ask.
|
One of my sisters spilled the truth to me when i was 4, she was 6 , we
promptly went searching for the hiding place.
| Quote: | So the Santa Claus in the current description doesn't exist. I think
there may have been some guy named Nicholas who had one or two of the
attributes of Santa Claus. He did exist but he's dead now.
|
St. Nicholas was the Bishop of Myra in turkey , he was born in the late 3rd
century.,
Have you seen the movie 'The Hebrew Hammer' starring Adam Goldberg? It's
quite funny.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
raymond o'hara
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2004 5:58 am
Post subject: Re: Seeking a philosophical label. |
|
|
"meirman" <meirman@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:ervtf05u1lg1i5p9g2ficminqbacp7pdtk@4ax.com...
| Quote: | In alt.english.usage on Wed, 21 Jul 2004 18:13:42 GMT "raymond o'hara"
reoh@comcast.net> posted:
"Scott T. Jensen" <stj@charter.net> wrote in message
news:10ft4g7pau4ie95@corp.supernews.com...
"raymond o'hara" <reoh@comcast.net> wrote:
"Scott T. Jensen" <stj@charter.net> wrote:
Anyone know of such a label?
Freethinker.
The dictionaries I've looked at wouldn't rule out that such a
freethinker
could come to his own conclusion that there is god(s) and/or an
afterlife.
All they need to be to still be a freethinker is that they come to such
a
conclusion on their own.
Religion is groupthink, freethinking is generally condidered the
opposite
of that.
The opposite of groupthink but not necessarily the opposite of
religion.
|
Religion thrives on mass hysteria and suspension of rational thought. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony Cooper
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2004 7:13 am
Post subject: Re: Seeking a philosophical label. |
|
|
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 23:58:09 GMT, "raymond o'hara" <reoh@comcast.net>
wrote:
| Quote: |
"meirman" <meirman@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:ervtf05u1lg1i5p9g2ficminqbacp7pdtk@4ax.com...
In alt.english.usage on Wed, 21 Jul 2004 18:13:42 GMT "raymond o'hara"
reoh@comcast.net> posted:
"Scott T. Jensen" <stj@charter.net> wrote in message
news:10ft4g7pau4ie95@corp.supernews.com...
"raymond o'hara" <reoh@comcast.net> wrote:
"Scott T. Jensen" <stj@charter.net> wrote:
Anyone know of such a label?
Freethinker.
The dictionaries I've looked at wouldn't rule out that such a
freethinker
could come to his own conclusion that there is god(s) and/or an
afterlife.
All they need to be to still be a freethinker is that they come to such
a
conclusion on their own.
Religion is groupthink, freethinking is generally condidered the
opposite
of that.
The opposite of groupthink but not necessarily the opposite of
religion.
Religion thrives on mass hysteria and suspension of rational thought.
The thing that I dislike most about the "true believers" is that they |
constantly push their opinions and beliefs in your face. They are
quick to jump on any opportunity to tell you that they are right and
you are wrong.
The thing that I dislike most about the "non-believers" is that they
constantly push their opinions and beliefs in your face. They are
quick to jump on any opportunity to tell you that they are right and
you are wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CyberCypher
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2004 8:40 am
Post subject: Re: Seeking a philosophical label. |
|
|
Michael DeBusk wrote on 22 Jul 2004:
| Quote: | On 21 Jul 2004 10:57:23 GMT, CyberCypher
cybercypher@19-16-25-13-01-03.com> wrote:
The school of philosophy that comes to my mind when one claims
the belief that there is no afterlife is "Nihilism".
That seems to be a misunderstanding of the meaning of the word:
I agree, and didn't mean to imply that I thought that the absence
of an afterlife was a central teaching of Nihilism. To my
understanding, the central teaching of Nihilism is, "nothing
matters, so feel bad."
|
That seems to be pretty much it. Life has no extrinsic or instrinsic
meaning; it just is, and even that cannot be demonstrated.
| Quote: | I always wondered what was so bad about the
idea that nothing matters. Seems to me there's a tremendous
freedom in the idea. Just because nothing matters doesn't mean it
can't matter to me.
|
That kind of freedom is difficult to live with. It means one has to
choose based on some set of principles choosen by oneself. When
people cannot see a reason to choose A or B, then choice is
impossible. That's why so many people fail to vote: Tweedle-Dum and
Tweedle-Dee, which one has the good for me? But Tweedle-Dee is
Tweedle-Dum. I'll vote for neither, then, by gum.
| Quote: | It's been my experience that Nihilists tend to believe that we're
nothing more than animals and that when we die, it's the end.
While it may not be a teaching of Nihilism, it does seem (to me)
to be a natural conclusion to reach when starting from the
Nihilistic position.
|
It seems to be a necessary but not a sufficient tenet, I agree.
--
Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor.
For email, replace numbers with English alphabet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
meirman
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2004 9:07 am
Post subject: Re: Seeking a philosophical label. |
|
|
In alt.english.usage on Wed, 21 Jul 2004 23:58:09 GMT "raymond o'hara"
<reoh@comcast.net> posted:
| Quote: |
"meirman" <meirman@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:ervtf05u1lg1i5p9g2ficminqbacp7pdtk@4ax.com...
In alt.english.usage on Wed, 21 Jul 2004 18:13:42 GMT "raymond o'hara"
reoh@comcast.net> posted:
"Scott T. Jensen" <stj@charter.net> wrote in message
news:10ft4g7pau4ie95@corp.supernews.com...
"raymond o'hara" <reoh@comcast.net> wrote:
"Scott T. Jensen" <stj@charter.net> wrote:
Anyone know of such a label?
Freethinker.
The dictionaries I've looked at wouldn't rule out that such a
freethinker
could come to his own conclusion that there is god(s) and/or an
afterlife.
All they need to be to still be a freethinker is that they come to such
a
conclusion on their own.
Religion is groupthink, freethinking is generally condidered the
opposite
of that.
The opposite of groupthink but not necessarily the opposite of
religion.
Religion thrives on mass hysteria and suspension of rational thought.
|
Non-responsive, even if one were to believe that it is partially true.
s/ meirman If you are emailing me please
say if you are posting the same response.
Born west of Pittsburgh Pa. 10 years
Indianapolis, 7 years
Chicago, 6 years
Brooklyn NY 12 years
Baltimore 20 years |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
raymond o'hara
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2004 9:10 am
Post subject: Re: Seeking a philosophical label. |
|
|
"Tony Cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:9t4uf0125v9e3bfqqmgnmddv1eih4jrbu4@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 23:58:09 GMT, "raymond o'hara" <reoh@comcast.net
wrote:
"meirman" <meirman@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:ervtf05u1lg1i5p9g2ficminqbacp7pdtk@4ax.com...
In alt.english.usage on Wed, 21 Jul 2004 18:13:42 GMT "raymond o'hara"
reoh@comcast.net> posted:
"Scott T. Jensen" <stj@charter.net> wrote in message
news:10ft4g7pau4ie95@corp.supernews.com...
"raymond o'hara" <reoh@comcast.net> wrote:
"Scott T. Jensen" <stj@charter.net> wrote:
Anyone know of such a label?
Freethinker.
The dictionaries I've looked at wouldn't rule out that such a
freethinker
could come to his own conclusion that there is god(s) and/or an
afterlife.
All they need to be to still be a freethinker is that they come to
such
a
conclusion on their own.
Religion is groupthink, freethinking is generally condidered the
opposite
of that.
The opposite of groupthink but not necessarily the opposite of
religion.
Religion thrives on mass hysteria and suspension of rational thought.
The thing that I dislike most about the "true believers" is that they
constantly push their opinions and beliefs in your face. They are
quick to jump on any opportunity to tell you that they are right and
you are wrong.
The thing that I dislike most about the "non-believers" is that they
constantly push their opinions and beliefs in your face. They are
quick to jump on any opportunity to tell you that they are right and
you are wrong.
|
You forgot shameless troll. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scott T. Jensen
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2004 10:40 am
Post subject: Re: Seeking a philosophical label. |
|
|
"Matti Lamprhey" <matti-nospam@totally-official.com> wrote:
| Quote: | "Scott T. Jensen" <stj@charter.net> wrote...
"Matti Lamprhey" <matti-nospam@totally-official.com> wrote:
"Scott T. Jensen" <stj@charter.net> wrote...
Anyone know of such a label?
After posting my original post and replying to david56's reply, I
retired to bed and laid awake wondering what could be the label.
I've done this before and come up with different labels. Tonight,
I thought, "Well, such individuals would say we're just animals.
Hmmm. What about 'animalist'?"
I got up, used dictionary.com, and there it was.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=animalist
Sorry for the bother, folks.
Animalism is not an entirely suitable term, because it encompasses
the belief that animals have spirits which need to be appeased by
worship and sacrifice. This doesn't sit well with the concept that
death is the end.
In the dictionary entries at the above link, none of them state your
definition of animalism. Nor does my hardcover edition of the Collins
English Dictionary.
You really need an encyclopaedia for this type of detail. Here's an
extract from _Britannica_'s entry for Primitive Religions:
"Animals were thought to be manlike, to have souls, or to be
equipped with magical powers. Animalism thus expresses itself in various
conceptions of how animals are regarded as guardian spirits and "alter
egos," of the facile and frequent interchangeability between human and
animal forms, and also of a theriomorphically (animal-formed) envisioned
higher being-one who changes between human and animal forms and
unifies them. Higher, often theriomorphic, beings are gods who rule over
the animals, the hunters, and the hunting territory, or spirits in the
bushland and with the animals."
There's more on this from the same source if you're interested.
|
That the dictionaries I've so far consulted do not raise the definition you
raise above indicates that your definition is a more rare definition for
such a word. And your definition isn't an extension to the definition I'm
referring to doesn't take away from the definition I'm pointing to. That
and its the best one I've found so far.
Scott Jensen
--
Got a business question, problem, or dream?
Discuss it with the professionals that hang out at...
misc.business.consulting, misc.business.marketing.moderated
misc.business.moderated, and misc.entrepreneurs.moderated |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Michael DeBusk
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2004 10:54 am
Post subject: Re: Seeking a philosophical label. |
|
|
On 21 Jul 2004 14:31:08 GMT, Matthew Huntbach <mmh@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> wrote:
| Quote: | I am rather puzzled by Scott's question, since I would have thought
that most people who don't believe in a god or gods also don't
believe in other supernatural phenomena such as the concept of an
afterlife.
|
There are atheistic religions. Taoism, for one. And most of the other
religions in the world don't teach that their deities are real.
Those religions that do teach of reincarnation do not teach it as
SUPERnatural, but as entirely natural. We have all learned that energy
cannot be created or destroyed, after all, so we are free to wonder
what happens to what we think of as our life energy after we die.
--
Michael DeBusk, Co-Conspirator to Make the World a Better Place
Did he update http://home.earthlink.net/~debu4335/ yet? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Stevens
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2004 11:01 am
Post subject: Re: Seeking a philosophical label. |
|
|
"Michael DeBusk" <m_debusk@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:bMHLc.7331$iK.5836@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net
| Quote: | Those religions that do teach of reincarnation do not teach it as
SUPERnatural, but as entirely natural. We have all learned that energy
cannot be created or destroyed, after all, so we are free to wonder
what happens to what we think of as our life energy after we die.
|
I've always had difficulty with the concept of the "supernatural". If
somebody believes, for example, that God exists, I would have thought it
follows that in their mind God is part of the natural order. So does
"supernatural" refer to things that other people believe in but I don't?
--
Mike Stevens
narrowboat Felis Catus II
Web site www.mike-stevens.co.uk
No man is an island. So is Man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Michael DeBusk
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2004 11:06 am
Post subject: Re: Seeking a philosophical label. |
|
|
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 10:34:24 -0500, Scott T. Jensen <stj@charter.net> wrote:
| Quote: | I'd want to know how they know.
I think they would state simply that all verifiable facts support
such a view and no verifiable facts contradicts such a view.
|
The idea that we have access to all verifiable facts, and could
understand them if we did, is rather silly, IMHO.
From what I know about logic, the only reasonable response to the
question, "Is there a god?" is "I don't know." There's no way to verify
either conclusion.
One of the amusing things I find in discussions of religion is when
people who vehemently insist there is no god still have a bunch of
rules for how a god must behave. They define a god that cannot exist
and then proudly declare that no god can exist. That's even sillier
than those theists who insist it's possible to prove, using logic, that
there is a god, and that it's their god. Even someone (like me) with
only a perfunctory ability with logic can point to the holes in either.
I've often wondered why, if there is a creator-deity, he/she/it would
endow us with a capability for logic and then get pissed off at us for
using it. Then it occurred to me that, if there is one, he/she/it
wouldn't get pissed off at us at all, for anything. If an entity can
transcend space, time, matter, and all other physics, it would most
likely be able to transcend petty emotions.
But I've given up trying to figure it out. Agnostic but curious.
--
Michael DeBusk, Co-Conspirator to Make the World a Better Place
Did he update http://home.earthlink.net/~debu4335/ yet? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Michael DeBusk
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2004 11:15 am
Post subject: Re: Seeking a philosophical label. |
|
|
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 19:35:09 -0400, meirman <meirman@invalid.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Belief-wise, though, as opposed to knowledge-wise:
ARRRRGH. Regarding belief, though, as opposed to knowledge. Or
some other phrasing.
|
It was a poor attempt at humor with the word "wise". Sorry.
| Quote: | The story of Santa Clause, iiuc, has him as a physical person
existing in the same 4 dimensions we all exist in.
|
There are many. Even China, well before Christianity, had Ho Tei, the
always-laughing monk with the large belly and the sack of goodies on
his back. Ho Tei enjoyed going from town to town and giving sweets to
the children. He was, by all accounts, a real person at one time. Now
he is the Taoist "patron saint" of, IIRC, generosity.
There seems to be something archetypal about it.
| Quote: | So the Santa Claus in the current description doesn't exist.
|
One time a little guy asked me if Santa is real, and if he is, how he
could do visit every home in one night and squeeze down chimneys and
such. I told him that if Santa was real, he couldn't do all the things
he does. He seemed both slightly confused and very satisfied. When you
realize that Santa is a myth, a symbol which represents something from
deep within ourselves, you can understand that answer. He was just a
little kid, though, and I could tell he wasn't really ready to doubt.
--
Michael DeBusk, Co-Conspirator to Make the World a Better Place
Did he update http://home.earthlink.net/~debu4335/ yet? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Michael DeBusk
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2004 11:27 am
Post subject: Re: Seeking a philosophical label. |
|
|
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 21:13:00 -0400, Tony Cooper
<tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
| Quote: | The thing that I dislike most about the "true believers" is that
they constantly push their opinions and beliefs in your face. They
are quick to jump on any opportunity to tell you that they are right
and you are wrong.
The thing that I dislike most about the "non-believers" is that they
constantly push their opinions and beliefs in your face. They are
quick to jump on any opportunity to tell you that they are right and
you are wrong.
|
I've done some training with a guy whose specialty is the structure of
belief systems and decision strategies. He used to be a developer of
expert systems, but now he works with people instead of computers. This
guy is astounding. He can take a belief apart and put it back together
before you know what he's done.
He tells me that he's found two "classes" of religious believer. One
type, if you ask them, they will tell you that they believe it because
that's what they were taught, that's what the Bible says, that's what
their parents believed, that's what The Preacher tells them, and so on.
The other type will tell you that they believe because, in short, they
were there when it happened. They have had *some* experience which
verifies *some* aspect of their belief system.
Of the two, he says the first type is unpleasant to deal with and will
behave as you describe above. (Realize that the "non-believer" you
describe above, which I would call an "unbeliever", still believes
something is true: he believes it is true that god is not real.)
He also tells me that their beliefs are easy to unseat, because they
are groundless. Of the other group, he says, no matter what he does he
cannot alter their beliefs. He also mentions that, since these folks
are apparently so secure in theri beliefs, they have no drive to force
them on other people. They may be willing to share their good news with
you, but they won't try to ram it down your throat.
--
Michael DeBusk, Co-Conspirator to Make the World a Better Place
Did he update http://home.earthlink.net/~debu4335/ yet? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Michael DeBusk
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2004 11:38 am
Post subject: Re: Seeking a philosophical label. |
|
|
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 21:19:42 +0100, Matti Lamprhey
<matti-nospam@totally-official.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Do you not see a difference between "not believing that there is a
god or gods" and "believing that there is no god or gods"?
Can you explain the difference, in respect of a person to whom the
concept of god(s) has occurred?
|
Believing is something we do. It's a behavior. We decide (on some
level) to do it or to refrain from doing it.
I do not believe there is a god or gods. I also do not believe there is
not a god or gods. I refrain from believing either way. It is my
opinion that there is insufficient evidence to make a decision. I've
had some experiences in my past which lead me to believe in the
possibility -- but not the probability -- of such a thing.
I've met people who believe there is one. I've met people who believe
there isn't one. Neither group can seem to establish for me a
sufficient evidence base for their position. I'm open for it.
To me, though, I think the theists have the edge. All they have to do
is produce a deity. The not-theists, to prove *their* position, would
have to be everywhere at once, know everything there is to know... in
short, they'd have to be a deity to prove there isn't one, and I wonder
if being a deity would change their perspective on their existence.
Until I have a reason to choose a belief, I'm going to refrain from it.
--
Michael DeBusk, Co-Conspirator to Make the World a Better Place
Did he update http://home.earthlink.net/~debu4335/ yet? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in