I wouldn’t call it “naturalistic assumptions” or “theistic assumptions” or “pantheistic assumptions”. It is just common sense rationalist realism.
I’ll ask once again that you explain this strange notion of yours. How does reason give us reality? Step-by-step for us doubters please.
And having a naturalist worldview is the same as being a common sense rationalist realist?
I definitely would not argue that way. Read:
The Disenchanted Naturalist’s Guide to Reality
It is kind of the opposite to what you think is happening in your brain ie. “shit happens”. Perhaps try understanding the argument from reason and the implications of rejecting it…
Better yet, read up a bit on intentionality.
If that piffle is the best you can do to explain your world view, you are even more half-witted than I had thought.
On intentionality, have you read any Being and Time yet, hey Mr. Dasein?
Ah, there is that unsubstantiated cuteness again lol (been taking a few lessons from old irreverend there?). Ok, if you say so matey, then again, according to you “shit just happened” in your brain so I don’t think even you take yourself seriously >:D.
Nope, perhaps you can give your impressions and what you found to be the most interesting in the book. Must have been boring for you since Heidegger had a Platonic and neo-Platonic ring to his ideas and project… or so I have read somewhere :P. And Aristotle had a big influence on him as well. That can’t sit well with you lol…
Yeah, this is kind of strange… If reason preceded reality, where did it take place? And what was there to reason about? Is reason therefore non-real? Not sure I would trust non-real reason.
Wow! This thread has certainly sparked some debate - cool.
Obviously atheism is the absence of belief in God. I assumed that the people on this forum would know that since we have had HUGE discussions on this very issue recently. Perhaps in your case I should also not make the assumption that intellectualism necessarily implies intelligence (hehe >:D).
Actually, simplicity takes a lot more intelligence than complex pseudo-intellectual philosophical mumbo-jumbo IMHO. My book is not aimed at intellectual people because my target market is intelligent people - i.e. those who ask honest questions and expect real answers. I don’t beat around the bush with crap about whether we are products of our own reason, or whatever. I get straight to the point in a practical and easily understood way.
We live in a society where Christianity abounds and questioning one’s faith is considered taboo. Sooo … the courage I’m talking about means taking the strength of character to stand up against the accepted norm of religion and find out if it’s all actually true. Even at a glance, Christianity comes out as complete bullshit, and my book points out the many ways of proving and coping with this fact.
How much training does one need to point out that God Himself kills a one-week old baby to punish King David for murder and adultery, and give the entire passage as a reference? How much “proper academic” training do I need to give the BuyBull verses for all the other shit like rejoicing when smashing babies to death, genocide, slavery, incest (Lot and his daughters)?
Any idiot can read those verses and see what they mean - you only need an “academic” or “intellectual” approach to try and justify them. FYI though, I did qualify as minister and spent some years working as a missionary. I have studied the Bible many times, and in some cases, in the original languages.
I definitely would not argue that way. Read: [url=http://onthehuman.org/2009/11/the-disenchanted-naturalists-guide-to-reality/]The Disenchanted Naturalist’s Guide to Reality[/url]
Interesting article, but I don’t really see your point. Are you saying that you can be a rationalist and still believe there is an ultimate purpose, whereas this option is not available to a naturalist?
I hope he is. Ultimate purpose would be horrible. I’d much rather determine my own purpose.
No, you must study it yourself, otherwise you miss out on being-in-the-book ( “in-dem-Buch-sein” IIRC ).
;D
That is a weird thing to believe :o… If you think you are determining your own purpose then you are delusional in the first place since you can no more determine your own purpose than the brain is able to alter the course of events or alter itself. It is just a bag of chemicals reacting according to laws matey, and if that is true, then thinking you are determining your own purposes is about as delusional as believing in Santa (or God in your case)…
Oh well, since there are other interesting books (e.g. The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Physical Science) and time is precious, I think I’ll skip this one since it seems like you did not get much from the book other than saying “look, I read it but don’t know much about it, I just like to tell others how I can read books”. Seems like you wasted your time there andare now wasting the time of others. Oh well, one day you are going wake up from your slumber to be constructive right?
Read it again, the author did not understand (or did not want to) the implications of naturalism.
Well, if you are going to take naturalism seriously and to its logical ends unlike the author in the link you posted, then you are going to have to chuck out consciousness, rationality, ultimate purpose, logic, reason, your “self” and a host of other items. I guess the job is then to figure out how you, your “self” can be rational in the first place. I say good luck with that…
Well he specifically asked you to explain the argument from reason didn’t he? Evasion noted. :
Hey rwenzori, there is this person that thinks you need an explanation of the argument from reason from me lol. Do you? Say it ain’t so >:D. Because I remember you actually understand most of it, you just don’t like the argument or its implications for denying it or something similarly baseless…
Fine then - just don’t go around with delusions of grandeur about understanding intentionality hehe!
It are so, as they say in P-Town. Understand it? Me? Nay, bru, I don’t recall any coherently stated position called that. Just put it in your own words - that would help the debate along, I’m sure.