There was an error in this gadget

Sunday, June 27, 2010

Please understand these few things

Most religious I have to deal with misunderstand why I become silent when they tell me about God, supernatural activities, and esoteric meaningfulness. Some religious people with some experience with the non-believing simply misunderstand their own terms, or the atheistic point of view. In order for me to to explain this, I am going to define some terms for future reference.

1. Faith: I recently read an article by Philosopher David S. Brown called Reasoning Down the Rabbit-Hole. In it he presents one of his pet peeves with New Atheists. He claims that atheists define Faith arbitrarily as "a beilief without evidence". Now I have generally eard that definition from atheists (not to mention my handy-dandy Webster's dictionary), but Dr. Brown seems to believe that the defintion of Faith should be that of Medieval philosophers. I am no expert on Medieval philosophy/theology, but I am aware of the arguments that were crafted to prove a deity which had to be Christian.

However, without even delving into the Medieval period, I have found a problem with Dr. Brown's argument. He first claims that one should not make artbitrary definitons to words. He secondly claims that New Atheists redefine Faith in order to defeat theologians. Finally, He asserts that Medieval philosophers did not use Faith in that fashion. There is a twist of hand that he uses in his argument so obvious, it sickens my philosophical heart. He is the one using redefintion of terms to win an argument instead of searching for the truth of the situation. He arbitrarily chose the Medieval meaning of Faith, and that is exactly what he warned in his essay not to do. This is what the enemy of philosophers, the Sophists, did.

Now to be more sympathetic, I will evaluate all his claims instead of just looking at that error he made.First, he claims New Atheists, especially Richard Dawkins, are redefining the word Faith to mean "a belief without evidence". Now, I understand why the faithful may feel they have evidence in all the feelings and God-sightings, but I am skeptical of these claims and take them as delusional thinking. I could give many examples of how believers I have work with have conditioned themselves to act and think as if they had seen God, but that is not necessary to prove my first point. As a rising philosopher, I have reviewed the common evidence used by common believers (as opposed to sophicated theologians) for their deity, and I have concluded that these believers do not have evidence that is conclusive to their beliefs. Now I may be wrong, but I even have plenty of belivers who share the sentiment that their is "lack of evidence" component to Faith.

Also, I have Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary which states that Faith is loyalty to a person or duty, a trust or belief in one's God, or a firm belief in which there is no proof. Now, Faith is a word that believers wave around a lot, using it with very complex nuances. They always want more of it and continually humble themselves as if one could never have enough of it. They use the three defintion interchangably.

In order for a claim aboiut the universe to be justified, there must be evidence that logically supports the claim. In order for a belief in a claim to be justfied, the claim must be considered in a logical and systematic way. These two claims I just made are understood to be true and absolutely essential to good science and philosophy. From the point of view that religious claims are unjustified because of the lack of evidence, the last two defintions logically infer religious Faith in those claims to be unjustified. To prove that there is no evidence for all religious claims would be impossible, but I will generalize for the sake of time and space.

Because the dictionary supports the definition Richard Dawkins uses as lexicon definition and the fact that religions calim things which they have no proof, the definition Richard Dawkins uses is not arbitrary but accurate. Because Dr. Brown asserts that Medieval philosophers used a different defintion has no bearing on the modern lexiconial usage of the word, it would be arbitrary and, by his own reasoning, wrong to use a defintion from a specific time period.

Monday, June 21, 2010

Ravings of a mad man


hello eric, how goes thee

i hope you have found things to entertain your brain during the summer


LIke a winter breeze easily through to the marrow

I have

i have posted new videos

one is about football just for u



erg.. i wish to separate myself from football

what is it about tho


its a song

complete spoof


off of what other song



not a spoof on a song but on bfootball fans

just look at some of the top 4 videos on my wall or something and comment or something


or something

you got it

you know i moved

i live in chicago


how many chicas in chicago?


and our conversations (or rather, your conversations) have really interested me in philosophy, especially the classical philosophers

how many? 54 percent



really, nice to hear.

im sorry if they are my conversation


don't be

i don't think i could my words would have helped what you were saying


so who u interested in

"i could my words"


bad grammar


i am astonished at his scientific approach

it astounds me when i imagine the time and age

to think of matter


if u like aristotle, then u should talk to my brother in emory

he goes too far with aristotle in my opinion

the greeks were awesome i must say

but there are things aristotle made mistakes with


how does he go too far?

and what mistakes?


My major problem is that aristotle is that he does allow for randomness or chaos

He believes everything has order and that the reason why things do the things they do is because of a telos

telos is roughly a goal

and through this argument he postulates a primeover

Primemover, a Deity for cause and effect


i remember you telling me about telos

so.. is it that you disagree in there being a natural goal within everything?


Basically, Aristotle could not understand how something could not be intented to happen or have a prime intention


would he believe there is a telos in a boulder

i see


Well i dont disagree that it is possible, but im saying his philosophy begs the question

He believed the planets moved around the earth out of love for the primemover

The rock falls because it wants to fall

that is its nature and nature is desire for aristotle




Now he doesnt mean desire as in processes in the brain per se, but in a conceptual way of viewing how everything could be explained

By saying that things happen because of X Y Z does not prove that X Y or Z is real or relavent

or that a causal relationship exist


hmm, i don't quite understand the xyz part


Basically Aristotle intended to make the world make sense in his own terms


if things happen, isn't it real?

now that makes sense


XYZ are just place holders for anything


and your brother follows aristotle in making the world just too neat?

with his beliefs?


Yeah, he hasaristotle weakness for design

my brother is a deist for aa designer


things have to be made, they cant be unintentional without foresight

Telos can be understood as having foresight


idk if intention is too much of a human concept


THeintention has many different meanings in philosophy




Intentionality is for the philosophy of language a way to explain why I mean what I do with my words

Basically intention in that sense connects the sentence to the real world

Intention for Foucault meant it in a darwinian sense

Intention that were not subjective


then i think aristotle had a quite clear grasp of telos considering his time and scenario

or intention

it astounds me how creativity and logic can exist together


clear grasp of something you yourself defined, is it possible?


you're right, my judgements right now are without the readings of aristotle

so its all my intention


DO we know what make


oh well

what make?



hehe, i think it would be interesting to question our own ideas to the point of asking do we understand ourselves

do we do we understand the language our brain speaks


that i can answer.. no

i do not understand myself

i actually felt lost this year because of the numerous elements of my life that affect me uncontrollably


i tbelieve a lot of people do not understand their thoughts, they speak the language but they dont understand it


and i know they are there, yet i have yet to analyze and discover for myself


i do feel like you could lose your life trying to understand yourself tho


i know there are things I am sensing because they are clear and distinct


but that does not mean it isn't worth searching


THings i am thinking



chemicals! spewing from your brain


DO u sense thoughts like you feel tables?


i do


Are u seperate from your thoughts or part of them


if anything, the thoughts are more real than tables, because i hav ethe idea of what a table feels like


i think i am a byproduct


and if part of them, why claim them as your own


erg no

because i hav ea part in them

i think they are inseperable


inseperable, have u ever tried


i have not


to break away


to live without thoughts is to not live


or so u say

a plant lives


yes, but it doesn't have thoughts

or does it...

computational thoughts


cells comunicate to each other

what are thoughts but a system of processes that inform each other

anything organized in a stregic power relationship



i agree


self preservation

to telos of natural organization


i think your thoughts are in control until you realize the presence and conditoin of those thoughts, at which point then there is free will in terms of that though

which goes back to what we were saying about the thoughts you might not realize are there

but worth searching


If u have know free will, then who is not free?



everyone is free


but if u were notr free, then would u exist?


because everyone has SOME realization of themself, no?

i don't think so

if my thoughts were not free, i would have no will over them, and i would be only my thoughs

but i suppose my thoughts would be free from myself!


They could simply recognize a body of flesh and bones but it is actually their mother's body

to think yet never have a thought of oneself the christian dream



i am god


the buddhist dream in a more accurate portrayal


he is me


Creating a sims game and


eric.. there is a god

stop thinking

just do, as he says


How can i not, if he is the one thinking in my place




I met some pentacostals of the predestination branch


oh ya


Who thinks but the one who is in control


true, thank god for humanist religion!


but the christian adopted humanism too but dont realize it

ignorance replaces true progress


i think religion was a very practical evolutionary tool that allowed for more moral and logical approaches, but its time has past


no one knows why we care about others anymore


they don't

because we care about ourselves, right?


If u didnt would u brush your teeth


if you watch a man being killed, don't you feel as if you're are being attacked?


Well, if i felt that, i might run away


if i didn't what

HMM good point


because the person who feels attack runs


so we arent tricked into thinking we are another person, we keep our individuality (of some sorts)


is it selfish or a communal response?

no not tricked


we think things, we make decisions, we have purposes to our actions (sometimes)

we have emotions and sensations

to save a person from danger is part of choosing what to do

we dont need a natural tendency to say do this or that

you want to say we are born good people or something


no no, i believe we are born noble savages

purely a byproduct of environment


purely environment or some genetics


purely in the sense of an initial genetic makeup, and the rest

the rest environment, where your genetic makeup can be changed to your environment


somethinThe brain has a blueprint on how to make and use its brain (that is primary knowledge)

The secondary is first experience

the color red must be experienced to be known

therefore it is secondary


do you think the blueprint can change though based on secondary experience?



the blueprint explains how to modify the structure (or use the process avaible to make a learn thing

the language is a bit out of there, for no one talks about the brains blueprint in genetics like this except in the field of study


I will concede that the environment develops our moral responses


is your major in college decided eric?



there is no moral fabric in our genetics?

what about the natural response of animals to protect their own species


But I dont believe learn ways our at all moral or justified just because of our environment


if a rat warns another rat of a cat, is it moral?



Does it matter?

If the rat lives or dies

Or if the cat is eaten by the the rat

because of the twists of fate and the dog eat dog world


ok, but i'm talking about if a rat consciencesly, or sub, decides to warn other rats, is it moral?


are we to pacify existence to rid all suffering all struggle

why is that moral, because we dislike it, because we desire outcomes


moral being the protection of others like yourself?


is not morality rigged, because it has the right to both say what is good and bad and say itself is good

So all morality is tribal

U are black, i dont look after u

Now i understand u, u are like me, join my tribe, be like white man

See my factories, work there

See my plantations work there

these are what those who have no past fortunes do in my tribe


eric, though i have enjoyed this talk, i feel we are becoming separated in ideas


the system is beloved, we dare not change it


i hope to come across you someday

oh we dare

our discontent dares


A system rigged to have unemployed people

To have unnecessary jobs and industries

to always put a bar in which one gets help

or not

whatever, i am mostly trying to disagree with whatever u say

see ya my friend


hahaha point taken dipshit


just trying to spread the difficult material i have been reading in philosophy and social criticism


its greeted warmly, as a thought to be considered, and you a friend who's intentions are as moral and human as i can point to

good luck dude

and remember, i took part in your dance at prom

just like you expected people to lo