South Africa Flag logo

South African Skeptics

October 21, 2018, 05:47:41 AM
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
Go to mobile page.
News: Please read the forum rules before posting.
   
   Skeptic Forum Board Index   Help Forum Rules Search GoogleTagged Login Register Chat Blogroll  
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic:

My book on the shelf

 (Read 33258 times)
Description: Finally
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Julian
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +2/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 151


« Reply #30 on: April 13, 2010, 21:33:54 PM »


I definitely would not argue that way. Read:
The Disenchanted Naturalist’s Guide to Reality



Oh and in return I offer you:
The Enchanted Naturalist’s Guide to Reality
Smiley
Logged
Peter Grant
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +5/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 845


a fully caused agent


AtheistStoned AtheistStoned
WWW
« Reply #31 on: April 13, 2010, 22:21:19 PM »

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.
Logged
rwenzori
Sniper
Sr. Member
****

Skeptical ability: +7/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 403


Merda accidit.


« Reply #32 on: April 14, 2010, 06:00:43 AM »

On intentionality, have you read any Being and Time yet, hey Mr. Dasein?

Nope, perhaps you can give your impressions and what you found to be the most interesting in the book.

No, you must study it yourself, otherwise you miss out on being-in-the-book ( "in-dem-Buch-sein" IIRC ). 
Grin
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #33 on: April 14, 2010, 06:45:26 AM »

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.
That is a weird thing to believe Shocked.... 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)....
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #34 on: April 14, 2010, 06:51:37 AM »

On intentionality, have you read any Being and Time yet, hey Mr. Dasein?

Nope, perhaps you can give your impressions and what you found to be the most interesting in the book.

No, you must study it yourself, otherwise you miss out on being-in-the-book ( "in-dem-Buch-sein" IIRC ).  
Grin
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?
« Last Edit: April 14, 2010, 07:09:56 AM by Teleological » Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #35 on: April 14, 2010, 06:55:41 AM »


Read it again, the author did not understand (or did not want to) the implications of naturalism.
Quote
I definitely would not argue that way. Read:
The Disenchanted Naturalist’s Guide to Reality


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?

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...
Logged
cyghost
Skeptically yours
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1404


Carpe diem


« Reply #36 on: April 14, 2010, 07:35:38 AM »

Perhaps try understanding the argument from reason and the implications of rejecting it...
Well he specifically *asked* you to explain the argument from reason didn't he? Evasion noted.  Roll Eyes
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #37 on: April 14, 2010, 08:13:19 AM »

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  Evil. 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...
Logged
rwenzori
Sniper
Sr. Member
****

Skeptical ability: +7/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 403


Merda accidit.


« Reply #38 on: April 14, 2010, 08:23:58 AM »

On intentionality, have you read any Being and Time yet, hey Mr. Dasein?

Nope, perhaps you can give your impressions and what you found to be the most interesting in the book.

No, you must study it yourself, otherwise you miss out on being-in-the-book ( "in-dem-Buch-sein" IIRC ). 
Grin
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?

Fine then - just don't go around with delusions of grandeur about understanding intentionality hehe!
 Tongue
Logged
rwenzori
Sniper
Sr. Member
****

Skeptical ability: +7/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 403


Merda accidit.


« Reply #39 on: April 14, 2010, 08:26:48 AM »

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  Evil. 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...

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.
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #40 on: April 14, 2010, 08:36:45 AM »

On intentionality, have you read any Being and Time yet, hey Mr. Dasein?


Nope, perhaps you can give your impressions and what you found to be the most interesting in the book.


No, you must study it yourself, otherwise you miss out on being-in-the-book ( "in-dem-Buch-sein" IIRC ). 
Grin

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?


Fine then - just don't go around with delusions of grandeur about understanding intentionality hehe!
 Tongue

Aren't you the guy that tells other people they do not understand intentionality and never actually explain in your own words what you understand it to be... yes yes, you are lol... Better read that book again so show you can do it with a little more style next time. Wink

Ag my bad about the argument from reason. I think I am going to do what you guys do best and give a link (try google and wiki for a start though and check out the infidels article) so you can read up a bit without me needing to give you a bum explanation you know. Although I think this argument is really not that difficult to understand for me to give an explanation really. And it is not like we have not discussed the argument before over at good old MyBB in the "Arguments for the existence of God" thread.
Logged
cyghost
Skeptically yours
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1404


Carpe diem


« Reply #41 on: April 14, 2010, 08:58:25 AM »

...it is not like we have not discussed the argument...
Oh the irony...
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #42 on: April 14, 2010, 09:05:49 AM »

So you have read about the argument cyghost? Wow amazing, you too do not nee dan explanation from me since we are all on the same page now. Isn't it wonderful when you are being constructive hey?
Logged
GCG
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +8/-4
Offline Offline

Posts: 1829


skeptical mantis is skeptical


adele horn
WWW
« Reply #43 on: April 14, 2010, 09:23:02 AM »

The Enchanted Naturalist’s Guide to Reality
I opened the page, and was met by a hippie dude against the backdrop of a snowy mountain.  cue the lsd enduded tripping duuuuude.

i speedread through that little piece of hogwash(nd quite honestly couldnt be bothered to waste my time trying to read all of it) and reaslised the following.
some people arent happy with religion, so they become atheists, but they are still kak scared that, just incase they are wrong, there is actually a god, they still have to be 'spiritual'.  so they dont burn in hell, and they have some kind of argument to present at the pearly gates.
and, and i see this often, while religion is shunned, they still talk to their 'angels' or familiars or fairies or wtf ever, cause the idea that we are truly left to our own devices, with no divine intervention, is terrifying as shit.
the idea that this planet, and all the leaches on it, is all by our lonesome  in the universe, just makes them want to cuddle to teddy at night.
so, hey presto!!  some grand design, so that, eventhough there is no god to pray to, to give meaning to your shitty life, at least there is so kind of plan, just incase you were thinking you are a insignigicant speck of grease in the great scheme of things.
just makes one feel a little better.
i guess, i could then be placed in the same little cubicle, cause i veer towards kharma.  as opposed to grand design.
i dont know the reality, i just know there is no god in the sky, helping or hindering as we go.  whether you negative or positive energy comes back to kick you in the ass, is open to debate.  what happens to the soul, is a mystery as well.
i just know a hippie dude climing snowy mountains in help-my-sterk-lyk-hempies, and pulling on fat spliff, is not my idea of answers.
Logged
cyghost
Skeptically yours
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1404


Carpe diem


« Reply #44 on: April 14, 2010, 09:24:42 AM »

I'm busy reading up on it - seems to be all about sleep and knowing whether you are or not. I haven't seen anything really funky in the way of an argument yet, but I am only half way through...
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10   Go Up
  Print  


 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 0.801 seconds with 23 sceptic queries.
Google visited last this page September 02, 2018, 06:37:14 AM
Privacy Policy