The nature of time or consciousness have no impact on this. In terms of epistemology and ontology - I leave such weighty subjects to the experts. I don't have a significant interest in the origin of life or the nature of the universe. I hold that no answer in that space will make any difference to how I live my quotidian life. I think these sots of yearning questions are an inevitable by-product of human beings as meaning making creatures. As you say in the video, most of the putative answers here are wild, speculative and imaginative.
Most questions of metaphysics are just people telling stories to each other to try to ground the 'mystery' of life in some kind of foundational meta-narrative. I am happy to be a partially reflective follower of the crumbling remnants of the post-enlightenment world, who holds no real answers to any of the portentous questions and isn't all that fussed. — Tom Storm
When it comes to religious belief there can be no empirical evidence or inter-subjective confirmation. So faith is, in relations to these kinds of evidence, belief without evidence. But people may believe on the strength of experiences that in themselves seem to them to constitute good evidence for their faith; and if that is not wrongheadedly put out into the public arena as something that seeks to convince others, then it will draw no critique. — Janus
IMO, the best way to teach magick is to both embody said subject through metaphor. — Bret Bernhoft
The less plausible a statement, the less likely it is a lie — Agent Smith
And the sociological-pedagogical evidence for the efficacy of these "practical tools" is what exactly? — 180 Proof
Actually the dearth of rational thought is faith. That's the very point of faith, isn't it? — Tom Storm
Life is evidence of the divine. Nothing about the spark of life is reflected in atheism. It's just a dearth of rational thought masquerading as science. — neonspectraltoast
I often just quote Isaac Asimov: "I believe in evidence." :fire:
I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be. — 180 Proof
This is a common rhetorical device used by evangelical apologists all the time - 'You atheists have faith in reason/science.' Seems an inadequate approach and a gimmick. It's also an example of the tu quoquo fallacy, or an appeal to hypocrisy.
Most atheists I know do not have faith in science or anything else. Faith is the excuse you give for believing something when you have no good reason to believe it. An atheist who privileges science generally sees it as the most reliable method for determining what is true or not, developing tentative models, using the best available evidence at the time. Science therefore is fallibilistic and changes when new facts emerge - which is the opposite of how faith functions.
Atheists do not always subscribe to materialism. Some are into New Age ideas, reincarnation and idealism. Atheism generally holds that there is no good reason to believe in any gods. It does not say there are no gods (a positive claim). That's all there need be to it. There is no faith in 'no god' just as you or others do not have faith in 'no Loch Ness Monster'. As an atheist myself, I am simply unconvinced that there are god/s. — Tom Storm
Ideas aside, if I may offer a brief critique of the video presentation, it's far too long and rambling for what substance it offers, though I can't say that with much certainty because I could only bear to watch about a fifth of it. Also, the powerpoint-like images presented, which must have taken a lot of work, were more distracting than enhancing. — praxis
I am the OP and for context I am agnostic. By definition, a belief in a lack of the possibility of there being god is still a belief. Grammatically, one can take "faith" that god does not exist.I also think the OP is contradictory. There is not "atheistic faith" because atheism is against this sacred and religious act. Putting "faith" and "atheist" in the same group has no sense — javi2541997
While logical positivism is based on proofs and scientific evidences, religion depends on your own belief. — javi2541997
We are in 21th century already. Those pagans doctrine should not be allowed in schools. It is primitive and it goes against all the basic knowledge the world needs to find solutions to our problems. — javi2541997
Can religions be working assumptions and is it prudent/wise to believe in God (re Pascal's wager)? — Agent Smith
I recognize your freedom to say so, of course, but in my view 'magick' is in the same family of ways of thinking that the Enlightenment reacted against. Anything esoteric is suspect.
It'd be fine to teach about all religions in public schools, but I don't think it'd be wise or proper to teach it as binding or true. I suspect you wouldn't want bible-thumpers teaching biology, for similar reasons. — Pie
While I am an atheist, I am also a optimistic Gnostic-type of person. Whereas most Gnostics are rather pessimistic about this reality. Ultimately the use of tools such as magick and technologies are a matter of choice. If a person chooses to shut themselves off from their own potentials, so be it. It's when they attempt to limit others in their own individual pursuit(s) of actualization, that a line has clearly been crossed. — Bret Bernhoft
The Mike Tyson’s of the world can pulverize the world’s Einsteins; therefore we should let ear-biting boxers rule and do away with the Einstein’s (the guy had a weird kind of dyslexia or some such, which, naturally, is a disability). For evolution is about the culling of the weak. — javra
But in a nutshell, he says that when humans remove themselves from the conditions in which they evolved, they cease to evolve. — 0 thru 9
Us, not them; the disabled don't get a say in this, because... they are disabled. They are not us. We are not disabled, despite wearing glasses, needing medication to reduce our blood pressure or surgery after that incident with the knee.
There is a nasty lack of self reflection in the OP that reeks of a lack of breadth of experience. — Banno
Can I just point out this is a really stupid understanding of evolution? That's not what fitness is. — MindForged
Evolution is a theory about the origin of species. The 'idea of progress' is another matter altogether. — Wayfarer
I do not think evolution is an entity that can make decisions rather it is posited to be a process of change. I think the idea that evolution weeds out the weak is very pernicious. There is no intent supposed to be involved in evolution. — Andrew4Handel
Anything that fails to survive and reproduce is weak regardless of physical abilities — Andrew4Handel
Fitness defined by survival is banal and vice versa unfitness — Andrew4Handel
Also we are part of nature so anything we do is tautologously a part of nature. there are no natural laws for human behaviour that we have to follow humans are massively flexible and creative. — Andrew4Handel
Is it the severely disabled continuing to live that bothers you, or is the "taxpayer supplied checks"? — Bitter Crank
Evolution led us to be care-givers as well as perfect survivor specimens. Evolution doesn't have a plan. It just grinds along powered by random mutations. It's not heading anywhere. We are not the apex of creation, and evolution wasn't trying to get us there (unless you entertain some teleological ideas about the omega point, etc.). — Bitter Crank
what the OP is suggesting is a distorted view of the idea of survival of the fittest. It fails to understand that it is through evolution that we have recognized the need to take care of the sick, disabled, etc. To suggest otherwise implies a retardation (perhaps, a disability). — BrianW
Evolution filters out weaknesses not lives. The increase in the number of disabled people in productive fields both physical and intellectual, implies that we can learn to overcome inability in disability. Initially, way back in 'em days, we considered the disabled as failed human types and, in our ignorance, caused them a lot of suffering but, fortunately, presently, we have arrived at the realisation of how primitive that designation is. By incorporating deliberately directed and well-filtered human interactions with the disabled, we help them overcome the major limitation and threat which disability poses - social ostracism, which in turn leads to a larger host of issues. Finding ways to involve the disabled in all human activities has served as a therapeutic measure which has helped to counter some discomfitures. There is no doubt that the way to the future is through more integration and the outlook promises further success. Such is the true path of human evolution.
Isn't the statement, 'Disability is not inability!' a testament to our capacity to evolve? — BrianW
This is where you have misunderstood the OP. It was about mental retardation and chronic disability that cause suffering. Not variation of intellectual abilities and character traits.For one thing, there is rarely genetic determinism when we are discussing people's intellectual abilities or character traits. — LD Saunders
This is one reason we see so many extinct species --- evolution does not always lead to optimum outcomes.
Therefore, the argument here is based on a faulty premise. — LD Saunders
You're conflating a biological theory with an ethical principle - which it isn't — Wayfarer
Besides, appealing to evolutionary fitness as a basis for ethics is close to 'eugenics' which is 'the science of improving a human population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics. — Wayfarer
it is a mistake to project conclusions about what amounts to 'successfulness' on that basis; when you do, it always will sound very like eugenics or the justification of 'dog eat dog' capitalism on the basis of 'survival of the fittest'. — Wayfarer
You seem to attribute to death, by your construction, that it has anthropic properties, or sentience and maleficence of some kind. Death is not a person, but a state, one which befalls each of us. How do we say X 'is' dead if they are not X? By your argument, we ought not to attend funerals for the deceased we know...oops, we can't know them if they no longer are whom they were prior to (their) deaths. Funerals are out because they are about death, and not the dead. — gloaming
But this is nothing but a tautology: all it says is that every evolutionary success is a success, and every evolutionary failure is a failure - right up until the point a failure becomes a success and vice versa. You can draw no conclusions from this, let alone the idea that successes are 'proven' - whatever that even means. — StreetlightX
Not every university professor can maintain a positive sense of well-being and/or is a benefit to society and certainly not every given person with trisomy 21 is unable to maintain a positive wellbeing and/or is of no benefit to society. So, even by your own criteria of whose existence is allowed, the argument isn't sound. — Baden
Only those who were can be called that. What is a wrecked 'car'? Was it a horse, or is it still a car? Does it cease to be a car simply because it is inoperable and beyond economical repair?
If I sent you looking for a wrecked train, would you look for a wrecked car on your drive? If I sent you to look for a lost boy, would you look for a lost girl instead? Or maybe the wrecked car?
Again, if death befalls all of us, how can it be countenanced as a misfortune. — gloaming
So I'll confine myself to shuddering with fright when I wonder which intellects are sufficiently "superior" to decide whether my own disability condemns me to euthanasia? Do you consider yourself up to this task? :chin: I'm afraid I don't. Sorry. :fear: — Pattern-chaser
Stephen Hawking was afflicted later in life, but he is an illustration nevertheless of how misleading the term "disabled" can be. — Baden
Yes, of course you're right. Stephen Hawking should've been drowned at birth, right? :fear: Because he was just a "parasitic drain" on society, right? :fear: Yeah, kill 'em all! :fear: :groan: :cry: :rage: — Pattern-chaser
Disabilities of the kind that serve no positive influence. Mainly in the form of mental retardation. I only speak to physical disabilities insofar as they effect peoples mental/emotional wellbeing (as much as they enjoy their life and even want to live with what challenges they must face).
But this betrays a basic misunderstanding of evolution. Evolutionary 'fitness' is only ever context-bound (to an environment), and the evolutionary record is paved with detritus of the millions upon millions of evolutionary 'failures' produced by evolution itself. There is no possible, coherent way of talking about evolution as a 'legitimate' system with 'proven methods'. The majority of evolutionary history is a history of miserable failure. — StreetlightX
What I often got though was a disorganized "picture of thought" as if students believed their impressions of what I was trying to impart could simply be regurgitated on the page and it was up to me to reinterpret that back into some properly organized whole. There was a lack of application of thought to thought, and what I tended be given back was a filtered version of what I gave out rather than a positive transformation of it. — Baden
Others too, although they are less well-known. I am autistic, which is considered by many to be a disability. Do I have a place in society? — Pattern-chaser
I find myself wondering if we should not be considering instead how each member of society (able or disabled) can contribute to society? — Pattern-chaser