Religion thrives on the fear of "dead in a ditch". It transforms fear into hope for the faithful, for a life of bliss, a fetishized hope for eternal life. The faithful transubstantiate enduring present suffering as a means of achieving future bliss, this transubstantiation becomes the structure of the self.
The atheist does not escape this process, it became the structural bias of the future over the present in Western culture which is incorporated into our concept of progress. While the atheist does not have a transcendent escape route, it has science which it relies on to save it from suffering.
"Ditch" is an interesting word, it can mean a trench carved into the ground, or something we discard, or throw away, or an escape. A ditch almost like a wound to the earth as demonstrated in Maya Lin's Vietnam War Memorial, where the discarded names of the dead, enable our sentimental escape from their horrible realities — Cavacava
The atheist does not escape this process, it became the structural bias of the future over the present in Western culture which is incorporated into our concept of progress. — Cavacava
We're back to counting corpses again, to see who is the gooder thinker. If the insight is clear, the parasite is transformed into a symbiote. This is the magic of thought, that where biology must laboriously evolve, thought can change instantly. — unenlightened
According to Aaron Burr, an able lawyer and, I think, a much maligned figure in American history: "The law is whatever is boldly asserted and plausibly maintained." There's some basis for that claim, or was then. There's a lot more law now and the opportunity to "make" law solely by clever argument in a courtroom was no doubt much greater when Burr practiced then it is for practitioners now. But for a litigator, and particularly one that regularly does jury trials, what Burr referred to is primarily the ability to persuade others that a position being taken is reasonable and just and should be accepted. This involves the ancient art of discourse or rhetoric employed by such as Cicero, a great lawyer and politician and a great communicator of philosophy if not a great philosopher. I think that a degree of intelligence and skill is required for one to be a successful practitioner of that art. — Ciceronianus the White
My criteria is just.. was I still thinking about that comment 10 minutes after I read it... then it was cool. What's your criteria? What's an example of a post you like? — Mongrel
:-} By assuming that religion would be an integral part of the human psyche it is unsurprising that it appears to "win". But religions are cultural constructs, recall, systems of worship. To psychologize it, or describe established habits or methods in science as similar to religious rituals is not only exaggerated and seditious but false. Atheism, for instance, is not yet another religion. — jkop
I'm not saying that we never possess knowledge. I'm simply pointing out that there is a difference between the definition of knowledge (justified true belief), and one's claim to knowledge. Just because one claims to have knowledge it doesn't follow that they do. — Sam26
We're back to counting corpses again — unenlightened
So what are the rest of us -- chopped liver? — Bitter Crank
I tend to like what someone like Michael or Hanover has to say. — Sapientia
That's awesome.Where did I suggest anything was arbitrary? I don't even follow the use of this term in this context. "Arbitrary" describes the basis of a decision indicating it was without rational basis, just whim or caprice. It isn't like 1000 years ago a committee arbitrarily decided society should be a certain way. Society evolved the way it is, and perhaps for the reason you or Michael suggested. Obviously there's a reason things are as they are. The point is that the cause of the injustice offers no support for the continuation of the injustice.
We could provide a societal evolution theory explaining why certain groups became slaves and other masters, all of which may be correct, but none of which would justify continued subservience by the oppressed group. So sure, women were given the weaker roles because they were weaker, but since most contemporary jobs don't require clubbing tigers, adherence to Neanderthal norms is not only unjust, but it oppresses significant talents and limits potential human development. — Hanover
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.