"Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually satisfied atheist"
- Thread starter In Bloom
- Start date
phildwyer said:
What the ......?
Oh hang on , it must be pilloried by selective criticism....
If I were to judge RELIGION [ a result of theism ] by its results using the same technique I would have more ammunition than available characters to express my 'findings'
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Fruitloop said:
It's an opinion, pretty much like everything else on this thread.
How do I personally evaluate what is and isn't important? Well, IMO this debate is less important than trying to find a cure for HIV/AIDS, resolving global disputes of all natures and whether or not my Brazilian can get her plane tickets changed to fly out next week. The first two are probably more important in the big view, but IMV the latter is of most immediate importance...
There is a difference between facts and opinions, though. For example, if everything is just opinion, how could we ever tackle global warming, since the opinions of those who think that there's no problem are equally valid as those that think we need to take action.
The biggest issue in terms of HIV/AIDS at the moment is probably that of contraception vs religious belief, followed by availability of affordable drugs vs intellectual property law. Both are value- not fact-based judgements and require philosophical-type reasoning in order to resolve them.
The biggest issue in terms of HIV/AIDS at the moment is probably that of contraception vs religious belief, followed by availability of affordable drugs vs intellectual property law. Both are value- not fact-based judgements and require philosophical-type reasoning in order to resolve them.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Fruitloop said:
You see that place outside your window called the real world? Well that's where these issues become important - not on a fucking message board. Which was my OP - there's no point in getting that upset about stuff that people write on message boards. Is that clear now?
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
phildwyer said:
*titter*
You LOVE don't you?
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
phildwyer said:
Ah you see this is the fake passion I was talking about? Would a post written without the seeming indignation be quite as...readable? Or invite response?
phildwyer said:
If I may , i shall answer the question : 'What would have happened without religion , focussing upon the religion about which you know most ?
Well , for one : it meant that I was born in England , not Northern Ireland as my Catholic parents wanted a better future for me than I would have experienced if they had stayed in The North.
2) There would be fewer people in the world with HIV/AIDS due to wider use of barrier methods of contraception.
3) There might have been a better understanding of the herbal remedy plants of Europe
4) There may have been a united Europe
5) There might have been Aztecs
6) Oh you know , the usual would have been fewer wars and more harmony between the races and far less oppresion of the less fortunate.
I am being naughty here by reflecting upon the negative aspects of the existence of Christian religious organisations and ignoring the benefits that may have occurred.
Science is not a political force - it is a political puppet.
But,hey, the internet [ possibly to be considered a benefit of the existance of Science ] has been an invaluable tool to identify that I am an ignorant , clumsy oaf of severly limited talent lacking in all forms of grace , so I must insist that others provide the rest of the argument that I am unfortunately unable to put into words carefully enough to allow a proper understanding.
I merely wish to add that my personal opinion , formed through careful observation and examination of available data , that religion is the greatest force for evil in the world , although I haven't got sufficient evidence to provide definitive proof.
revol68
what, fucking what?
phildwyer said:
I really don't know what Marx you've been reading but Marx was not a dualist. He was a materialist humanist and spent much of his time taking apart dualist idealist wank.
Seriously where did you learn marx? In a South American Maoist liberation theology summer school?
revol68 said:
Nonsense, rubbish, and utter garbage. Marx was not a materialist. He couldn't have been, he was a dialectician. The only works of Marxist that are even vaguely susceptible to a materialist interpretation are the tracts of the 1840's. which were written against the idealist Young Hegelians, and adopt a polemical materialist tone as a result. As a dialectician, Marx understood that all binary oppositions, such as ideas/matter are mutually determining, and that to reduce such binaries to one of their poles is to commit the most basic of philosophical errors.
Azrael23 said:Whilst human sacrifice marked ONE period of Aztec history there social structure was something we should still be aspiring to today. Well apart from the enslaving other tribes bit
We have no idea about the history of the Aztecs before the conquest. And it wasn't just "human sacrifice," it was pulling the hearts out of thousands of living human beings every day. Without anaesthetic.
phildwyer said:
Yes I do . did I say that their religion was better.
Y'know it seems pointless
I tried qualifiying my message to identify that I'm "just human" and then you go ahead and pick out the one bit that serves your argument and ignore the first bit which is my best bit of evidence.....
What about my personal history then, eh ?
revol68
what, fucking what?
phildwyer said:
so because marx understood ideas and matter to be symbiotic he wasn't a materialist? This is complete and utter bollox. Marx also sought in his more nuanced moments to disolve the binary between matter and ideas. Marx may have believed that humans ability to conceptulise marked them out from other animals but he had no doubt that this ability had arisen through evolution and was part of the material world. Marx was a fucking huge fan of Darwin and considered him to be doing to the natural sciences what he was attempting to do the human ones.
Btw im finding it very hard to believe that your an actually paid academic, your mad hat theories are more in tune with the weird guy who sits in the library all day with and blue carrier bag and smells of wee.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Fruitloop said:Agreed. But all the people on the message board exist IRL too
Don't worry about it!
And why are you shitting yourself?
revol68
what, fucking what?
of course you are correct that marx never used the term dialectic materialism.
But the simple indisputable fact is MARX WAS A MATERIALIST!
Only some sort of deranged liberation theologist would try to claim otherwise. Actually most of them don't deny marx was a materialist.
But the simple indisputable fact is MARX WAS A MATERIALIST!
Only some sort of deranged liberation theologist would try to claim otherwise. Actually most of them don't deny marx was a materialist.
revol68
what, fucking what?
phildwyer said:
are you on fucking crack???
Althusser???!!! Althusser was a extreme structuralist fuckwit.
Are you claiming that Fromm, Negri, Foucault, Derrida, Habermas, Adorno, Debord and Zizek all reject Marx as a materialist????
Are you seriously lacking something??
Similar threads
