Who asked you?
On Nov 6, 3:14 am, BBDD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> EXACTLY!!! It is version of naturalism. And a crackpot version at
> that. Very few share this particular bazaar view of 'naturalism'.
>
> http//niggerwise.com
>
> On Nov 5, 6:05 pm, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Stem, you are asking the wrong person. I am quite ignorant when it
> > comes to this version of 'naturalism'. What I THOUGHT they were saying
> > is that they approach ‘reality’ in a relative way… recognizing that
> > they will never know everything. Also, many beliefs are things they
> > wish to either not address or reject out right. As a result, I find
> > they seem to bow to the ‘god’ of practical ego. While this area
> > certainly should not be ignored, for ‘them’, it appears to be a
> > centerpiece of their belief system.
> > So, the result is accepting those things necessary to deal with in
> > everyday life…and anything else can be reduced to being either
> > unacceptable or a non-issue.
>
> > On Nov 5, 3:47 pm, stem cell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Orn. said >>>> Naturalism claims to be able to know everything that we
> > > NEED TO
> > > KNOW!
> > > The caps are mine. Again, rather than a pure search, it is yet
> > > another
> > > relativistic view and, in this case one that is bounded by the
> > > subjective notion of ‘need to know’, rather than anything objective.
> > > <<<<
>
> > > Does the theory OF Natualism claim to "know" everything or are they
> > > making the claim that the things (most things) we thought were correct
> > > are found to be either impossible or improbable given our current
> > > scientific progress and knowledge?
>
> > > stemcell
>
> > > On Nov 4, 7:58 pm, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > OK stem, I think I have listened to the correct one
> > > > now.http://www.centerforinquiry.net/mp3_stream/myWimpy.html
>
> > > > Your directions were fine, I just had a brain fart!
>
> > > > I took a lot of notes yet am not sure I wish to combine them now.
>
> > > > In general, I see naturalism as a presented in this audio as
> > > > skepticism light. Yet, not the type of skepticism that over the
> > > > millennia has sought the transcendental. More the brand that rejects
> > > > any possibility of the divine. In fact, it appears to start out with
> > > > axioms that result in or even say that the transcendental is
> > > > impossible.
>
> > > > A few quick observations gleaned from the audio:
> > > > 1. Naturalism sees science as being the scientific method and this is
> > > > enough.
> > > > I find this teleological proclamation to be just that, a conclusion
> > > > wrapped up in the assumption.
>
> > > > 2. Naturalism claims to be able to know everything that we NEED TO
> > > > KNOW!
> > > > The caps are mine. Again, rather than a pure search, it is yet another
> > > > relativistic view and, in this case one that is bounded by the
> > > > subjective notion of ‘need to know’, rather than anything objective.
>
> > > > 3. Naturalism wishes to tear down the wall between naturalism and
> > > > supernaturalism.
> > > > Well, this is the lip service given at least. In fact, their comment
> > > > about "the data decides for or against theories in the long run (a
> > > > progressive cumulation)" precisely denies their demand for experience
> > > > being included in the three ways of naturalism
> > > > experience
> > > > reason
> > > > science
>
> > > > 4. Now this hodgepodge of a philosophy makes the bizarre statement
> > > > “Nature exists based on common sense.” This is fine, IF it is given as
> > > > an axiom to start out with. Otherwise, it again appears to be a bit of
> > > > a teleological notion. And, the waffling on who has the ‘burden of
> > > > proof’, naturalism or supernaturalism and the assumptions that
> > > > transcendentalism is ‘outmoded’, to me, is almost laughable. This is
> > > > followed by some sort of testing of ‘moral knowledge’.
>
> > > > 5. Quote about naturalism from the mp3: “You can derive a PRACTICAL
> > > > KIND OF MORALITY from naturalism.” – The caps are mine again. While I
> > > > have nothing against a practical approach to being as such nor as an
> > > > aspect of that which is known, in no way is it the center piece for an
> > > > epistemology let alone an ontology. In this case, what appears to be a
> > > > pseudotheology results in “enough meaning” rather than no meaning!
> > > > Again, clearly a philosophy based on relativism.
>
> > > > 6. Next is the assumption that there is no cosmic mother, father etc.
> > > > and to hold this bit of faith near and dear is a sign of self
> > > > responsibility. A true amalgamation of ethics, theology and
> > > > philosophy.
>
> > > > Well, as you can see through my generally hyperbolic exuberance, I
> > > > have some rather strong thoughts about the topic. I’m sure that when/
> > > > if I read the website provided I’ll have more to spew.
>
> > > > So, again, I sense that one who follows naturalism, rather than
> > > > burning at the stake those with god beliefs as most atheists are want
> > > > to do, they would take them out behind the shed and shoot them…after a
> > > > short attempt at reeducation.
>
> > > > On Nov 4, 4:16 pm, stem cell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > > Thanks for the thoughts (and the time you spent looking in to this)
> > > > > However, I wanted to get your thoughts on naturalism...as discussed in
> > > > > the podcast with John Shook. I am just getting in to the literature.
> > > > > The link I provided onwww.naturalism.orgisanewfindso when I
> > > > > heard of the podcast on Point of Inquiry my interest peaked.
>
> > > > > I would like to address some points you made.
>
> > > > > Orn. said >>> Oh, I have learned in
> > > > > different contexts how cruel it is to play with people who hold such
> > > > > beliefs, so I seldom engage in such activity. <<<
>
> > > > > With this I totally agree. I tend to shy away from "taking away one's
> > > > > faith", which most believers "believe" a nontheist skeptic is out to
> > > > > do. To each thier own. I tend to think that methodological natualism
> > > > > is the best tool humans can use for an objective explaination of
> > > > > what's out there. The reason being...because it works.
>
> > > > > On Nov 4, 6:01 pm, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > stem, assuming that this is what you wanted me to listen to:
>
> > > > > >http://www.centerforinquiry.net/mp3_stream/myWimpy.html
>
> > > > > > I listened to as much as I could and skipped to the end to see the
> > > > > > conclusion.
>
> > > > > > Thoughts: I had forgotten how, in my youth, I was fascinated with
> > > > > > Erik
> > > > > > Weisz. I now even remember studying most written about his attempts
> > > > > > at
> > > > > > such communication, prior and after death. In a way, my current
> > > > > > skepticism is in part based on his work. Oh, I have learned in
> > > > > > different contexts how cruel it is to play with people who hold such
> > > > > > beliefs, so I seldom engage in such activity.
>
> > > > > > Anyway, over the decades, not only have I reached the same
> > > > > > conclusion
> > > > > > (no communication of this kind is possible between the dead and the
> > > > > > living) but I’ve added a strong intuition for the same result.
>
> > > > > > All of this is the case even though almost ever culture has stories
> > > > > > and myths about this type of communication.
>
> > > > > > I don’t know what else there is to discuss.
>
> > > > > > On Nov 4, 12:56 pm, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > IF you mean the mp3 from
> > > > > > > here:http://www.pointofinquiry.org/the_12th_annual_cfi_houdini_seance/
>
> > > > > > > I'll try to listen to it and respond. Overall, I consider the
> > > > > > > things
> > > > > > > implied by the article there to be based in superstition, a form
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > ignorance.
>
> > > > > > > On Nov 4, 12:25 pm, stem cell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > That link will take you to the Point of Inquiry pocast shows.
> > > > > > > > There
> > > > > > > > are episode titles there to choose from and the episode in
> > > > > > > > question
> > > > > > > > with Shook is 28th down from the podcast titled "The 12th
> > > > > > > > annual CFI
> > > > > > > > Houdini Seance".
>
> > > > > > > > stemcell
>
> > > > > > > > On Nov 4, 2:17 pm, stem cell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > I was listening to this podcast today and thought it would be
> > > > > > > > > a good
> > > > > > > > > topic to discuss. I would like to get personal thoughts on
> > > > > > > > > this from
> > > > > > > > > Orn. and Aaron. I hope this link goes through. Just FYI.
> > > > > > > > > More
> > > > > > > > > information on this can be found atwww.naturalism.org.
>
> > > > > > > > >www.pointofinquiry.org/john_shook_naturalism_and_the_scientific_outlook/
>
> > > > > > > > > stemcell- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Memphis Freethought Alliance" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
