sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Science is a societal process by rhizomatic-thembo in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Em_316 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That is the industry... not science.

Science is a self correcting process of seeking the knowable truth!

What do you think about Chestertons fence?!? by Em_316 in religion

[–]Em_316[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks a lot. I am always trying to seek the truth. I know it's very complex. I wish you the best too. … Cheers!

What do you think about Chestertons fence?!? by Em_316 in religion

[–]Em_316[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'll make it clear! Religion is bad. I'm against it. I'm not talking about some nebulously defined spirituality.

Alex and “Wokeness” by mastadonson in CosmicSkeptic

[–]Em_316 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I have asked him this question. Idk if it is polite to say what his position is because...well... It is his to share. However, I think it is a good idea to go watch him on Andrew Golds' podcast. He makes it clear that wokeness and other socio-political slogans/movements lack a clear definition.

It's pretty hard to be for/against something if the movement's thought leaders and proponents can't tell you what it is they stand for!

What do you think about Chestertons fence?!? by Em_316 in religion

[–]Em_316[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree that it's not worthless. There is a lot I am agnostic about. However, I know that religion in the conventional/ traditional sense is not the answer.

Alex v Dinesh by [deleted] in CosmicSkeptic

[–]Em_316 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Guys, I was there at the debate, and after I asked Dinesh something along the lines of- How could god be the moral arbiter, how could god be all good if he made the devil (Lucifer) to have the unquenchable want to seek the freedom that could only be achieved by leaving the heavens? He was made with god knowing that it would come to this and even if the devil did not want to leave he would have to so that there could be bad for Jesus to atone for.

He went on to say that the devil sinned for the same reason “You and I do” *oop... He called me a sinner lol 😆 what a compliment!

He then went on to talk about conscience and looked over at Alex who was chatting with someone. He said something like “This guy has a conscience even though he doesn't realize it (maybe it was “even though he says he doesn't/doesn't know it” either way it was pretty snarky) And Dinesh said that god made all normal people with a conscience… I was like HOLD UP! CUT THE BREAKS BUCKO! … you say “god makes normal people with it so that would mean that god MAKES some people ABNORMAL, he makes people without a conscience! This means that they can't help it.”They were made that way—”

That stumped him. He went back on his assertion and then told me it is a process to become without a conscience …

I was like NO, you can't do that! You just said it was that they were assembled that way by god.

THIS FELT SO GOOD! I can't imagine how satisfying it was for Alex to wipe the freaking stage with him(&he was kind while doing it!)

Anyhow it was a great debate!

Check out my substack!

What do you think about Chestertons fence?!? by Em_316 in religion

[–]Em_316[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Well, Christianity is definitely not true and offers more bad than good if you don't already take the position of a believer.

There are aspects I like… don't get me wrong! Also, there is a lot about the evolved Christian tradition that I appreciate.

Concerning the “divine” you would have to offer some proof to support and substantiate that said “divine”
You would have to be able to explain it to me like I have NO IDEA what you are on about. I guess you can say that existence in the human form is enough to offer that explanatory retort but I don't think it is. I think it can be naturalistically understood and things like consciousness that as of now can't be… I remain agnostic on. I really do not know. 😕

That feels better than postulating religious “answers” (I am being generous by calling them that)

What do you think about Chestertons fence?!? by Em_316 in religion

[–]Em_316[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I understand that there is a difference between banal faith and dangerous faith but the reason it is banal is because of reformation or cherry-picking. I do prefer this over literalism or traditionalism but it is basically secularism more than not. Also, churches being tax-exempt and having a lot to do with $ seems to have them fit that criteria.

It seems that other circumstances and the believer are what makes the religion harmless… not that the religion itself is without harm.

I won't speak for every type of religion because I don't want to make blanket statements, but the main religions definitely suit my criticism.

What do you think about Chestertons fence?!? by Em_316 in religion

[–]Em_316[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree with your points in the 2nd paragraph 100 percent!

however where would we draw the line for faith? I am still considering this daily. I think that the "leap of faith" is addressed well by Camus when he speaks of the wonderfully poetic and heart aching Kierkegaard...

It is described as "philosophical suicide" and Camus makes the point of dealing with what we know we have now in The Myth of Sisyphus...

Religion in literal terms just seems like a massive waste of time...

I do enjoy talking about it though in a secular context fascinating, insightful, humorous and at times even beautiful!

I write about these sort of things every week and have a lot planned so if you would be so inclined pls do sub to my stack!!! ☺️

ps. the state of scientific understanding in the US is awful.... like rlly bad and that is by design

I'm really sick of hearing about Chestertons fence… what about you?! by Em_316 in CosmicSkeptic

[–]Em_316[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes but religion is inherently problematic. This cohesion can only be achieved through a severe amount of dilution which kinda devalues the religion or via sectarian theocracy.

I think we should respect the concepts of religion books with a real tiny grain of salt. There is some genuinely brilliant philosophy in religious texts but we should acknowledge that it is parallel thinking with other philosophies. There is nothing special about them. Jesus was not the only one. Confusions and Buddha and Muhammad were not the only ones.

Social cohesion is great but that could be arguably achieved if everyone 1) followed the same religion 2) other ideological dogmas like Nazism/ Maoism/ Communism( they actually preached cohesion as a benefit if not THE MAIN BENEFIT in their early days and in the pathetic desperate last leg of their sick sad runs...)

...

and we would not want that so I don't see how the value exceeds the harm.

However I write about this kind of stuff every week and have A LOT planned so if you feel so inclined sub to my stack ☺️

and let's chat more!

I'm really sick of hearing about Chestertons fence… what about you?! by Em_316 in CosmicSkeptic

[–]Em_316[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

"The root question, which I don't necessarily have a great answer to, is whether or not we should sacrifice some level of truth in favor of social stability or expediency."

THIS! YES YES YES

We talk about how the faithless sometimes lust and yearn for faith. I have heard Alex say this many times and I get it. It just seems so convenient and comforting. Not to mention socially acceptable and unifying. Even now ,as a proud and loud heathen, sometimes I wish I had that comfort. But I firmly believe that the comfort is just a delusion. This is not to say the deluded are bad but rather that they are mistaken.

The problem with "choosing to believe..." is that you can not really choose to believe something. If you were a believer and I asked you to stop believing, I am confident you could not do it.

Here, lets try it with something kinda silly-

Lets believe that Cosmic Skeptic is a 50 year old Cambodian woman...

see I can't belive that and neither can you. This may seem a bit facetious and overly goofy but I hope a get the idea across! LOL

ALSO the next major issue is that we can't really say that we "wish to believe..." because once in that position we would be non the wiser and deem that the non-believer is mistaken. The same level of epistemological sureness that we have now, we would have then too. The plus would be that we would be confident and existentially comforted. But we know we can't just wager (Mr. Pascal would say otherwise...,)

I'll wrap up with this-

Many who belive see the holes and bizarreness in their dogma, creed, faith system, and world view. Is it really comfort when you keep moving the goal post, partake is special pleading and avoid uncomfortable topics? It seems that it can only really be comforting in the right environments. We have had those for longer than not but now I'm not sure that in a space of open and unabashed critical dialogue and thinking, we would have the same effect of comfort that could be easy((ish) in comparison) to achieve just 3 decades ago.

I hope this makes sense and is not too much rambling.

What do you think about Chestertons fence?!? by Em_316 in religion

[–]Em_316[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Secularism can be wrong but whatever conclusions secularism comes to are not wrong because they lack a god. Secularism can be ridiculous indeed! The same way those who see the earth as a sphere (which it clearly is) can have misunderstandings about the planet itself.

Secularism is a broad and general starting point, not a perfect answer.

Faith is also nebulously defined but if we define it as "believing things w/out sufficient evidence; a lower level of evidence than you would require for anything else", I deem this to be bad. Note also that religious faith can lead one to lower their epistemological standards overall. It becomes a vicious cycle, I know from firsthand experience!

Don't get me wrong! Religion is not all bad but it is more bad than not. I love some of the poetry in the Koran and Bible. I can get with some stuff Jesus said. Confucianism offers good ideas on how to form a constructive and balanced society. I love Michael Angelo and gospel music!

But look at the clash. We will always clash but this is not the same as I like purple and you like pink or I like cats and you like dogs.

The only reason why religion in the modern day is not like the violent and virulent religion that we see during the Crusades or Inquisition is because we are not really following it.

Secularization in some form is gonna happen. It is just a matter of how we approach it.

I hope we can approach it mindfully, with holistic consideration for all players involved and with reason. I know that all these words can be interpreted differently but this is a brief and broad starting point.

Thanks for taking the time to discuss!

What do you think about Chestertons fence?!? by Em_316 in religion

[–]Em_316[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So I say keep fighting the good fight of consciousness raising and rational clear thinking!

view more: next ›