Neo-Atheism and the...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Neo-Atheism and the Demiurge  

  RSS

Tom Bradley
(@tom-bradley)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 6
01/11/2012 5:26 pm  

Over at Reality Sandwich. I call down upon neo-atheism the Demiurge's malignant might. Dawkins and dead Hitchens are exposed for the seven-year-old lads they are, tucked in their bunk bed for the night, loudly reassuring themselves that monsters are not hiding in the closet.

http://www.realitysandwich.com/neo-atheism_demiurge


Quote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4021
01/11/2012 5:43 pm  

Well . . . err, they're not exposed as such at all. It's merely that, towards the end of your hurtling bombast, you assert that they are such. Not the same thing at all.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 4920
01/11/2012 5:50 pm  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
It's merely that, towards the end of your hurtling bombast, you assert that they are ...

A rather lengthy bombast, to be sure. And it's only his first post.


ReplyQuote
Tom Bradley
(@tom-bradley)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 6
01/11/2012 6:21 pm  

You got me there. Dawkins and Hitchens are not actually seven-year-old lads.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
01/11/2012 8:49 pm  

As I read that, I got the feeling that I was walking through the words in a dictionary stepping only on adjectives.

You get an A for adjective.

Now can you say that entire piece in just one or two sentences? A single paragraph maybe?

It seems like you have a bone to pick monotheism and atheism, is that it?


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
02/11/2012 10:51 pm  
"Tom Bradley" wrote:
Dawkins and dead Hitchens are

...more insightful and better writers than a certain Mr. Tom Bradley.

In case you missed it, Dawkins, Hitchens, and the rest of the "New Atheists" (who actually aren't "new" at all) aren't just denying the "demiurge" or creator deity. Skeptical atheists -- of whom Dawkins and Hitchens are merely the most visible and vocal representatives -- stand in opposition to all of the wacky supernatural clap-trap that passes for "spirituality," including all those newfangled, abstract, and verbose god-ideas of modern theologians, mystics, and occultists. This includes "energy" and "forces" that are "beyond the Creator," and other such nonsense. Observe Dawkins (correctly) noting that the "pantheism" of figures like Shelley is nothing more than "sexed up atheism."

And it's not that they're trying to reassure themselves that these things aren't real, as Bradley seems to think: they -- like the rest of us -- live in a world where real people take real actions based on fairy-tale beliefs that cannot be demonstrated to be true (not even "to the individual"). Spreading the meme of critical thinking is a worthwhile endeavor.

If you ask me, there aren't enough people who take a skeptical and serious evaluation of "spiritual" beliefs, which, when one examines them in any depth at all, turn out to be puerile and laughable.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4021
03/11/2012 12:15 am  
"Los" wrote:
...more insightful and better writers than a certain Mr. Tom Bradley.

I've never read Dawkins, but I've always admired Christopher Hitchens as a writer, so I'd certainly agree with you there.

The rest of your post is of course the usual putrescence that I've come to know and love, but at least we can agree on your first line.


ReplyQuote
Markus
(@markus)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 254
03/11/2012 12:46 am  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
... that I've come to know and love, but at least we can agree on your first line.

This could be the start of a beautiful relationship 🙂

Markus


ReplyQuote
amadan-De
(@amadan-de)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 686
03/11/2012 8:42 pm  
"Los" wrote:
If you ask me, there aren't enough people who take a skeptical and serious evaluation of "spiritual" beliefs, which, when one examines them in any depth at all, turn out to be puerile and laughable and almost universally harmless.

FTFY

I can't remember who right now but I do recall seeing a TV programme a few years ago where a noted athiest commentator tried to read Dawkins' "God Delusion" and said that he had to give up because the overly strident quality of the writing and the constant attacking of soft-targets made him too enraged to keep trying.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
04/11/2012 5:45 pm  
"somebody" wrote:
and almost universally harmless.

http://whatstheharm.net/

And quite apart from any harm, people interested in truth don't accept beliefs that are undemonstrated to be true.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4021
04/11/2012 5:51 pm  
"Los" wrote:
And quite apart from any harm, people interested in truth don't accept beliefs that are undemonstrated to be true.

Thanks for your opinion, Los.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4021
04/11/2012 6:13 pm  
"Los" wrote:
. . . people interested in truth don't accept beliefs that are undemonstrated to be true.

A posting of yours a few weeks back is interesting, then:

The word [Abrahadabra] (and its number) is a glyph for the fact that the True Self is intertwined inseperably with All (and all-possibility, Nuit). If it were not for the Khu producing the illusion of separateness, this True Self would have no way to experience anything.

And later in the same post:

As noted above, the Silent/True Self is united with Nuit, and hence 418 (Abrahadabra, Aiwass) is a formula for expressing its place in the universe.

So, either you're not interested in truth or you have demonstrated the verity of your belief in these two quoted passages. Which is it?


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
04/11/2012 6:25 pm  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
Thanks for your opinion, Los.

You're very welcome.

So, either you're not interested in truth or you have demonstrated the verity of your belief in these two quoted passages.

Those passages aren't talking about factual claims about the universe: they're describing discursive systems (i.e. ways of looking at the universe and talking about it).

To give you an analogy, if you look at the famous optical illusion "The Rubin's Vase": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubin_vase

The statements "There is a vase" and "There are two faces" aren't factual claims about the picture: they're descriptions of two ways to look at the stuff that's there.

In the same exact way, the statements "There is a self and thus separateness" and "The self is intertwined with the universe, such that there is no separateness" aren't factual claims, but ways of looking at the stuff that's there. Each is equally an illusion, each is equally a function of perception.

When we talk about beliefs about the universe -- such as, for example, the belief that there are god beings or that people have psychic powers -- we're within the realm of the former discursive system (in which we perceive the universe as consisting of separate beings and things). Within that discurisve system, we can evaluate whether those claims are true.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
04/11/2012 7:46 pm  

map vs territory


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4021
04/11/2012 7:54 pm  

No, Azidonis, it's more basic than that. Los will spin any sophistry, no matter how absurd, in order to "win the debate".


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
04/11/2012 10:29 pm  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
No, Azidonis, it's more basic than that. Los will spin any sophistry, no matter how absurd, in order to "win the debate".

What's the prize for that?


ReplyQuote
MoogPlayer
(@moogplayer)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 86
05/11/2012 1:38 am  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
No, Azidonis, it's more basic than that. Los will spin any sophistry, no matter how absurd, in order to "win the debate".

Oh brother!  ::)

So because someone consistently asserts a point of view which disagrees with yours, they are just being an argumentative jerk? Do you guys really think he's that shallow?

Maybe Los doesn't think there is a debate to "win"? Perhaps this issue so clear in his mind, and in the minds of all those on the right side of progress, that it doesn't seem like there should be anything at all to argue about.

Did you know that there are still people alive today who believe the earth is flat? Even though there has been lots of evidence to the contrary, and it's pretty much universally observed to be an outdated way of thinking. Doesn't that seem silly to you? I guess having visited space and taken lots of pictures isn't good enough for them. I guess time will have to tell whether or not we should believe in spirits and ghosts and whatnot.

( http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/ Check out there website. I thought it was a joke. No, They are for real.)


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
05/11/2012 10:48 am  
"amadan-De" wrote:
"Los" wrote:
If you ask me, there aren't enough people who take a skeptical and serious evaluation of "spiritual" beliefs, which, when one examines them in any depth at all, turn out to be puerile and laughable and almost universally harmless.

FTFY

I can't remember who right now but I do recall seeing a TV programme a few years ago where a noted athiest commentator tried to read Dawkins' "God Delusion" and said that he had to give up because the overly strident quality of the writing and the constant attacking of soft-targets made him too enraged to keep trying.

So? Someone who isn't you, who you can't remember, said something negative about a book? Did you read the book? Why does this "noted athiest (sic)" trump your opinion? Would you please identify these soft targets verses the strong ones?

On a more general level, what does all of this have to do with Crowley? Aside from "Thank God I'm an atheist" and the poorly constructed article that forms the topic of this thread I'm of the opinion that this has nothing to do with Crowley. There are plenty of atheist-themed message boards on the internet, so why not continue this most intelligent discussion on one of those?

At the very least, if this discussion is going to carry on here would the lot of you please quote from sources and - pretty please - tie this into Crowley. Y'know? That fella we're here to discuss? At least that's what I thought.

509.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4021
05/11/2012 1:12 pm  
"509" wrote:
On a more general level, what does all of this have to do with Crowley? Aside from "Thank God I'm an atheist" and the poorly constructed article that forms the topic of this thread I'm of the opinion that this has nothing to do with Crowley. There are plenty of atheist-themed message boards on the internet, so why not continue this most intelligent discussion on one of those?

At the very least, if this discussion is going to carry on here would the lot of you please quote from sources and - pretty please - tie this into Crowley. Y'know? That fella we're here to discuss? At least that's what I thought.

From the site guidelines:

LAShTAL.COM hosts Forums, downloads, links, galleries and other interactive or collaborative resources as a service for members with an interest in Thelema and in the life, works and legacy of Aleister Crowley.

This doesn't support your implication that only threads directly concerned with Crowley have a place on this website; were that the case, there wouldn't be forums here to discuss the work of Kenneth Grant and the Typhonian Tradition, nor a forum to discuss the work of Andrew Chumbley. There wouldn't be discussions of music by such as Led Zeppelin, Killing Joke, Current 93, etc. There wouldn't be any discussions about Spare.

These and other topics have been discussed on this website for many years now, and the owner of the site would have intervened long ago had he considered that such threads had no place on the website.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
05/11/2012 3:00 pm  

Atheism is involved with theism. Thus, it does not solve the problem.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
05/11/2012 3:07 pm  

By stating "On a more general level" I wasn't implying the topics had to be "directly" concerned with Crowley.

Grant, Chumbley, Spare, etc... can easily be tied into Crowley with ease, as can the musicians you mention. I think Tibet declared "World War 93!" on his last album.

I''ve read the guidelines, thank you.

509.


ReplyQuote
amadan-De
(@amadan-de)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 686
05/11/2012 4:47 pm  
"Los" wrote:
"somebody" wrote:
and almost universally harmless.

http://whatstheharm.net/

And quite apart from any harm, people interested in truth don't accept beliefs that are undemonstrated to be true.

LOL  I suppose it's just because that collection of anecdotes that you link to agrees with your position that you have overlooked the issue of confirmation bias that you like to throw at other people so much?  Also they have some really small numbers of stories for stuff that is as big a problem as you claim, not to mention completely missing the importance of context when lifting random news stories from cultures other than your own.

I've wondered for a while now why you are apparently allowed to fall back on "Those passages aren't talking about factual claims about the universe: they're describing discursive systems (i.e. ways of looking at the universe and talking about it)" or "It's just a model!" but will not allow others the freedom to use their own models, metaphors and myths when looking at the universe and talking about it.

And look, the faithful remoras to Los' Great White of scepticism.

"MoogPlayer" wrote:
So because someone consistently asserts a point of view which disagrees with yours, they are just being an argumentative jerk?

Dunno, you'd have to ask him why he is so consistent in creating arguments* in threads that attempt to discuss anything that he feels disagrees with his previously stated point of view.
*I'm being generous and assuming he sees them as different arguments though it can seem like the same one-note repeated ad infinitum.

"509" wrote:
So? Someone who isn't you, who you can't remember, said something negative about a book? Did you read the book? Why does this "noted athiest (sic)" trump your opinion? Would you please identify these soft targets verses the strong ones?

Terribly sorry not to come up to your rigorous standards of empirical research and investigation.
It was Howard Jacobson (which may mean nothing to you) and the reason it stuck in my mind is that he clearly stated that he expected to agree with the book but found its content and style to be so obnoxiously fanatical that he found it hard not to simply throw the book at the wall.
I have not read Dawkin's book, nor am I likely to, i) no time, ii) no interest in what bee he has in his bonnet, iii) I'm not in either of his target markets of "hard-core" sceptics that need ammunition or "religious dupes" that need curing, iv) (if necessary) I have been leary of Dawkins ever since the Selfish Gene, not to mention the mess that is the "meme" theory.  I also know several very good biologists who find his one-dimensional portrayal of Darwins own thoughts about his own theory to be a gross misrepresentation.
There have been some thoughtful critiques of The God Delusion though that may address your questions if you care to look, try this one that managed to get a response from Mary Midgley who has also written this relevant essay.


ReplyQuote
Share: