Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Religion IS crazy!

Jump to new
Beliefs should conform to our best scientific understanding of the world. We should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit our beliefs.
Click to expand...

Perhaps the Satanists can get the Materialists onboard with this particular tenet. Don't hold your breath.

Materialists makes the worst Materialists. :)
 
As a group, materialist have a rather clear (and well-documented) history of ignoring material evidence that is un-supportive of their ideology. The notion that materialists were inflicted at the Enlightenment with an inability avoid physical evidence is rather silly, wouldn't you say? It's far more sales pitch than it is reality. And its only made worse by the fact that materialists now envision themselves as the masters of evidence and reason. Generally, they prefer to replay battles won (imagined or otherwise) than deal with what's in front of them.

Let me guess, you're a materialist? :)
 
Imagine living in a Islamic nut-case country like Saudi Arabia....in all honestly, l'd probably top myself within a day or two..

No alcohol
No pork products
Religious police and force to pray (up to 5 times a day) to a make-believe, man made, fictional story/character
Women treated like 2nd class citizens and covered head-to-toe
Gay/lesbian/transgender is illegal and punishable
Then to top it off, you live in a giant hot sweltering sandpit

So, playing a game of chess might be the only fun you have in life. Not anymore. Check out this idiot!


Chess forbidden in Islam, rules Saudi mufti, but issue not black and white​

Saudi Arabia’s grand mufti has ruled that chess is forbidden in Islam, saying it encourages gambling and is a waste of time.

Sheikh Abdulaziz al-Sheikh was answering a question on a television show in which he issues fatwas in response to viewers’ queries on everyday religious matters.

He said chess was “included under gambling” and was “a waste of time and money and a cause for hatred and enmity between players”.

Sheikh justified the ruling by referring to the verse in the Qur’an banning “intoxicants, gambling, idolatry and divination”. It is not clear when the fatwa was delivered.
Click to expand...

 
Biosemiosis org said:
As a group, materialist have a rather clear (and well-documented) history of ignoring material evidence that is un-supportive of their ideology. The notion that materialists were inflicted at the Enlightenment with an inability avoid physical evidence is rather silly, wouldn't you say? It's far more sales pitch than it is reality. And its only made worse by the fact that materialists now envision themselves as the masters of evidence and reason. Generally, they prefer to replay battles won (imagined or otherwise) than deal with what's in front of them.

Let me guess, you're a materialist? :)
Click to expand...

Well it's not a word I have ever used to describe myself, but why don't you provide your definition of what you think it means and I will tell you whether I fit that catorgory.

Because when you use a term like "ideology" along with a word like materialist, I think you might be trying to include alot more baggage in with the term, and trying to use the term to describe more things than I think it does.

So I might say yes, I am pretty much a materialist, but I might not fit your loaded definition, because you have added baggage to it.

For example it's like when people say "atheist ideology", well atheism is just a lack of belief in a god, nothing more, there is no ideology, it's an answer to one question, nothing else, everything else is something else.
 
Value Collector said:
So I might say yes, I am pretty much a materialist, but I might not fit your loaded definition, because you have added baggage to it.
Click to expand...

Can someone who keeps going on about morals also be a materialist (my definition: someone to whom the acquisition of material objects is paramount) ?

Surely the more you consume, the less you leave for others, and the more damage you do to the environment in extracting the materials that you covet.

So, does my definition of materialist apply to you, or do you have another one ?
 
DB008 said:
Chess forbidden in Islam, rules Saudi mufti, but issue not black and white
Click to expand...

I wonder if this in any way pertains to the current tensions between Saudi Arabia and Iran. I believe chess originated in Persia, so SA might be using this as a way to denigrate anything that comes from Iran.
 
I thought you said you wanted to know the truth, VC.

Do you care what is true? ........ (as you keep saying to me).

As biosemiosis said,

1. Science cannot answer the questions of ultimate reality

The creation of space and time at the origin of the universe is an event forever hidden in the deep unobservable past. We are likely to never know, with any objective certainty, what the source of this event was. The same is true of the origin of life, the rise of consciousness, and the basis of free will. While it is entirely normal that we would want conclusive answers to these great questions, what we are actually left with is simply existence as we find it. From that, we can pursue discoveries with passion, and hope to have the wisdom to understand what the universe is telling us.

Consequently, the constant implication (by many popularizers of science) that science has answered these questions (or is on the verge of answering these questions) is unethical and cavalier with regard to the evidence. The impetus for this cavalier conduct is highly questionable, particularly given the fact that the output of this conduct isn’t an advancement on a cure for cancer or cleaner air over our cities – which are the actual hopes and dreams of the public who pays for science – but is most often social, political, and even legal in nature.

As it turns out, the greatest consequence of these questions is how we as groups and individuals choose to treat each other. This fact only underscores the necessity that we understand the limits of our knowledge, and call upon ourselves to respect rationality and intellectual freedom among all people.

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...=27938&page=70&p=895741&viewfull=1#post895741
 
Hello VC,

My comment was intentionally provocative, thank you for not taking offense.

The general definition of a materialist is a person who believes that matter (and energy) is all there is -- all things are reducible to the properties of matter (gravity, velocity, electromagnetic charge, etc) i.e. there is no purpose in life, no foundation for morality or ethics, no meaning in existence, and no such thing as free will.

The basis of my comment is that there is (substantial) objective physical evidence that this concept is almost certainly false, and this evidence is routinely ignored by materialists. This is quite a contradictory position for a group who typically believe that the analysis of material evidence is our only reliable method of knowledge.
 
SirRumpole said:
Can someone who keeps going on about morals also be a materialist (my definition: someone to whom the acquisition of material objects is paramount) ?

Surely the more you consume, the less you leave for others, and the more damage you do to the environment in extracting the materials that you covet.

So, does my definition of materialist apply to you, or do you have another one ?
Click to expand...

No, not the same usage of the word at all.

See, that's why definitions are important, that's a completely different use of the word to what I was using and to what I thought the original poster used, I was using Marterialist in the following way.

Materialism is closely related to physicalism, the view that all that exists is ultimately physical. Philosophical physicalism has evolved from materialism with the discoveries of the physical sciences to incorporate more sophisticated notions of physicality than mere ordinary matter, such as: spacetime, physical energies and forces, dark matter, and so on
Click to expand...

There is a Wikipedia page on it if you want to look it up. It's got nothing to do with hoarding "material things" or Hyper consuming such as the way you were using the term.
 
Biosemiosis org said:
The general definition of a materialist is a person who believes that matter (and energy) is all there is -- all things are reducible to the properties of matter (gravity, velocity, electromagnetic charge, etc)

i.e. there is no purpose in life, no foundation for morality or ethics, no meaning in existence, and no such thing as free will.

The basis of my comment is that there is (substantial) objective physical evidence that this concept is almost certainly false, and this evidence is routinely ignored by materialists. This is quite a contradictory position for a group who typically believe that the analysis of material evidence is our only reliable method of knowledge.
Click to expand...

Ok, so I am pretty much a materialist as I said, because yes I believe everything that exists is physical in nature, though I am not trying to say we have discovered everything.

But the second paragraph is where you are trying to load all the other baggage into your definition, a materialist doesn't have to believe there is no meaning to life and it doesn't mean there is no foundation for morality.

I think you are just trying to find reasons to invoke supernatural things, when you don't really have any solid reason too do that.

I mean can you name something that exists which isn't physical, or an emerging property of something that is physical?

What's this evidence that materialists ignore.
 
Tink said:
I thought you said you wanted to know the truth, VC.

Do you care what is true? ........ (as you keep saying to me).

As biosemiosis said,

1. Science cannot answer the questions of ultimate reality

]
Click to expand...


Yes, I care what is true, and I find it funny you have so much trouble answering that straight forward question.

Not only do I care what is true, but I think the scientific method is the best way for finding out what is true.

I don't accept the premise that science can not answer the questions of reality, I think science is the best way to answer questions about reality.

But do you care if your beliefs are true, or would you prefer to believe something false that made you feel good?
 
SirRumpole said:
What is the physical nature of morality ?
Click to expand...

Morality is associated with the well being of physical creatures.

What is and isn't moral, is determined by the outcomes of actions in the physical world, it's all physical and far as I can see.

Can you name an action or something that is immoral or moral that is not based on physical/ reality based outcome?

I honestly can't think of anything that's got to do with morality that's not physical, ( in the scientific use of the word physical)
 
Value Collector said:
I honestly can't think of anything that's got to do with morality that's not physical, ( in the scientific use of the word physical)
Click to expand...

Sacrificing ones life to save another may not be justified in physical terms, it's a life for a life, the gain equals the loss so you can't say that there is a physical benefit, yet some people think it's a worthwhile thing to do.

There is something else except physicality going on.
 
SirRumpole said:
Sacrificing ones life to save another may not be justified in physical terms, it's a life for a life, the gain equals the loss so you can't say that there is a physical benefit, yet some people think it's a worthwhile thing to do.

There is something else except physicality going on.
Click to expand...

Everything about that is physical, it's not about whether something can be "justified in physical terms", it's about whether anything is happening that's not physical, the people dying are physical, the thing killing them is physical, the thought process itself is an emerging property of a physical brain.

It's all physical/ material

---------------------------

On the topic of sacrificing ones life to save another, there are plenty of valid evolutionary reasons why an organism might sacrifice itself for others, evolution selects which gene pools survive and which don't, a gene pool where organisms might leap to defend their relatives will survive at better rates than a gene pool that doesn't look after each other.

Eg, an individual that dies protecting his siblings, offspring, cousins or nieces and nephews, might not get to breed, but it has still helped ensure the passing on of its genes, because those relatives are carrying it's genes. Not to mention that it doesn't always end in death, some times the defence is successful without the protector dying, so it makes Complete sense that in some situations humans are capable of selflessness, because as Dawkins wrote in his book, the individual can be act selflessly because it's the genes that are selfish.
 
Top