|
Post by Stammerhead on Jul 27, 2021 8:56:53 GMT
I wonder if conspiracy theories are a new type of religion?
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jul 27, 2021 12:46:51 GMT
Again you need to clarify your terms, by materialism are you talking in the physical sense or the consumer sense? You seem to be using the two interchangeably (they're not the same thing). I don't need to do anything of the sort. I'm using the basic definition of Materialism.
I don't make any distinction between 'physical materialism' and 'consumer materialism', that seems absurd. All materialism is 'physical materialism'. Materialism isn't a spiritual thing, it's physical. "I'm using the basic definition of Materialism." That link you sent literally gives four different defintions for materialism "I don't make any distinction between 'physical materialism' and 'consumer materialism', that seems absurd." No, they are in fact two completley different things, they have their own wiki articles and even in that link you sent me there were different defintions. I dunno why you're trying to conflate the two, you realize no philosophy professor anywhere would agree with you right? I suspect you're trying to conflate the two because it's much easier to make arguments against consumer materialism so you just lump them together (a motte and bailey fallacy) "All materialism is 'physical materialism'." No it isn't, again their are different definitions and different wiki articles for them that make different distinctions. What you're saying would be like saying "All nationalism is ethno nationalism" even though civic nationalism completely contradicts it. That's just an absurd thing to say. "Materialism isn't a spiritual thing, it's physical." People that believe in spiritualism tend to reject materialism/physicalism/naturalism/etc, so no, I reject this argument.
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Jul 27, 2021 13:15:51 GMT
I don't need to do anything of the sort. I'm using the basic definition of Materialism.
I don't make any distinction between 'physical materialism' and 'consumer materialism', that seems absurd. All materialism is 'physical materialism'. Materialism isn't a spiritual thing, it's physical. "I'm using the basic definition of Materialism." That link you sent literally gives four different defintions for materialism "I don't make any distinction between 'physical materialism' and 'consumer materialism', that seems absurd." No, they are in fact two completley different things, they have their own wiki articles and even in that link you sent me there were different defintions. I dunno why you're trying to conflate the two, you realize no philosophy professor anywhere would agree with you right? I suspect you're trying to conflate the two because it's much easier to make arguments against consumer materialism so you just lump them together (a motte and bailey fallacy) "All materialism is 'physical materialism'." No it isn't, again their are different definitions and different wiki articles for them that make different distinctions. What you're saying would be like saying "All nationalism is ethno nationalism" even though civic nationalism completely contradicts it. That's just an absurd thing to say. "Materialism isn't a spiritual thing, it's physical." People that believe in spiritualism tend to reject materialism/physicalism/naturalism/etc, so no, I reject this argument. Fundamentally, your worldview is going to be materialistic or spiritual. If it's materialistic, you'll suffer more since what you define as 'yourself' will be your body... which is destined to die. Not interested in arguing semantics. Materialism is a dead end when it comes to lasting happiness or contentment. IMO that's a universal truth. I don't care if someone disagrees with me.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jul 27, 2021 13:24:55 GMT
"I'm using the basic definition of Materialism." That link you sent literally gives four different defintions for materialism "I don't make any distinction between 'physical materialism' and 'consumer materialism', that seems absurd." No, they are in fact two completley different things, they have their own wiki articles and even in that link you sent me there were different defintions. I dunno why you're trying to conflate the two, you realize no philosophy professor anywhere would agree with you right? I suspect you're trying to conflate the two because it's much easier to make arguments against consumer materialism so you just lump them together (a motte and bailey fallacy) "All materialism is 'physical materialism'." No it isn't, again their are different definitions and different wiki articles for them that make different distinctions. What you're saying would be like saying "All nationalism is ethno nationalism" even though civic nationalism completely contradicts it. That's just an absurd thing to say. "Materialism isn't a spiritual thing, it's physical." People that believe in spiritualism tend to reject materialism/physicalism/naturalism/etc, so no, I reject this argument. Fundamentally, your worldview is going to be materialistic or spiritual. If it's materialistic, you'll suffer more since what you define as 'yourself' will be your body... which is destined to die. Not interested in arguing semantics. Materialism is a dead end when it comes to lasting happiness or contentment. IMO that's a universal truth. I don't care if someone disagrees with me. "Fundamentally, your worldview is going to be materialistic or spiritual." Your worldview is going to be physically materialistic or spritual, again you're to sneak in consumerism probably because it's easier to argue against the latter, so you just conflate the two "If it's materialistic, you'll suffer more since what you define as 'yourself' will be your body... which is destined to die." Then again why are countries with less religiouisity (and by proxy more materialistic) happier? "Not interested in arguing semantics." It's not "semantics" they have two completely different defintions. Again, do you consider civic nationalism and ethno nationalism to be the same thing? Because that is the level of absurdity you're arguing. Again do you think any philosophy professor would agree with you? "Materialism is a dead end when it comes to lasting happiness or contentment." Countries that embrace "materialism" seem to be happier, I've already addressed this "IMO that's a universal truth. I don't care if someone disagrees with me." Sure, but it's important to base our opinions on emperical data/studies (which you can't really seem to provide)
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Jul 27, 2021 13:35:49 GMT
Fundamentally, your worldview is going to be materialistic or spiritual. If it's materialistic, you'll suffer more since what you define as 'yourself' will be your body... which is destined to die. Not interested in arguing semantics. Materialism is a dead end when it comes to lasting happiness or contentment. IMO that's a universal truth. I don't care if someone disagrees with me. "Fundamentally, your worldview is going to be materialistic or spiritual." Your worldview is going to be physically materialistic or spritual, again you're to sneak in consumerism probably because it's easier to argue against the latter, so you just conflate the two "If it's materialistic, you'll suffer more since what you define as 'yourself' will be your body... which is destined to die." Then again why are countries with less religiouisity (and by proxy more materialistic) happier? "Not interested in arguing semantics." It's not "semantics" they have two completely different defintions. Again, do you consider civic nationalism and ethno nationalism to be the same thing? Because that is the level of absurdity you're arguing. Again do you think any philosophy professor would agree with you? "Materialism is a dead end when it comes to lasting happiness or contentment." Countries that embrace "materialism" seem to be happier, I've already addressed this "IMO that's a universal truth. I don't care if someone disagrees with me." Sure, but it's important to base our opinions on emperical data/studies (which you can't really seem to provide) You don't need to stipulate 'physical materialism' since there is no other kind. I'm not bringing up Consumerism at all..that's you. Sorry bro, not going to read the rest. Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jul 27, 2021 13:50:34 GMT
"Fundamentally, your worldview is going to be materialistic or spiritual." Your worldview is going to be physically materialistic or spritual, again you're to sneak in consumerism probably because it's easier to argue against the latter, so you just conflate the two "If it's materialistic, you'll suffer more since what you define as 'yourself' will be your body... which is destined to die." Then again why are countries with less religiouisity (and by proxy more materialistic) happier? "Not interested in arguing semantics." It's not "semantics" they have two completely different defintions. Again, do you consider civic nationalism and ethno nationalism to be the same thing? Because that is the level of absurdity you're arguing. Again do you think any philosophy professor would agree with you? "Materialism is a dead end when it comes to lasting happiness or contentment." Countries that embrace "materialism" seem to be happier, I've already addressed this "IMO that's a universal truth. I don't care if someone disagrees with me." Sure, but it's important to base our opinions on emperical data/studies (which you can't really seem to provide) You don't need to stipulate 'physical materialism' since there is no other kind. I'm not bringing up Consumerism at all..that's you. Sorry bro, not going to read the rest. Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree. "You don't need to stipulate 'physical materialism' since there is no other kind." Uh no, again do you think any philosophy professor would agree with you? Notice how you're not actually answering the question. "I'm not bringing up Consumerism at all..that's you." You're falsely equivocating the two, so you're essentially putting me in a position where I have to explain the difference. That's on you. "Sorry bro, not going to read the rest." Probably because you don't have actual arguments. "Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree." No we really don't since literally the entire field of philosophy would disagree. That's like a flat earther saying "We'll have to agree to disagree", one position is backed by an entire academic field, the other isn't
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Jul 27, 2021 13:52:35 GMT
You don't need to stipulate 'physical materialism' since there is no other kind. I'm not bringing up Consumerism at all..that's you. Sorry bro, not going to read the rest. Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree. "You don't need to stipulate 'physical materialism' since there is no other kind." Uh no, again do you think any philosophy professor would agree with you? Notice how you're not actually answering the question. "I'm not bringing up Consumerism at all..that's you." You're falsley equivocating the two, so you're essentially putting me in a position where I have to explain the difference. That's on you. "Sorry bro, not going to read the rest." Probably because you don't have actual arguments. "Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree." No we really don't since literally the entire field of philosophy would disagree. That's like a flat earther saying "We'll have to agree to disagree", one position is backed by an entire academic field, the other isn't I think you're overestimating how much of my time your worth. We disagree. That's fine with me.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jul 27, 2021 13:55:54 GMT
"You don't need to stipulate 'physical materialism' since there is no other kind." Uh no, again do you think any philosophy professor would agree with you? Notice how you're not actually answering the question. "I'm not bringing up Consumerism at all..that's you." You're falsley equivocating the two, so you're essentially putting me in a position where I have to explain the difference. That's on you. "Sorry bro, not going to read the rest." Probably because you don't have actual arguments. "Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree." No we really don't since literally the entire field of philosophy would disagree. That's like a flat earther saying "We'll have to agree to disagree", one position is backed by an entire academic field, the other isn't I think you're overestimating how much of my time your worth. We disagree. That's fine with me. "I think you're overestimating how much of my time your worth." And yet you keep responding anyways... "We disagree." Yeah but I can actually cite an entire academic field to back up my position, you can't. "That's fine with me." You're fine with using terms incorrectly? Gotcha.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Jul 27, 2021 15:37:53 GMT
I find it difficult to imagine how anyone could look on the vast wealth and material holdings of the Catholic Church (for just one glaring example of materialism as practiced by a religious society), and then tell themselves that 'atheism=materialism' and the worship of a sky deity automatically sets one above such things as crass grasping at the material things of the world.
As for the worship of celebrities, one need only look to the sort of thing that's gone on around the likes of Mother Theresa, Pope JPII, and the hysterics attending sundry assorted candidates for sainthood over the past few decades to know that the religiously-minded certainly have their own type and brand of 'celebrity/fame worship'.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Jul 27, 2021 15:42:10 GMT
possibly with their brains/selves fighting off the temptation to believe in superstitions or taking things as signs all around them as they are encountered throughout their daily lives? Or maybe their brains are wired to immediately write these things off as coincidences and bad habits that need to be shaken? I think no more so than theists are fighting off the temptation to think that perhaps there is no God after all...or more importantly that the realTM God is different then the god they believe in/worship or that what they're doing isn't good enough/adequate to please God.
I have heard about things that...if they are true on the face of it, make me wonder if there isn't something 'more' than just the natural world. But...before I would go off seeking to believe and make sense of something 'other' than the natural world, I would more likely simply assume the natural world IS the explanation for everything I hear about/experience.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Jul 27, 2021 15:43:51 GMT
I wonder if conspiracy theories are a new type of religion? More than likely, religions are just conspiracy theories.
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Jul 27, 2021 15:51:23 GMT
possibly with their brains/selves fighting off the temptation to believe in superstitions or taking things as signs all around them as they are encountered throughout their daily lives? Or maybe their brains are wired to immediately write these things off as coincidences and bad habits that need to be shaken? I think no more so than theists are fighting off the temptation to think that perhaps there is no God after all...or more importantly that the realTM God is different then the god they believe in/worship or that what they're doing isn't good enough/adequate to please God.
I have heard about things that...if they are true on the face of it, make me wonder if there isn't something 'more' than just the natural world. But...before I would go off seeking to believe and make sense of something 'other' than the natural world, I would more likely simply assume the natural world IS the explanation for everything I hear about/experience.
Very well said.
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Jul 28, 2021 2:11:03 GMT
I think you're overestimating how much of my time your worth. We disagree. That's fine with me. "I think you're overestimating how much of my time your worth." And yet you keep responding anyways... "We disagree." Yeah but I can actually cite an entire academic field to back up my position, you can't. "That's fine with me." You're fine with using terms incorrectly? Gotcha. "Atheism is as rigid as any fundamentalism. You swap out metaphysical Gods for the God of Materialism, and worship fame and possessions instead of what inspires awe." ^^^ That's the comment I made that inspired you to launch into some sort of pseudo-intellectual semantic discussion. I suggested faith in Materialism (as your underlying worldview) can be seen as being as rigid as any fundamentalists beliefs. ..that's it. If you need to hear you're smarter than me, that's fine. You're smarter than me bro.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jul 28, 2021 3:37:32 GMT
"I think you're overestimating how much of my time your worth." And yet you keep responding anyways... "We disagree." Yeah but I can actually cite an entire academic field to back up my position, you can't. "That's fine with me." You're fine with using terms incorrectly? Gotcha. "Atheism is as rigid as any fundamentalism. You swap out metaphysical Gods for the God of Materialism, and worship fame and possessions instead of what inspires awe." ^^^ That's the comment I made that inspired you to launch into some sort of pseudo-intellectual semantic discussion. I suggested faith in Materialism (as your underlying worldview) can be seen as being as rigid as any fundamentalists beliefs. ..that's it. If you need to hear you're smarter than me, that's fine. You're smarter than me bro. This has nothing to do with my post you responded to, evasion noted. "^^^ That's the comment I made that inspired you to launch into some sort of pseudo-intellectual semantic discussion." No, that with a number of other dumb things you said (you're misunderstanding of materialism, you're misconflation of atheism and belief systems) is what inspired to me to respond. What "pseudo-intellectual" things have I said BTW? Can you give one actual example? "I suggested faith in Materialism (as your underlying worldview) can be seen as being as rigid as any fundamentalists beliefs." No, you initially said "atheism" (which isn't a belief system BTW), you realized that was a dumb argument, so now you're backpeddling. Ands even then that's still a bad argument (we can actually observe material matter, we can't do the same for "spiritualism" or whatever you believe in. Nice try though. "If you need to hear you're smarter than me, that's fine." Well yeah, but that's self evident, you don't really need to bother pointing that out. "You're smarter than me bro." Sure, but that isn't really anything to brag about. You seem think atheism is a belief system and dunno what materialism actually is. You would get laughed out of pretty much any Philosophy 101 class.
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Jul 28, 2021 10:24:06 GMT
"Atheism is as rigid as any fundamentalism. You swap out metaphysical Gods for the God of Materialism, and worship fame and possessions instead of what inspires awe." ^^^ That's the comment I made that inspired you to launch into some sort of pseudo-intellectual semantic discussion. I suggested faith in Materialism (as your underlying worldview) can be seen as being as rigid as any fundamentalists beliefs. ..that's it. If you need to hear you're smarter than me, that's fine. You're smarter than me bro. This has nothing to do with my post you responded to, evasion noted. "^^^ That's the comment I made that inspired you to launch into some sort of pseudo-intellectual semantic discussion." No, that with a number of other dumb things you said (you're misunderstanding of materialism, you're misconflation of atheism and belief systems) is what inspired to me to respond. What "pseudo-intellectual" things have I said BTW? Can you give one actual example? "I suggested faith in Materialism (as your underlying worldview) can be seen as being as rigid as any fundamentalists beliefs." No, you initially said "atheism" (which isn't a belief system BTW), you realized that was a dumb argument, so now you're backpeddling. Ands even then that's still a bad argument (we can actually observe material matter, we can't do the same for "spiritualism" or whatever you believe in. Nice try though. "If you need to hear you're smarter than me, that's fine." Well yeah, but that's self evident, you don't really need to bother pointing that out. "You're smarter than me bro." Sure, but that isn't really anything to brag about. You seem think atheism is a belief system and dunno what materialism actually is. You would get laughed out of pretty much any Philosophy 101 class. I realize what happened. When I posted ""Atheism is as rigid as any fundamentalism. You swap out metaphysical Gods for the God of Materialism, and worship fame and possessions instead of what inspires awe." I stupidly assumed the most relevant aspect of the definition of Materialism would be obvious by the context of my post. That's why I said your argument was 'pseudo-intellectual' since it was about something I figured would be obvious by context. Here you go, I'll bold the relevant aspect in context to my post: Definition of materialism 1a: a theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter (see MATTER entry 1 sense 2) scientific materialism b: a doctrine that the only or the highest values or objectives lie in material well-being and in the furtherance of material progress c: a doctrine that economic or social change is materially caused — compare HISTORICAL MATERIALISM 2: a preoccupation with or stress upon material rather than intellectual or spiritual thingsmaterialism, hedonism, and the overriding quest for personal gratification I can paraphrase for you: 'IMO Materialists (no matter what kind) are as narrow minded as religious fundamentalists'. I guess I need to put 'IMO' for you to know it's my opinion, just like you needed me to clarify the relevant aspects of 'Materialism' in my post. Seemed weird that someone so much smarter than me and so articulate needed the context spelled out for him, but there it is. And I disagree about atheism being a belief system. You have to have a lot of faith to be fully convinced that no 'Gods' exist. Believing no Gods exist is in itself a belief.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jul 28, 2021 10:57:02 GMT
Atheism is as rigid as any fundamentalism. You swap out metaphysical Gods for the God of Materialism, and worship fame and possessions instead of what inspires awe. "Atheism is as rigid as any fundamentalism." Not really because it's not a belief system, it's a rejection of a belief system. That's like saying unemployment is a rigid as any job. A bit of a false equivalency going on. "You swap out metaphysical Gods for the God of Materialism" What's wrong with materialism? (I'm assuming you mean in the physical/metaphysical sense and not the consumerism one). You realize great advancements in science were (and still are) typically made by people who rejected supernatural explanations for the universe and look for material/natural explanations, right? "and worship fame and possessions instead of what inspires awe." I'm not sure what you mean by that. I personally don't really care about fame and in fact would prefer not to be famous (I'm rather private, introverted person). And can possessions not inspire "awe"? If I owned a luxorious mansion or Ferrari would that not inspire awe in many people? Many great artworks/architecture like the Mona Lisa, Sistine Chapel and the Great Pyramids are essentially possession as well, so again I'm not really sure what you mean by this. Atheism is the belief that God does not exist.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jul 28, 2021 11:06:18 GMT
I personally think atheists in their heart of hearts know God exists. Most just don’t believe that they believe He exists. They don’t want Him to exist.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jul 28, 2021 13:19:12 GMT
"Atheism is as rigid as any fundamentalism." Not really because it's not a belief system, it's a rejection of a belief system. That's like saying unemployment is a rigid as any job. A bit of a false equivalency going on. "You swap out metaphysical Gods for the God of Materialism" What's wrong with materialism? (I'm assuming you mean in the physical/metaphysical sense and not the consumerism one). You realize great advancements in science were (and still are) typically made by people who rejected supernatural explanations for the universe and look for material/natural explanations, right? "and worship fame and possessions instead of what inspires awe." I'm not sure what you mean by that. I personally don't really care about fame and in fact would prefer not to be famous (I'm rather private, introverted person). And can possessions not inspire "awe"? If I owned a luxorious mansion or Ferrari would that not inspire awe in many people? Many great artworks/architecture like the Mona Lisa, Sistine Chapel and the Great Pyramids are essentially possession as well, so again I'm not really sure what you mean by this. Atheism is the belief that God does not exist. Sure in the same way being unemployed is a job
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jul 28, 2021 13:37:20 GMT
This has nothing to do with my post you responded to, evasion noted. "^^^ That's the comment I made that inspired you to launch into some sort of pseudo-intellectual semantic discussion." No, that with a number of other dumb things you said (you're misunderstanding of materialism, you're misconflation of atheism and belief systems) is what inspired to me to respond. What "pseudo-intellectual" things have I said BTW? Can you give one actual example? "I suggested faith in Materialism (as your underlying worldview) can be seen as being as rigid as any fundamentalists beliefs." No, you initially said "atheism" (which isn't a belief system BTW), you realized that was a dumb argument, so now you're backpeddling. Ands even then that's still a bad argument (we can actually observe material matter, we can't do the same for "spiritualism" or whatever you believe in. Nice try though. "If you need to hear you're smarter than me, that's fine." Well yeah, but that's self evident, you don't really need to bother pointing that out. "You're smarter than me bro." Sure, but that isn't really anything to brag about. You seem think atheism is a belief system and dunno what materialism actually is. You would get laughed out of pretty much any Philosophy 101 class. I realize what happened. When I posted ""Atheism is as rigid as any fundamentalism. You swap out metaphysical Gods for the God of Materialism, and worship fame and possessions instead of what inspires awe." I stupidly assumed the most relevant aspect of the definition of Materialism would be obvious by the context of my post. That's why I said your argument was 'pseudo-intellectual' since it was about something I figured would be obvious by context. Here you go, I'll bold the relevant aspect in context to my post: Definition of materialism 1a: a theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter (see MATTER entry 1 sense 2) scientific materialism b: a doctrine that the only or the highest values or objectives lie in material well-being and in the furtherance of material progress c: a doctrine that economic or social change is materially caused — compare HISTORICAL MATERIALISM 2: a preoccupation with or stress upon material rather than intellectual or spiritual thingsmaterialism, hedonism, and the overriding quest for personal gratification I can paraphrase for you: 'IMO Materialists (no matter what kind) are as narrow minded as religious fundamentalists'. I guess I need to put 'IMO' for you to know it's my opinion, just like you needed me to clarify the relevant aspects of 'Materialism' in my post. Seemed weird that someone so much smarter than me and so articulate needed the context spelled out for him, but there it is. And I disagree about atheism being a belief system. You have to have a lot of faith to be fully convinced that no 'Gods' exist. Believing no Gods exist is in itself a belief. "I realize what happened." You got proven wrong and are now backpeddling crazy, yes that's what happened "I stupidly assumed the most relevant aspect of the definition of Materialism would be obvious by the context of my post." NO, you tried to misconflate two entirely different defintions of materialism into one "That's why I said your argument was 'pseudo-intellectual' since it was about something I figured would be obvious by context." Uh no, again my position is actually backed up by entire field of philosophy, yours isn't. And you actually have the nerve actually accuse me of "psuedintellectualism" "1a: a theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter (see MATTER entry 1 sense 2)" "2: a preoccupation with or stress upon material rather than intellectual or spiritual things materialism, hedonism, and the overriding quest for personal gratification" Yeah that only proves my point, those are two entirely seperate, different definitions, you kept trying to misconflate the two, again probably because consumer materialism is easier to argue against, so you can just pull a motte and bailey. Again do you think any philosophy professor would agree with you? Notice how you keep dodging that question. "I can paraphrase for you: 'IMO Materialists (no matter what kind) are as narrow minded as religious fundamentalists'." No because one can actually be demonstrated to exist (matter) the other cant (supernatural). You might as well be saying people who accept the earth is round are as narrow minded as flat earthers. "I guess I need to put 'IMO' for you to know it's my opinion, just like you needed me to clarify the relevant aspects of 'Materialism' in my post." What opinions? Saying stuff like "atheism is a belief" and "physical materialisn and consumerism are synonymous" are just objectively wrong statements, again no valid philosophy teacher would agree with you. "Seemed weird that someone so much smarter than me and so articulate needed the context spelled out for him, but there it is." You literally gave TWO seperate defintions for materialism and my position is actually backed up by academics, yours isn't "And I disagree about atheism being a belief system." Yeah in the same way not believing in leprechauns is a belief system "You have to have a lot of faith to be fully convinced that no 'Gods' exist." Yes in the same way you have to have a lot of faith no leprechauns exist.
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Jul 28, 2021 13:39:55 GMT
I realize what happened. When I posted ""Atheism is as rigid as any fundamentalism. You swap out metaphysical Gods for the God of Materialism, and worship fame and possessions instead of what inspires awe." I stupidly assumed the most relevant aspect of the definition of Materialism would be obvious by the context of my post. That's why I said your argument was 'pseudo-intellectual' since it was about something I figured would be obvious by context. Here you go, I'll bold the relevant aspect in context to my post: Definition of materialism 1a: a theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter (see MATTER entry 1 sense 2) scientific materialism b: a doctrine that the only or the highest values or objectives lie in material well-being and in the furtherance of material progress c: a doctrine that economic or social change is materially caused — compare HISTORICAL MATERIALISM 2: a preoccupation with or stress upon material rather than intellectual or spiritual thingsmaterialism, hedonism, and the overriding quest for personal gratification I can paraphrase for you: 'IMO Materialists (no matter what kind) are as narrow minded as religious fundamentalists'. I guess I need to put 'IMO' for you to know it's my opinion, just like you needed me to clarify the relevant aspects of 'Materialism' in my post. Seemed weird that someone so much smarter than me and so articulate needed the context spelled out for him, but there it is. And I disagree about atheism being a belief system. You have to have a lot of faith to be fully convinced that no 'Gods' exist. Believing no Gods exist is in itself a belief. "I realize what happened." You got proven wrong and are now backpeddling crazy, yes that's what happened "I stupidly assumed the most relevant aspect of the definition of Materialism would be obvious by the context of my post." NO, you tried to misconflate two entirely different defintions of materialism into one "That's why I said your argument was 'pseudo-intellectual' since it was about something I figured would be obvious by context." Uh no, again my position is actually backed up by entire field of philosophy, yours isn't. And you actually have the nerve actually accuse me of "psuedintellectualism" "1a: a theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter (see MATTER entry 1 sense 2)" "2: a preoccupation with or stress upon material rather than intellectual or spiritual things?" Yeah that only proves my point, those are two entirely seperate, different definitions, you kept trying to misconflate the two, again probably because consumer materialism is easier to argue against, so you can just pull a motte and bailey. Again do you think any philosophy professor would agree with you? Notice how you keep dodging that question. "I can paraphrase for you: 'IMO Materialists (no matter what kind) are as narrow minded as religious fundamentalists'." No because one can actually be demonstrated to exist (matter) the other cant (supernatural). You might as well be saying people who accept the earth is round are as narrow minded as those who don't. "I guess I need to put 'IMO' for you to know it's my opinion, just like you needed me to clarify the relevant aspects of 'Materialism' in my post." What opinions? Saying stuff like "atheism is a belief" and "physical materialisn and consumerism are synonymous" are just objectively wrong statements, again no valid philosophy teacher would agree with you. "Seemed weird that someone so much smarter than me and so articulate needed the context spelled out for him, but there it is." You literally gave TWO seperate defintions for materialism and my position is actually backed up by academics, yours isn't "And I disagree about atheism being a belief system." Yeah in the same way not believing in leprechauns is a belief system "You have to have a lot of faith to be fully convinced that no 'Gods' exist." Yes in the same way you have to have a lot of faith no leprechauns exist. 'You got proven wrong and are now backpeddling crazy, yes that's what happened.' Like I said, the part of the definition of Materialism that was relevant to my post should have been apparent by context. My mistake was assuming people aren't mentally retarded. Have a nice day. Genius.
|
|