We got.
1 Adam.
And
1 Eve.
So thats like two.
2 peoples
Thennnnnnnnn
We got ya.
Blood type A
Type B
AB
And O
Thats 4 blood types.
Look. What im trying to say is.
Its a little mysterious right.
Mysterious mo fo.
Thats all.
From a Materialist view will the future have Religion, and should it?
Posts
Total:
103
-->
@FLRW
Yes, European settlers killed 56 million indigenous people over about 100 years in South, Central and North America.Thank God for Religion.
Sorry to have to correct you, but it was the english empire who killed the many indigenous not only in north america but in all the territories they stepped in. The spanish empire didn't do so, that's well documented.
-->
@cristo71
I suppose it would be determined by one's belief in the nature of the world. It is my belief that the world is materialistic, and as a result everything is merely a projection of the physical.I, too, am a materialist, but I still acknowledge the limits of what science is meant for. For example, capitalism (and its various subcategories) does not require metaphysical or supernatural belief; neither does socialism (and its various subcategories). Does science help you choose which economic system or which mixture of a mixed economic system to employ? No, because science does not provide guiding principles for all human endeavors. Science is used after guiding principles are chosen, not before.Being that the description of science is to understand the natural world, and I see philosophy as a means to view the natural world through a specific lens, it seems to me that philosophy is a more fixated way of understanding the world, where science is a broader way to understand the world.Again, I see it the other way around: philosophy provides a broad lens or a wide variety of lenses, whereas science provides a specific lens.I do acknowledge that you pointed out philosophy came first, perhaps it is possible that a specific lens of understanding the world was created before they understood the broader scope of the world in general and created a broader goal. Ultimately, I see the metaphysical as merely the (non-existing but real) conception that is rooted within the physical nature of the world. I'm not asking you to agree with me, but do you understand my perspective, and how does it relate to yours?I sort of understand your perspective. To me, it seems that what you espouse is called scientism (which I mentioned earlier in a list)— the belief that science can address all human endeavors. Alas, it is usually used as a pejorative accusing the system of having an excessive trust in science, precisely because it is being applied outside of its scope.
Here is some more information I found from a search:
- "Science is a systematic and empirical method of acquiring knowledge about the natural and physical world, based on observation, experimentation, and testing of hypotheses. Science aims to discover and explain the laws, mechanisms, and patterns that govern natural phenomena, and to apply them to practical problems and technological innovations."
- "Philosophy is a broad and diverse field of inquiry that deals with the foundations, methods, and implications of various forms of knowledge, as well as with the fundamental questions of existence, reality, morality, and meaning. Philosophy aims to critically examine and evaluate the assumptions, arguments, and evidence that underlie different domains of human thought and action, and to explore the nature and value of human life."
Cited by the following:
I now definitely see that Philosophy is not a subcategory of science. However, if we do in fact agree that the world is materialistic, that would indicate all things are empirically derived. I suppose things that are still empirically derived may not be empirical themselves and could be considered philosophical concepts. In this case, we could consider the knowledge of conceptual evidence as philosophy, which would be a broader category than science. Is this what you meant to say, and do you agree?
-->
@Critical-Tim
However, if we do in fact agree that the world is materialistic, that would indicate all things are empirically derived.
I wouldn’t go so far as to claim that ALL things are empirically derived.
we could consider the knowledge of conceptual evidence as philosophy, which would be a broader category than science.
I agree.
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
I know that there are many religious groups that are strictly nonprofit, so I would have to disagree that all are considered a sort of Ponzi scheme. However, I know that many people involved with money cannot act responsibly.
-->
@cristo71
However, if we do in fact agree that the world is materialistic, that would indicate all things are empirically derived.I wouldn’t go so far as to claim that ALL things are empirically derived.
The materialistic view claims that all things in the universe are created from matter and energy, so what do you mean by you wouldn't go as far as to claim all things are empirically derived?
Here's an explanation of the word empirical in correspondence with matter and energy:
Empirical is an adjective that means based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic. Empirical evidence or study relies on practical experience rather than theories. Empirical data or results are those that are obtained or supported by observation or experiment. Matter and energy are empirical in the sense that they can be observed, measured, and tested by empirical methods, such as physics, chemistry, and biology. Matter and energy are also the subjects of empirical laws, such as the law of conservation of mass and energy, which state that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but only transformed from one form to another. However, matter and energy are not empirical in the sense that they are not based on or derived from human observation or experience, but rather exist independently of human perception and cognition. Matter and energy are also not empirical in the sense that they are not capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment, but rather assumed to be fundamental and universal aspects of reality.
Cited by the following:
A google search in the year 3116 .
What was it like living in the year 2000.
' ENTER '
The second or maybe third sentence will refer to us being " religious " and believing in gods and shit.
The reader will , insta chuckle, and turn to his mates and go.
Hey get this .
( They still believed in the God things back in the year 2000. )
The class will all chuckle and we , the people of the "NOW" Will be briefly thought of as a ummmmm , generation of fools of sort ,
ergo undermining the plethora of good our generation.
No actually , not our "generation " but a 500 year alotment of us lets say.
of " generation " of the " peoples " have put forth.
And to throw in another ▪▪▪▪▪ wild guess. ▪▪▪▪▪▪
The 100 year lot of peoples that see a ending of alllllllll religious nonsense will be " credited " somehow. Maybe looked at as a ummm ,
a smart bunch.
A smart time.
Every single religion and or religious thing and things has a expiration date.
We've witnessed this throughout history.
Wich really doesn't mean shit butttttttt.
Like
You know what i mean.
The best prediction of future behavior is past behavior kinda works when looking into religion.
I think.
What i am trying to say is .
As a atheist or non believer. people in the "future" will think of us asssssss.
<< THEY STILL BELIEVED IN GODS BACK THEN >>
So ummmm yeah .
' kicks dirts '
Thanks for that guys.
Fanks.
-->
@Critical-Tim
The materialistic view claims that all things in the universe are created from matter and energy, so what do you mean by you wouldn't go as far as to claim all things are empirically derived?
Well, first of all, I don’t know everything that has become known by the sum of human accomplishment, so I cannot make such a blanket statement about all of it. Isn’t mathematics an exception?
Second, here is what you quoted (emphasis added):
However, matter and energy are not empirical in the sense that they are not based on or derived from human observation or experience, but rather exist independently of human perception and cognition.
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
I think that a thousand years from now, people will think that we still had tails in 2023.
-->
@FLRW
And we are like in the first generations of peoples that can proudly say.
☆☆☆ WE HUMANS DON'T BELIVE IN WITCHES. ☆☆☆
Actully we are prob not that advanced hey?
There is always One or two stragglers.
But in 50 years i can see a end to .
People believe in witches. Being a true ummmm , phrase.
And it will be safe to say that.
100 years from now .
A person will be dumb founded when they here that " we " can go down the road and purchase unlimited alcohol.
They will find it hard to belive.
Ok then.
In 200 years from now then.
Andddddddddd
People weren't "allowed" to be homosexual back then will sound pretty funny in 300 maybe 400 years right ?
Does this sound right.
A search in the year 3116 on what was it lile livong in the year 2000.
It Will be funny to the reader when that get to the paragraph that states that.
People " had " to be Either a Male or a Female back then.
We are going to look lile pure simpletons.
An Obnoxious bunch of fucking idiots.
Can you believe that. ?
Having to be a HE or a SHE .
They will feel sorry for us.
This feeling of sorrow for us will instantly disappear when they hear that .
Women where allowed to terminate pregnancies.
Surly this in 2000 years time will sound like the most retarded thing we did ever.
It will be hard to grasp.
Although i myself am not shocked ( today ) about the fact we use to sacrifice peoples the way we did.
-->
@cristo71
The materialistic view claims that all things in the universe are created from matter and energy, so what do you mean by you wouldn't go as far as to claim all things are empirically derived?Well, first of all, I don’t know everything that has become known by the sum of human accomplishment, so I cannot make such a blanket statement about all of it. Isn’t mathematics an exception?Second, here is what you quoted (emphasis added): "However, matter and energy are not empirical in the sense that they are not based on or derived from human observation or experience, but rather exist independently of human perception and cognition."
I suppose we both acknowledge that there are certain things that are not physical, such as the concepts of mathematics and the meaning behind words, but not the words themselves. Perhaps our views are not materialistic as we thought. I believe that the world and all things that exist are physically and empirically derived, but I believe that there are certain things such as meaning that are do not exist even though they do in the sense of electronic pulses, which are derived from the physical. I suppose my view would be closer towards Ontological Naturalism. What do you believe, and why?
Naturalism relative to Materialism:
Naturalism and materialism are two philosophical concepts that differ in their approach to explaining the world. Naturalism states that the world can be explained entirely by physical, natural phenomena or laws, while materialism argues that all that exists is matter, only matter is real and so the world is just physical. The difference between the two is that materialism makes an argument about the ontology of the universe, while naturalism takes a premise (effectively that of materialism) to make an argument on how science/philosophy should function.
Naturalism description:
Naturalism is a cosmological position that rejects the existence or influence of any supernatural or metaphysical entities or forces. Naturalism holds that the natural world is all there is, and that we can gain knowledge of it through empirical observation and rational inquiry. Naturalism can be divided into two branches: ontological naturalism and methodological naturalism. Ontological naturalism focuses on how science can explain the world fully with physical laws, while methodological naturalism focuses on the idea that philosophy and science share pursuits, and holds that any mention of the supernatural has no place in either philosophy or science.
Ontological Naturalism and Methodological Naturalism in more depth:
Ontological naturalism and methodological naturalism are interconnected, but not necessarily identical. Ontological naturalism is a metaphysical claim that the natural world is all there is, and that there are no supernatural or metaphysical entities or forces. Methodological naturalism is an epistemological principle that philosophy and science should only rely on natural phenomena or laws to explain the world, and that any reference to the supernatural or metaphysical is irrelevant or invalid. Ontological naturalism implies methodological naturalism, since if there is nothing beyond the natural world, then there is no reason to invoke anything else to account for it. Methodological naturalism, however, does not imply ontological naturalism, since one could adopt a naturalistic approach to knowledge without committing to a naturalistic view of reality. For example, one could be an agnostic or a deist who accepts methodological naturalism as a practical or provisional guideline, but does not rule out the possibility of a supernatural or metaphysical reality. Therefore, ontological naturalism and methodological naturalism are interconnected, but not equivalent.
Materialism description:
Materialism is an ontological theory that asserts that everything is composed of matter, and that matter is the only substance or reality. Materialism denies the existence or relevance of any immaterial or non-physical entities or properties, such as mind, spirit, soul, or God. Materialism can also be divided into two types: reductive materialism and non-reductive materialism. Reductive materialism claims that all phenomena can be reduced to or explained by their physical components or causes, while non-reductive materialism maintains that some phenomena have emergent or irreducible properties that are not fully explainable by their physical basis.
The above is cited by the following: