The rise of the the atheist right

[abaddon]

Nothing is supernatural. But nature itself is more than just the phenomenal realm of extended matter. It is also the transcendental realm of thought and ideas.

What do you mean by “the transcendental realm of thoughts and ideas”? Is this an argument for metaphysical idealism? If so, present it.

Spinoza's metaphysics was a dual aspect monism. "Extended matter" = the material property of whatever the underlying reality is. And "realm of thought" = the mental property, of whatever the underlying reality is. The underlying reality is what unifies them into a monism. Spinoza was trying to undermine Descartes' metaphysical dualism, as well as replace traditional theism with a superior God (namely, nature itself). Marvelous thing to be doing at the time he was doing it... And while dual aspect monism might be true, his overall metaphysical system is a bit dated.

 

[No Robots]

I see nothing wrong with using a reference text. I don't pretend to be some great genius devising science and philosophy on my own. I read stuff, I agree with it, I see it isn't well know, and I promulgate it. Not a big deal.

Here is Waton on evolution:

Let us consider the process of evolution. Matter was in a diffused state. The process of evolution integrated the diffused matter. The electrons united with the protons and formed atoms. What united the electrons and the protons? It was an idea. Hence, in the atom the electrons and the protons were negated; they ceased to be independent and separate realities. The same was the case when the atoms united into molecules, the molecules into masses, and the masses combined to form the stars, the planets and all other material realities. The ultimate units of matter are held together by ideas. If not for the ideas, the ultimate units of matter would not be held together. And all material realities in existence are held together by God- the absolute, infinite and eternal idea of the Absolute. Thus we see that the eternal and infinite process of existence is through affirmation and negation, and in all the infinite and eternal transformations the quantity and the quality of the Absolute remains the same.

It is to my credit that I acknowledge the master whose teaching has enlightened me. I merely seek to make this teaching available to those who stand to benefit from it.

 

[No Robots]

Nothing is supernatural. But nature itself is more than just the phenomenal realm of extended matter. It is also the transcendental realm of thought and ideas.

What do you mean by “the transcendental realm of thoughts and ideas”? Is this an argument for metaphysical idealism? If so, present it.

Dual aspect monism. Spinoza's metaphysics was dual aspect monism. "Extended matter" = the material property of whatever the underlying reality is. And "realm of thought" = the mental property, of whatever the underlying reality is. The underlying reality is what unifies them into a monism. Spinoza was trying to undermine Descartes' metaphysical dualism, as well as replace traditional theism with a superior God (namely, nature itself). Marvelous thing to be doing at the time he was doing it... But still, as I wish No Robots would realize, these old ideas need updating.

Waton has updated Spinoza to true monism:

When absolute thought slows down, it becomes light; and, when light slows down, it becomes matter. Thus we see that light is only an intermediary state between absolute thought and matter.

 

[Patooka]

Here we go with silly definitional equivocation games again. What does “divine” mean to you?

Divine is existence itself, Being in its totality. To acknowledge the divine is to simply acknowledge the unity of the whole of existence. To make this unity manifest is to live as a superman, with reason, moral autonomy and the intellectual love of the whole of nature.

I was once filmed drinking a litre of vodka, doing a line of coke and then finishing that off with a bottle of Bundy Rum. The crap that came out of my mouth was more coherent than the gibberish you posted above.

 

[No Robots]

^
Omnia animata.--Spinoza
I and the Father are one.--John 10:30
Hear, Israel! Being is our god. Being is One.--Deut. 6:7

 

[WAB]

I have Spinoza's complete works and clearly recall a letter wherein he wrote to his correspondent that he disdained the Kabbalah and considered the Jewish mystics associated with it "insane", or "lunatics".

 

[unapologetic]

We are seeing the rise of an atheo-fascism

I haven't seen that.

Christianity restrained conservatives and right wingers in the past to some degree.

I haven't seen that either. More likely harnessed them, put them to work pushing religion.

Militant atheists may think that the way to fight the Right is to fight Christianity.

I have been called a militant atheist. I do Not oppose christianity for the purpose of opposing conservatives. resisting conservativism is it's own endeavor. And each is opposed in different ways. Opposing religion is a higher priority for me.
I object to terms like 'militant atheist' 'fight christianity' and 'atheo-fascism'. I see that as an attempt to paint us as aggressors. Right wingers and christians are far more aggressive than atheists. (or me)

Militant atheists may think that the way to fight the Right is to fight Christianity. The article suggests that in fact anti-Christian activism just furthers the growth of atheo-fascism. From this perspective, anti-Christian activists, even if they believe themselves to be anti-Right, are merely acting as shock troops for the rising atheo-fascists.

I find that fracking offensive.

The article contends that Christianity is the source of the drive toward reason:

Paul’s fanatical drive to preach the Gospels to people who spoke different languages, paid tribute to different gods, and swore allegiance to unimaginably different tribes helped to prove something we now take for granted — that the human capacity for reason is truly universal.

Pure bullshit, christian propaganda. The gospels are ANTI-reason. The churches CULTS preach to their sheep to stop reasoning and just believe. Paul's 'fanatical drive' was to CONVERT the people of differing languages, gods, etc.

Christianity is in essence not superstitious at all. It is a doctrine of acknowledging and manifesting the divine in man.

... but using the threat of supernatural retribution to do it. So superstition might as well be it's 'essence'.

Divine is existence itself, Being in its totality. To acknowledge the divine is to simply acknowledge the unity of the whole of existence. To make this unity manifest is to live as a superman, with reason, moral autonomy and the intellectual love of the whole of nature.

word salad.

 

[WAB]

I have Spinoza's complete works and clearly recall a letter wherein he wrote to his correspondent that he disdained the Kabbalah and considered the Jewish mystics associated with it "insane", or "lunatics".

I may have been wrong that the mention of the Kaballah by Spinoza was from a letter. I was able to locate a reference to the Kaballah however, in his Theologico-Political Treatise. It is in chapter 9, section 66:

I have read and known certain Kabbalistic triflers, whose insanity provokes my unceasing astonishment.

Theologico-Political Treatise — Part 2

www.gutenberg.org

I could swear, though, that there is a letter where he speaks in an even more disdainful tone about the Kaballah, but I cannot find it in my hard copy of his works. The letters are abundant and long. But I'll look more.

ETA: NR, I forgot to quote you, sorry. I am responding to your post, #34.

 

[pood]

When absolute thought slows down, it becomes light; and, when light slows down, it becomes matter. Thus we see that light is only an intermediary state between absolute thought and matter.

So thought travels faster than the speed of light? No, it does not. Thought is a material process in the brain and all such processes are necessarily slower than light speed.

 

[pood]

I see nothing wrong with using a reference text. I don't pretend to be some great genius devising science and philosophy on my own. I read stuff, I agree with it, I see it isn't well know, and I promulgate it. Not a big deal.

There is nothing wrong with using a reference text. There is something wrong IMO with parroting a reference text as if it were sacred writ. Everything should be read with a skeptical eye.

Here is Waton on evolution:

Let us consider the process of evolution. Matter was in a diffused state. The process of evolution integrated the diffused matter. The electrons united with the protons and formed atoms. What united the electrons and the protons? It was an idea. Hence, in the atom the electrons and the protons were negated; they ceased to be independent and separate realities. The same was the case when the atoms united into molecules, the molecules into masses, and the masses combined to form the stars, the planets and all other material realities. The ultimate units of matter are held together by ideas. If not for the ideas, the ultimate units of matter would not be held together. And all material realities in existence are held together by God- the absolute, infinite and eternal idea of the Absolute. Thus we see that the eternal and infinite process of existence is through affirmation and negation, and in all the infinite and eternal transformations the quantity and the quality of the Absolute remains the same.

When you make an intro “on evolution” one assumes the author will be addressing biological evolution. But no.

The structure of atoms, and how they interact with other atoms, is described by the strong and weak nuclear forces and the electrical force. To be sure these are “ideas” but they are models derived from observed reality that can be used to make predictions. I have no idea if your author means “ideas” in this sense, but I expect not from the context. So what does he mean by an “idea” and how does this “idea” cause atoms to form?

What does he mean by God? Earlier you said there was no supernatural. So his idea of god is — what? — nature, the universe as a whole? Some form of pantheism or panentheism? Or what? The above is vague and nebulous and tells the reader nothing. How does he think of monism, exactly?

It is to my credit that I acknowledge the master whose teaching has enlightened me. I merely seek to make this teaching available to those who stand to benefit from it.

What has he taught? Does he provide evidence and arguments for his assertions? None is provided in what you have quoted so far.

 

[No Robots]

I have Spinoza's complete works and clearly recall a letter wherein he wrote to his correspondent that he disdained the Kabbalah and considered the Jewish mystics associated with it "insane", or "lunatics".

Spinoza did not understand the Kabbalah, and thus disparaged it. The connection of his own thought to the Kabbalah is self-evident, and is well-examined in the scholarly literature.

 

[No Robots]

Many of Waton's works are freely available online. For those who are interested, I have a private collection of rare works.

 

[pood]

Many of Waton's works are freely available online. For those who are interested, I have a private collection of rare works.

Perhaps you could answer my questions above and summarize his work in your own words.

 

[No Robots]

Many of Waton's works are freely available online. For those who are interested, I have a private collection of rare works.

Perhaps you could answer my questions above and summarize his work in your own words.

Nah. Why don't you just read it? Just a few hours work. Hell, I'll even pay you for your time and trouble.

 

[pood]

Many of Waton's works are freely available online. For those who are interested, I have a private collection of rare works.

Perhaps you could answer my questions above and summarize his work in your own words.

Nah. Why don't you just read it? Just a few hours work. Hell, I'll even pay you for your time and trouble.

How much? I take PayPal.

But seriously, why can’t you summarize his work?

 

[No Robots]

Many of Waton's works are freely available online. For those who are interested, I have a private collection of rare works.

Perhaps you could answer my questions above and summarize his work in your own words.

Nah. Why don't you just read it? Just a few hours work. Hell, I'll even pay you for your time and trouble.

How much? I take PayPal.

But seriously, why can’t you summarize his work?

CAD$25 for starting. An additional CAD$25 for completing with commentary and/or responding to questions.

Philosophy is a demanding discipline. Presenting it in detail to a hostile audience is beyond my ability and interest.

 

[pood]

What is CAD? I guess AD is American dollars?

Anyhow, anyone who claims to have read and understood a work of philosophy or science ought to be able to explain what the work is about.

 

[No Robots]

What is CAD? I guess AD is American dollars?

Anyhow, anyone who claims to have read and understood a work of philosophy or science ought to be able to explain what the work is about.

Canadian dollar. USD is American.

I'm not about to get into a detailed discussion with people who refuse to read the reference text.

 

[No Robots]

I don't want to be the target of a Gish gallop or sealioning.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Here we go with silly definitional equivocation games again. What does “divine” mean to you?

Divine is existence itself, Being in its totality. To acknowledge the divine is to simply acknowledge the unity of the whole of existence. To make this unity manifest is to live as a superman, with reason, moral autonomy and the intellectual love of the whole of nature.

I was once filmed drinking a litre of vodka, doing a line of coke and then finishing that off with a bottle of Bundy Rum. The crap that came out of my mouth was more coherent than the gibberish you posted above.

And even that is far more respectable than whatever No Robots is doing.