Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [stoics] Re: pro-atheist proganda/God is dead

Expand Messages
  • Kent Backman
    ... In the intervening time, I blogged on the question of whether atheism is a positive belief here: http://solri.livejournal.com/368349.html . For those who
    Message 1 of 74 , Dec 8, 2009
      > --- In
      href="mailto:stoics@yahoogroups.com">stoics@yahoogroups. com, "Kent Backman" <mb265674@.. .> wrote:
      >> About 36 % of us swedes
      are atheists, which of course is not a
      > belief system as some religious
      fundamentalists claim but an absence
      > of belief...
      ============ ========= =========
      > Hey Grant, there Kent
      goes using that kooky "daniel-atheism" word :)

      >Hmm, didn't we have a long discussion on this subject a long time
      In the intervening time, I blogged on the question of whether atheism
      is a positive belief here: http://solri. livejournal. com/368349. html .
      For those who can't be bothered to read the post, the upshot is that a
      statement affirming or denying the existence of a creator-god (I'm not
      looking at other varieties of god here) is essentially a statement
      about the created or uncreated nature of the universe, so any position
      other than agnosticism is an assertion, not an absence of belief.
      If something is to be sees as dead it at least had to be in existence at first. God never existed, except as a mytological concept created in an excuse for the abscence of answers given by natural science.
      One of the most common Gods, the God from the Bible, has his origins in another God of the Bible, Ba´al, aka the Lord. I find Ze´ev Herzogs arguments for this quite convincing, I also came to the same conclusion after studying the case.
      Agnosticism holds the belief that you can neither prove nor disprove the existence of Gods. It is to be seen as a belief since it holds no absence of belief.
      Real atheism is an absence of belief in Gods.
      Another form of newly risen atheism is Jesus atheism. It states that Jesus never existed, as TNT claims, but still maintains the belief in the various Gods of the Bible.
      In support of the case of Jesus atheism I found that the real "Testimonium Flavianum" is located quite near the fake "Testimonium Flavianum".
      The fake "Testimonium Flavianum" was written by Eusebius in the beginning of the fourth century.
      The fake "Testimonium Flavianum" is located in this book in chapter 3.3.
      The real "Testimonium Flavianum" is located in the same book, chapter 4.1-3.
      However, since there are no source for any resurrection myth to be found anywhere in the case of the samaritan prophet you have to look elsewhere for it. Not surprisingly it can be found in Clements "Recognitions":
      The one thought to be dead and risen is without doubt James the essene, the teacher of rightousness. It´s obvious that many of his followers had thought him to be dead, and yet they saw him alive later. This of course did not stop James from being stoned later. I also strongly suspect that James was the one called Christ, even by Josephus.
      Chapter 9.1. "Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others,..."
      I suspect the original sentence, before being altered by christians, was: "Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them James, who was called Christ, and some others,..."
      Later oral tradition made the samaritan prophet, who held the samarian belief in Josua/Jesus as the Messiah, and James the essene more or less merge in to one person, but still keeping them as separate individuals. Therefor I state that Jesus never existed.
      You cannot separate James the essene and the samaritan prophet from the christian Jesus saga without losing the whole christian myth of Jesus. Without the samaritan prophet being crucified by Pilate, without the case of James "resurrection" merging the whole christian saga falls apart.
      You only have to connect the dots obscured by modern theologians, whom I would not call scholars in the light of recent discoveries (which they must have known of a long time, if they really were scholars), to see the obvious; Jesus never existed.
      English is not my native language so I beg your forgiveness for any errors concerning grammar or spelling.
      Have a merry winter solstice.
      Kent Backman
      Angstavagen 13
      83021 Tandsbyn
    • Curt Steinmetz
      Stoic psychology is not completely determined by Stoicism s physicalism. Stoicism is an outgrowth of the Socratic and Platonic movements and of Greek
      Message 74 of 74 , Dec 9, 2009
        Stoic psychology is not completely determined by Stoicism's physicalism.

        Stoicism is an outgrowth of the Socratic and Platonic movements and of Greek philosophy in general. As such it incorporates both cosmological and psychological conceptions that are not inherently constrained by physicalism, but which Stoicism attempts to so constrain. In my opinion these attempts are inevitably of great interest, but also inevitably fail.

        Both the Delphic/Socratic maxim, gnothi seauton, and the perspective of eudaimonism are more fundamental to Stoicism that is its physicalism. Modern approaches to ancient philosophy tend to over-emphasize what distinguishes the various schools from each other - up to and including defining the schools only in terms of these distinctive features, while largely ignoring (at least in terms of defining the schools) what they share in common.


        --- In stoics@yahoogroups.com, "dtstrain" <dtstrain@...> wrote:
        > the physicalist approach IS Stoic psychology. Only bodies exist.
        > --- In stoics@yahoogroups.com, "Curt Steinmetz" <enkiduq@> wrote:
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > --- In stoics@yahoogroups.com, "stevemarquis@" <stevemarquis@> wrote:
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > Curt writes:
        > > > ______________
        > > >
        > > > Consciousness has yet to be even provisionally "explained" on a materialist, or even empiricist, basis. So there is no merit to what you are saying here whatsoever.
        > > > ______________
        > > >
        > > > Curt, I don't believe it ever can be. The evidence for consciousness, such as it is, is our own personal subjective first person experience of it. Science can compile statistics on second person descriptions of this experience, but subjective experience cannot be objectively measured. Self awareness cannot be observed; it must be experienced directly.
        > > >
        > > > Stoicism and other Wisdom Traditions are aimed squarely at the quality of that subjective first person experience. This is why a purely empirical based analysis of Stoic psychology such as Jan attempted with his essay recently falls flat.
        > > >
        > > > Live well,
        > > > Steve
        > > >
        > >
        > > Hi Steve (and anyone else still following this). I think it's important to separate the two things:
        > >
        > > (a) the very specific issue of whether or not the "the mind is what brain does" crowd has yet to prove, or even to coherently articulate, their position (Eric Kandel's many appearances on the Charlie Rose show notwithstanding).
        > >
        > > &
        > >
        > > (b) the much more general issue of the limits of human knowledge in general, and specifically with respect to our knowledge about consciousness.
        > >
        > > That said, Stoicism is consistently optimistic with respect to possibilities for precise human knowledge. But I also think that with respect to knowledge concerning consciousness, the Stoics were always focussed on understanding the psyche as a means to an end, the end being not a state of knowledge but a state of happiness, eudaimonia.
        > >
        > > I also think the physicalist approach was a severe drawback for Stoic "psychology". I agree with the Platonic criticism that the idea of direct self-experience for a corporeal "body" is incoherent.
        > >
        > > Curt
        > >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.