Postmodernism or religion? I had this discussion with a philosophy major while recruiting for the Secular Student Alliance at my school (I've got a thread about it somewhere in this forum). The irrationalism that comes from both is obviously detrimental, and when that fateful day when religion is practically eradicated does come, postmodernism will almost certainly be there to take over as the force of anti-reason. But then again, I look at religions that are at least partially rational and this (http://www.totse.com/community/showpost.php?p=10406893&postcount=9) is what I get when they try to explain what the fuck thy are talking about. There seems to be a lot of parallels between these two irrationalities, it seems that both groups feel that only they and their select group of equally irrational people can understand what they're saying, and thus explanation to those outside of their clique is useless.

What does totse think?

Oh, and this (http://richarddawkins.net/article,824,Postmodernism-Disrobed,Richard-Dawkins-Nature) is a good primer for those who don't know what I'm talking about.

This thread is going to be hilarious.

Would you like to elaborate on that?

Hare you can't just leave us hanging like that... You're the part that's going to make it hilarious to read in the first place (that's not an insult by the way or a jab at post-modernism, just the allusion to the lulz that would ensue if an actual discussion ensued).

This thread is going to be hilarious.

^This Hopefully.

I must say although i am truly fucked up in my head right now. But yet i can't still fucking understand where your going with that?



Oh well, i will wait for someone else to post first.

Oh well, i will wait for someone else to post first.

It's clear that everybody is doing this. :(

I don't think post-modernism will ever catch on.
The bourgeois lack the perspicacity necessary to acclimate themselves to the loquacious musing inherent in the odyssey through their own psyche, as this introspection in to the complex sinusoid that is the human mind only occasionally tangentially intersects the asymptotes of banality that are their palpable lives.
(Am I doing this right?)

Hare you can't just leave us hanging like that... .

As long as he keeps deleting his posts, we're going to be left hanging.

The only real threat to atheism would be if God were proven.

I sleep easily.

As far as pomo goes...some of the more abstract nonsense is eaily dismissed out of hand as such.

I doubt religion will ever be eradicated; it'll just change form.

I believe there's 2 routes religion will head down:

a) Paganism: the revival of old native religions and tales. Where people don't necasserily believe the tales and gods as truth, but rather, embrace them as part of their culture and as a reason for national unity and a reasoning for festivals .etc

b) Pantheism: more religions starting which are based upon metaphors for life and the universe. Where religious scripts are merely science dressed up in interesting tales.

I don't think post-modernism will ever catch on.
The bourgeois lack the perspicacity necessary to acclimate themselves to the loquacious musing inherent in the odyssey through their own psyche, as this introspection in to the complex sinusoid that is the human mind only occasionally tangentially intersects the asymptotes of banality that are their palpable lives.
(Am I doing this right?)

winnar!

Though it does seem as though you're making too much sense. You'll need to work on that.

winnar!

Though it does seem as though you're making too much sense. You'll need to work on that.

tag! you are it

It seems an initial premise to this is that all postmodernists are also Obscurantists, which they are all not. Furthermore, denying absolute truth does not necessarily mean absolute irrationality, though postmodernism does have a certain skepticism toward trying to be rational about everything.

Hare you can't just leave us hanging like that... You're the part that's going to make it hilarious to read in the first place

Ok. Richard Dawkins? More like Richard Dork-ins.


anyway, i do reckon that once an idea catches on, even if it only stays in fashion for a short period of time, it would never go away. Suffice to say, there will always be religious devotees and pomos.

The difference between the two is that religion has been around for a loooooong time and it has been established quite firmly in society. post modernism on the other hand, is rather new, and not many people are pomos, and even more dont know what it is.

with this being said, as humans move closer to reason, logic and materialism, society is going to see major flaws in both pomo and religion, though religion would be a tougher nut to overcome because its so ingrained in our world.

All this talk reminds me of the scene in Hamlet, where Polonious finds him in a library, reading.

P: What do you read, my lord?
H: Words, words, words.
P: Yes, but what is the matter?
H: Between whom?

The impressive verbiage so far seems to fail to distinguish between spirituality and religion.

Those who embrace the superstition of materialism and reject spirituality as well as religion are kind of throwing out the baby along with the bathwater.

As practiced, the Abrahamic religions are obsolete artifacts of the Piscean Age--I think even Broke Prophet would have to agree with that.

The best hope for the future of the world is simply this--"Do unto others as you would have it done unto you." Accepting this credo, and LIVING IT requires no belief in any sort of deity, no belief in heaven or hell-- but it is yet one of the most deeply spiritual concepts yet formulated.

Just so this thread isn't take off topic, do you care to make a thread explaining how precisely materialism is a "superstition"?

I went into some detail on this issue in the thread I just bumped, entitled "knowledge, belief, and reality."

Thanks for asking.

For LOTS more info, click

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4ADBF_enUS265US265&q=superstition+of+materialism

This post isn’t directed at BrokeProphet (I am basically done with that moron), so much as it is toward you people who may have read the rubbish he has just spewed and taken it seriously.

Even though this is not "directed at me" let me respond by saying, I still believe some of the more abstract horseshit in pomo can be dismissed out of hand.

Let me explain....

The criticism of postmodernism as ultimately meaningless rhetorical gymnastics was demonstrated in the Sokal Affair, where Alan Sokal, a physicist, proposed and delivered for publication an article purportedly about interpreting physics and mathematics in terms of postmodern theory, which he had deliberately written in a completely nonsensical fashion, including several in-jokes mocking postmodernism. It was nevertheless published by Social Text, a "cultural studies" journal active in the field of postmodernism, as a serious postmodernist work. Sokal arranged for the simultaneous publication of another article describing the former as a successful experiment to see whether a postmodernist journal would publish any nonsensical article with big words that flattered the editors' political views, triggering an academic scandal.

The Times wrote that “Sokal's essays - and his hoax - achieve their purpose of reminding us all that, in the words of the Victorian mathematician-philosopher William Kingdon Clifford, ‘It is wrong, always, everywhere and for any one, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.’”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism#As_meaningless_and_disingenuous

How can this philosophy be anything of value if a person can just bullshit there way through it?

Need a pomo essay?......google random pomo essay generator.

Any of this point towards bullshit yet? How about this...

Biologist Richard Dawkins believes that postmodernists generally are intellectual charlatans who deliberately obscure weak or nonsensical ideas with ostentatious and difficult to understand verbiage.

Still not convinced?

The linguist Noam Chomsky has suggested that postmodernism is meaningless because it adds nothing to analytical or empirical knowledge. He asks why postmodernist intellectuals won't respond as "people in physics, math, biology, linguistics, and other fields are happy to do when someone asks them, seriously, what are the principles of their theories, on what evidence are they based, what do they explain that wasn't already obvious, etc? These are fair requests for anyone to make. If they can't be met, then I'd suggest recourse to Hume's advice in similar circumstances: to the flames."[22]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism#As_meaningless_and_disingenuous

While this may not completely dismiss postmodernism as a philosophy, it does not paint a pretty picture.

It certainly enables me to say what the rabbit spirit called me a moron for........the more abstract nonsense in Postmodernism can be dismissed out of fucking hand. Deal with it.

I should have quoted you when I had the chance, Geist. :mad:

I went into some detail on this issue in the thread I just bumped, entitled "knowledge, belief, and reality."


Not really, you get "into some detail" on a strawman. At no point in time does materialism say that our perception must be perfect or complete. Materialism co-exists just fine with the fact that our sense aren't the complete picture. We've known this for ages. We can't, for example, see the vast majority of the electromagnetic spectrum. What materialism says is that the objects described by Physics (i.e. the physical, matter, light etc.) are what exist. Your thread doesn't refute this.

I should have quoted you when I had the chance, Geist. :mad:

I mean, seriously, Hare - why post five times and delete every single post? :confused:

Why even bother?

I know why.





He wants to increase his post count! :eek:

Which is the greater enemy to atheism?
Human stupidity

Human stupidity

and this my friend is the one true answer. Or is it? or really am I just to stupid to understand it all and lean on something with an easyer explanation to it all than reading the entire thread and learning what postmodernism is anyway.

and this my friend is the one true answer. Or is it? or really am I just to stupid to understand it all and lean on something with an easyer explanation to it all than reading the entire thread and learning what postmodernism is anyway.

Follow the link in the OP. Everybody should know at least the basics of philosophy.

dear god, i am way to high to read that massive article on PO, i tried, but no good

I don't understand. Atheism has an enemy?

Why make it a battle? When you began creating your SSA, I think I said something along the lines of it being better to tear down walls then to build them higher.

I thought atheism was simply the label a person uses to describe themselves when they lack a belief in God due to a "lack of evidence", or when they believe that God does not exist because thats what they have decided (strong atheism).

Where in the meaning of atheism do you find "the desire to impose will on others"?

That is not a characteristic of atheism. That is a characteristic of nasty people, who want to make the rest of the world see things through their eyes. A characteristic of people who desire to control others.

Atheism has no enemies, atheism is only an idea. There is no proof that a God does not exist. Only the people who want to propagate their idea as The Truth have enemies.

Theism has no enemies, theism is only an idea. There is no proof that a God exists. Only the people who want to propagate their idea as The Truth have enemies.




If you really care about other people, regardless what they might think about 'God', you should let them be. Stop trying to control everyone and propagating that you know more about their existence then they do.