The Nature of this Conflict (Humans)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, January 20, 2010, 20:50 (5229 days ago) @ George Jelliss

xeno wrote: "All of us bring a philosophy to the table, a metaphysic if you will, that frames how we interpret everything we see around us."
> 
> The scientific philosophy, which I espouse, maintains that one's presumptions should be as minimal as possible, and one's beliefs based on the soundest of evidence. Where do you start?
> -As far as my own perspective, I'm in line with you, but with what I would consider an *extra* level of mathematically-founded skepticism. I also recognize that anything that has an "-ism" attached to it is a philosophy and that there is no absolute philosophy. In your post you asserted that your philosophy was somehow superior to all other philosophies--however, each individual human being gets to determine what they qualify as important. To some people, internal consistency and reproducibility simply are not important. Empiricism isn't important. If those things aren't important to a person, guess what--you, myself, Dawkins--no one on earth--can do anything about that, because in order to come in line with your view or Dawkins' view, those things must be important. Dawkins can call it a delusion till he's blue in the face, but it isn't going to change anything. -> 
> xeno: "I don't see Dawkins or other atheists heading into third-world countries informing the populace that all gods are false."
> 
> However, he has written a book "The God Delusion" that maintains, and indeed shows, that most forms of religious beliefs in gods are delusions. He doesn't need to go amissionising these days, his ideas get distributed around the world far more quickly by modern methods of communication. He does however allow for a very watered down version of god-belief as being non-delusional, namely the type associated with Einstein or Spinoza.-Except that many people in those countries have things more important to them than reading Dawkins, like feeding their families and maintaining cultural connections. And even in those few countries where people have the luxury of money and can read, my bet is that they dismiss Dawkins as offhandedly as he does them, because again there is a philosophical and cultural difference between them.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"