I'd like to have a discussion on this, while I know that aliens existing wouldn't automatically disprove god, it for sure as hell would shake up the earth-centric perspective people have and humanity's self-importance. Thoughts?
They're on Spotify with lyrics and I think they're great deconversion music. They're companion albums focussing on critiques of Christian world views and philosophy that deals with the question of whether there is a god. I personally love the music although that's of course a matter of taste, but if you don't mind harsh vocals/screams you should definitely give both albums a go. And a lot of the lyrics really resonate with me.
Maybe next time you get Christian music stuck in your head that you don't want there, try this instead!
Lure Mimicry- predator mimics vital resources
“Accipitridae pueri might easily be glorified. Curled up to look small and frail, its wings resemble expensive clothing (often adorned with jewellery from prior victims) and its cries sound like whimpers of fear. Human predators sensing easy prey quickly find the tables turned- although any idea of ‘justice’ fades on seeing the fate of those good Samaritans unlucky enough to hear its cries.”
Sexual Signal Mimicry- predator mimics mating behaviour.
“Despite many poetic descriptions of succubi and sirens, the real Tarsiidae venus in no way resembles a beautiful woman. Seen clearly, its odd proportion, distorted features, fleshy “clothing” and near-random speech make it visibly inhuman. But, of course, that’s not where it hunts. In a nightclub, under strobe lights and pounding music, to an observer 5 shots in? It passes well enough to feed.”
Mimesis- predator mimics a harmless or easily overlooked part of the environment
“Panthera stragulum’s extreme flexibility and shiny black skin provide a very different kind of camouflage from the forests and savannahs of its brethren. Mimicking a pile of garbage, it is sedate and patient, waiting for the perfect time to strike. Luckily for it, those same parts of the city where trash may be ignored for weeks are often the same parts where people ignore screaming.”
Mutualistic mimicry- predator mimics a symbiotic or helpful species.
“As well as the standard worker, soldier and queen, Bathyergidae proditor has a unique ‘lure’ role. Their catlike mewing will rarely get more than a smile from adults. But a child might run off to pet the kitty. While usually a guardian will intervene, not all are fast or attentive enough. And even a single toddler has enough meat to feed the hive for months.”
Brood Parasitism- predator’s offspring mimic host offspring
“A terrifying exemplar of evolution’s ingenuity, Platycryptus miraculum’s glowing body echoes stories of angels. It moves through certain areas, inclining it to hosts likely to consider a mysterious pregnancy a miracle, to oppose abortion and mistrust doctors, and to want a home birth. As well as safety, this means the family will likely crowd around the mother during ‘birth’- providing the swarm an easy meal when the eggs finally hatch.”
Prey Mimicry- predator mimics a member of the prey species
“Like T. venus, Inachus tibicines doesn’t significantly resemble a 10 year old in a rain
... keep reading on reddit ➡If a god exists, we're nothing special to them. We live in an incredibly vast universe that spans 45 billion light years and contains two trillion galaxies. Each of those galaxies could have upwards of half a trillion stars, with trillions of planets. It's true that we haven't yet seen conclusive evidence of intelligent extraterrestrial life but it's ludicrous to think that they aren't out there somewhere (and probably in abundance). And I'm just talking about the region we can observe!
When most religions developed, humans had a geocentric view of the universe. They thought Earth was the center of attention since the sun, moon, and stars appeared to revolve around it. Some religions like Christianity fought tooth and nail against the heliocentric view once astronomers like Copernicus and Galileo started to question the prevailing wisdom. Eventually most accepted the enormity of the cosmos and the apparent insignificance of our planet, but continue to advocate for the idea that somehow the entire universe was created in order for humanity to develop.
Maybe there is a god out there, I have no idea. I'm agnostic on that question. But I am extremely confident that if god exists, we take up next to no space in their mind. I am not the biggest fan of this conclusion since it'd be cool if there were a god who cared about us more than any other creature but I see no reason to think that's true. CMV!
EDIT: changed "who cared about us" to "who cared about us more than any other creature"
alternative title, are there any good environmentalists who aren't gay nerds?
Many theistic believers hold that their god is goodness itself, or else that their god defines goodness.
This is meant to include moral goodness which either encompasses justice or is justice.
Therefore, if we are to believe in a perfect moral goodness as a supreme being, we ought to believe first that there is a supreme goodness.
Only when we already believe in it can we say that it has a personality (of omnibenevolence, among other things), divine powers of omnipotence, omniscience, and so on.
One of the oldest attested reasons not to believe in a god or gods is that the rains fall on the just and the unjust alike.
In other words, our own human powers are unsatisfying in their ability to enact justice, and no supernatural power enacts justice on our behalf in this life.
This worked against the naturalistic state religions especially well, given that the state was responsible for enacting justice and with the gods' backing it should have no problems doing so.
For those who believe in an afterlife, this problem seems resolved.
The god(s) can simply enact justice on our behalf in the afterlife.
- This is circular as it presumes the existence of a god/gods who are perfectly good in order to solve the problem of their being demonstrably not so.
It presumes that the god(s) are concerned with seeking justice on our behalf and willing to do so; it presumes their goodness as a defense of their goodness.
It also presumes that because it is (debatably) conceivable that they could be just in ways we can't fathom because they are stronger and wiser than us, that this is a justified belief despite there being stronger alternatives which do not depend on hypotheticals.
Beyond this, I see two contradictions between the injustice we experience and the existence of divine beings:
2. Start with a premise that an ought implies a can (for example, I ought to be able to do something, else it is unjust to say that I ought to do it).
If we deem that injustices go unanswered in this life, either naturally, or artificially by some civil authority, or by vengeance, or by reconciliation, specifically because we are unable to hold them to account, this suggests that it is our sense of justice and expectations that are wrong, as what we though just was not possible.
It suggests that we are wrong to expect to find what we think of as justice in our lives.
And
3. If a supremely good god existed, it must perpetuate the greatest
Or is that the best word?
I want to express anti-humanism or anti-humanist, but to me that sounds too close to anti-human
Many religions, especially but not limited to abrahamic ones, perpetuate humans as the only living beings that matter, everything is for them to use and abuse by divine mandate. This ideology justifies companies, like Nestle and Amazon, in their gleeful destruction like of natural habitats all over the globe for profit. It justifies the current intensive farming methods which produce more emissions than the worldwide air traffic and construction systems combined.
Essentially anthropocentrism justifies our greed and our contempt for other leaving beings.
Each person has the duty to face this reality, individual changes in lifestyle may not contribute much so we should focus on putting limits to the international corporations, whose weight can and does shift our world. Corporations cannot be expected to do the be decent and do the right thing, it is contrary to their nature, so they need guidance and boundaries.
Each person needs to actively require more from their representatives and push them to discard the anachronistic, poisonous idea of humanity's divine mandate.
I've been seeing climate activists and their media calling this whole thing a "climate war", and it's honestly been getting on my nerves. "War" is a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state. Who are we fighting, our own planet? This, intentionally or not, is promoting a downright suicidal take on this matter. The way I see it, the only way humans get a happy ending is if we accept the fact that we aren't always center of the whole universe. There are things out there that are way bigger than us, literally and figuratively, and our planet and everything that lives on it is one of them. We don't "win" against nature. We don't "win" against the very thing responsible for our existence in the first place. We've got two options here: learn that we're part of the global ecosystem, not above it, or sit alongside the dinosaurs as yet another chapter in the history of life on Earth. Either way, life will move on without a care in the world as to whether or not humans are here to see it or not. Earth has endured a time where 90% of everything alive on the planet had gone extinct, and this will be no different. Even if we reach or make it past that number, all it takes is a single cellular organism living in volcanoes at the bottom of the ocean to start things all over again. Up until the day the sun expands and swallows up the planet, something will be living on it. Bottom line, we humans aren't special. If we keep treating ourselves like we're bigger and better than everything else, it'll be our downfall.
I have recently been reading about John Passmore, and I think he articulated an excellent environmentalist philosophy focused on human interests. I am curious if any contemporary philosophers take a similar approach.
Since ufo / uap is the topic of the moment I wanted to ask about a paper I recently read which theorize the "how" and "why" UFO is a taboo. I couldn't find no one in any academic discipline that has ever published a critique of this 2008 article in a journal or book.
Does this absence actually confirms the article's central thesis? That there is a taboo on the whole subject?
and of course
What do you think about the article?
I apologize if this has already been discussed, for which I ask, if you would, to point out that discussion or critique to me. I only found this article which explain that a critique exist, but I cannot find it anywhere. There's in turn a respond, somewhere on the internet, from the authors to the Farrell's critique, but that's it.
Disclaimer:
While I didn't wish it to be necessary, this still being a social network I found to be a must to explicit the following very clearly: I do not want to talk about aliens speculations or conspiracy theories. Nor do I want to evaluate the legitimacy of the latest interviews with characters on any narratives in the current mediatic exploit.
* I'm ONLY and EXCLUSIVELY interested in the political theory that the article expounds. *
Furthermore, if you want to engage a conversation, please read the whole paper and not just the abstract.
Sorry for the harsh statements and thank you!
Moreover it seems like thinking the universe is essentially unlike human is to impose a dualism between humans and the universe whereas the two are actually continuous, and indeed, the human as with all life must in a sense be (loosely) isomorphic to the universe in order to exist and persist and survive at all. The upshot, I think, is that some anthropomorphism is justified.
Was watching "Arguing God from Morality | Episode 202 | Closer To Truth" (https://youtu.be/h9F-CaquPTc)
Couldn't help but think that all the evil mentioned in the video - natural and man-made - are with respect to human perspective. Hence, I wonder, is this debate really relevant to the proving of god's existence but at all?
Would sincerely appreciate any guidance, many thanks in advance.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/23/opinion/humans-animals-philosophy.html
We are blessed with insightful deductions such as > The Great Philosopher will, before addressing himself to the deep ethical and metaphysical questions, pause for the conventional, ground-clearing declaration: “I am definitely not a squirrel.”
and much, much more, but lest I do to the author what he has done to thousands of years of collected wisdom and equally trifling musings, I'll leave the reading suffering to you.
It's your time to shine, supposedly-life-loving natalists who got nothing better to do than waste their time on Reddit cos the real world's a scary, uncomfortable place.
I enjoy Lynn White's articles on how (to an extent) environmental damages can be traced back to anthropocentric values which permeate 'western' thought (especially those from Christian values, he argues, highlighting Genesis' statement of man having dominion over earth). And how Hannah Arendt says regarding the move from some western states from being entangled with religion to disentangling to 'secularism' has essentially adopted the same values and framework it had before but replaced the 'soul' with the 'self'.
So I was wondering whether anyone knows if there has been any more key works on this since White in the 60s and on methods to find investigate how entangled secularism (especially regarding environmental law) still is with anthropocentric thought and values.
https://audius.co/avp/album/kadonneet-maat-kadonneet-maat-39167
I've got superb feedback on this, especially from other musicians and producers. I spent over three years on the details and mixing, while still trying to keep it restrained enough.
Audius is so far the only place to stream it in high quality, unless you buy it from Bandcamp and even then you'd need to download it to your device.
I'm super fed up with the traditional streaming services, and might as well stop putting my music up on them.
I love the concept of being the master of death and the possibilities of what that might entail, however whenever I read it in fanfics I always get disappointed because the “death” depicted in those stories always closely resembles any human on Halloween night with only a scythe and black cloak that differentiates them.
What I mean to say is that its very anthropocentric! It doesn’t have to be written in a Lovecraftian way but when the death depicted in the story acts like a handbook to explain the rules to Harry and is predictable and human than there is no mystery everything is spoon-fed and it makes such an awesome concept boring. Death even in the magical world is something that transcends the understanding of even the greatest wizards its a mystery its cosmic and so awe inspiring that they make legends about it. There is an element of existential horror to it. So I wish that people would either stop writing Concepts like death/fate as a clichéd plot device that are anthropocentric in nature. Or at least take out the whole concept of the avatar of death and just make the Master of Death concept more ambiguous. Maybe let the reader imagine what it could be like making it more interesting and chilling. What do you guys think? And do you have any good recommendations for properly done mod tropes in fanfic?
So much can come from the slightest change no matter it's size or origin in our fickle world. It can be a thought or the materialisation of an entire biological function. Some would find that statement inspiring, others may find it depressing. To me it's not inspiring nor depressing. To me it's a lesson that cannot be mastered or learnt in the slightest. Some belive in in fate. It may turn out that everything is predetermined by a supernatural power, it could be natural we just don't know yet, we might never figure it out. We could all die tomorrow, shit happens. Heck I want to talk about bees, so be it.
About 130 million years ago during the early cretaceous period the first flower bloomed. The plants at that time were mostly mosses, seed bearing pines and ferns. Exactly why and how and why this flower came to be isn't certain. Looking totally differernt from vegeatation at that time and with no obvious evolutionary ancestors, the emergence of flowering plants still remain a botanical mystery today. In 1879 Charles Darwin called it "A abominable mystery". What bothered him was that flowering plants, collectively know as angiosperms didn't follow his theory of gradual evolution. They seem to have appeared from nowhere and grew expeditiously with a great diversity, in just 100 million years they managed to conquer the entire earth., today accounting for 90% of all plants on our planet! That's mad. They've redefined our natural landscape and formed the foundations for new ecosystems, without flowering plants the world would be very different. Charles's theory on gradual evolution is debated greatly, new research suggests that angiosperms could have possibly evolved progresively over a suitably long amount of time before they first appeared. Their fragility makes it hard to find them through fossil records, which makes it very difficult to pin point the exact time of their emergence and how they evolved. Still the the eventual domination of the plant kingdom remains a success story, no matter how weak our knowlage may be.
Ok thats enough hype for angiosperms, they couldn't have done it without some cute, special lil helpers. All of the angiosperms in the world are useless without a way to polinate and reproduce, nothing has facilitated that more than the humble bee! Fossilised nests of bees and wasps found in the petrifyed forest of Arizona date back around 220 million years, that's before flowers took the form we know today. Scientists today think that
... keep reading on reddit ➡Well, do aliens kiss? I don't know. And I'm not super interested in aliens to begin with.
But I'm interested in hearing the likelihood that aliens kiss, if it is given that aliens already exist. Is it inevitable?
There are assumptions of that form that we can't make. Do aliens do the Harlem Shake? They certainly don't call it that, but it's less certain that they don't do the dance. Still, it's so particular that we can't make that assumption - it would be overly anthropocentric to do so.
Do aliens have bunnyhopping in their first-person shooters? Was it just a fluke of code that got it in the original Quake, to be so beloved as to be never coded out? Or would it be such an inevitability that any WASD shooter game coded from the ground up would have to see it coming, and code it out?
Do aliens have music? I could believe that. I could even believe they use 12-tone equal temperament, like us. Do they have Beethoven's Fifth? Dun dun dun duuuuuun!
Kissing, Harlem Shaking, bunnyhopping, and Beethoven's fifth. I don't suppose there is a word equivalent to the Do Aliens Have question.
So when I ask, Do Aliens Kiss, I wonder with what word X can we equivalently write: Is Kissing X?
Hey all, trying to hunt down a copy of Anthropocentric Copernicus edition. Any tips? I live in the US and have searched ebay and discogs. I may pull the trigger on a discogs copy but hope to find a better price if possible. Thanks in advance!
Can we just take a moment and learn to appreciate nature as it is? Natural beauty is practically everywhere: the mountains, oceans, lakes, forests, and we should start protecting nature for its inherent beauty and because everything is interconnected in a vast chain that is larger than "being human". I'm honestly tired of hearing that we should learn to protect nature because we'll have nothing to eat or breathe or live in in the future. It's all so centered around humans and our survival as a species that little light has been shed upon the multitudes of species that ~actually~ need nature to survive that has nothing to do with our survival. The Earth in itself is beautiful and I think that's enough reason to protect it.
In whatever branch of philosophy.
It seems to me a wise approach to philosophy. Why the hell should philosophy be navel-gazing to the particularities of the species we happen to be in?
Just as Science went through a Copernican revolution in both the literal and metaphorical sense (Begone geocentrism/human-oriented explanations), I feel like Philosophy ought to too (Note this is distinct from the Kantian Copernican revolution)
Here's the last of em! I also realised I forgot to post my Anthropocentric write-up on here, so in case any of you are interested in that I'll combine it here.
In 2007, The Ocean Collective released an album called Precambrian. That album's concept was based on the eons of the formatioon of the Earth, beginning 4.6 billion years ago and ending 541 million years ago, when hard-shelled creatures first appeared in abundance. The album we're about to delve into picks up where Precambrian left off and covers the first half of the Phanerozoic eon, specifically the Palaeozoic era, spanning from 541 million years ago up until 251 million years ago. This essentially makes Phanerozoic a sequel to Precambrian. Each song is named after a period in this era. The band are due to release the second part of Phanerozoic, Mesozoic and Cenozoic.
With that out of the way, let's start our journey through the Palaeozoic era...
The Cambrian Explosion
After the Cryogenian period there came the Cambrian explosion, 541 million years ago. This event caused practically all major animal phyla. It lasted between 13 and 25 million years and resulted in most modern phyla becoming diversified, meaning differences started appearing in similar animals such as birds and fish.
Before the Cambrian explosion most organisms were simple, consisting of single cells sometimes organised into colonies. However, by the end of the Cambrian, most animals present today had appeared.
Cambrian II: Eternal Recurrence
During the Cambrian period, it took endless biological cycles in order for single-celled organisms to evolve into complex, multicellular animals. This concept can be applied to Nietzsche's theory of eternal recurrence. This is the concept that mankind will forever experience the same things over and over again, without end. This also applies to our individual lives, repeating the same tasks day to day.
Through life we will experience many painful and pleasurable things, many friends and enemies. These things we experience will likely be the same things over and over again. However, this has to begin somewhere. There will be a point in a cycle of human existence where someone will be the first person to experience a certain thing. This experience will then spread through our population until many people would have been through the same thing.
Ordovicium: The Glaciation of Gondwana
The Ordovician period comes after the Cambrian, and spans between 485.4 and 443.8
... keep reading on reddit ➡