How did Ian........

[Joseffritzl]

..... go from an atheist, to a panintheist?

[Andy]

Somebody told him panentheism existed. Ian doesn't have a bullshit filter. Or if he does it's been so finetuned to "liberty" that it's worthless for anything else.

[YixilTesiphon]

Ian doesn't have a bullshit filter.

I believe this to be true.

[BonerJoe]

Atheists, always quick to judge others...

[anarchir]

More like the same person that told him about the bullshit Law-Of-Attraction told him about Pantheism. He then said to himself "hey, this is my buddy, I should just agree with him" and became a Pantheist. Then, he went and looked it up on Wikipedia and saw that Panentheism was an even more obscure version and changed himself to that. Also, he isnt really a Panentheist IMHO. He just wants to be able to tell theists that he still believes in (a) god while on the other hand to all extensive purposes live his life as an atheist. Has anyone ever seen him worshiping the earth? Didnt think so.

[Rillion]

Also, he isnt really a Panentheist IMHO. He just wants to be able to tell theists that he still believes in (a) god while on the other hand to all extensive purposes live his life as an atheist.

I think you mean "to all intents and purposes."

Why would Ian want to tell theists that he believes in a god, when he has happily told them he doesn't believe in a god for so long now?

Has anyone ever seen him worshiping the earth? Didnt think so.

I don't know.  What does worshiping the earth look like?

[Cognitive Dissident]

He watched Avatar, and he saw an opportunity to be "religious" without being religious.

[dalebert]

Ian took up the "en" part from me, I'm pretty sure.  The "en" portion of my panentheism is much like the forms from Plato's Theory of Forms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Forms

[Cognitive Dissident]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Forms

If objectivism had an antichrist, it seems to me he'd be pushing the Theory of Forms.  Any concept that what's most important is the stuff you can't sense sounds fishy to me.

<<< Not an objectivist, but agrees with a lot of objectivist ideas

Added the Concept of Fishiness

[dalebert]

If objectivism had an antichrist, it seems to me he'd be pushing the Theory of Forms.  Any concept that what's most important is the stuff you can't sense sounds fishy to me.

Just because you can't sense something directly, doesn't mean you can't come to a reasonable conclusion about it's existence.  The forms are likened to objects that are casting shadows.  You can see the shadows and you can come to a reasonable conclusion about what's casting the shadows.  If you saw the shadow of a bear on a cave wall, heard the bear roar, heard someone screaming, then the next day found a dead body with maul marks like a bear, it would be reasonable to conclude there was probably a bear even though you never sensed it directly.

Imagine you're trying to get from point A to point B.  Let's say you're in Atlanta and you want to get to London.  There are infinite paths you could take and infinite choices of actions to accomplish the task of traveling there.  You and I could argue and never objectively and definitively conclude what the best possible course of actions is to get there as quickly as possible, but it would be absurd to say that there doesn't exist one best set of actions based on some specified criteria for judgment, e.g. speed.  We might forever dispute what that best set of actions is but we ought to be able to conclude without argument that there is some best set.  It exists.

Forms are kind of like that.  To argue that they don't exist is borderline absurd.  The abstract of a perfect sphere made of infinite points is actually crucial for any finite limited representation of a sphere to exist in physical reality.  The perfect circle exists nowhere in physical reality but it exists in the abstract outside of time, unchanging, indestructible, undeniably.  We can model it mathematically or in our imagination in a limited form, but we can't actually manifest it.  You can't sense it directly but you can see the shadows of it all around the universe.  I can't really prove the existence of forms any more than I could prove a mathematical axiom, but people have faith in mathematical axioms because so much else relies on their truth in order to make any sense out of anything.

[Rillion]

The existence of the concept of a perfect thing is so obvious as to be pointless to argue...and arguing about the existence of perfect things themselves is pointless because perfection is, as you acknowledge ("based on some specified criteria for judgment") entirely subjective.   And "Just because you can't sense something directly, doesn't mean you can't come to a reasonable conclusion about it's existence" is the straw man argument used for every form of pseudoscience and new age bullshit that has ever been promoted.  I'd find the last person who claimed that you can't come to reasonable conclusions about the existence of things not directly sensed and then shoot him, but I'd have to build a time machine first. 

[dalebert]

The existence of the concept of a perfect thing is so obvious as to be pointless to argue...and arguing about the existence of perfect things themselves is pointless because perfection is, as you acknowledge ("based on some specified criteria for judgment") entirely subjective.

It might be impossible or nearly so to argue definitively for any answer being the perfect answer, but "perfect" is no longer subjective once you've established a clear context, an objective criteria for judgment.  But that's why there are infinite forms and not a singular form that represents some sort of supreme perfection outside of any context.  We might be arguing over the "perfect pill".  You want a pill to cure your great-aunt's cancer and I want one that cures erections lasting more then four hours.  My perfect pill would be different from your perfect pill.  Perfect wouldn't exist in reality but you could have a discussion comparing objectively measurable things in the context of a specific purpose or purposes for the thing in question.

And "Just because you can't sense something directly, doesn't mean you can't come to a reasonable conclusion about it's existence" is the straw man argument used for every form of pseudoscience and new age bullshit that has ever been promoted.

You're reading things into it that I didn't say.  I think you're confusing my statements with the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof to the non-believer.  Like, prove that God doesn't exist.  That's not what I'm saying.  My point is simply that there can be plenty of valid evidence for something other than directly sensing it.  Most of our knowledge of sub atomic things is based on indirect experimentation.  We acknowledge the existence of a black hole by observing the behavior of things around it, the absence of light.  Sometimes the reasonable conclusion based on evidence is that something likely does not exist and sometimes the evidence leads us to the reasonable conclusion that something likely does exist.  Direct sensing is not the only valid evidence for the existence of something.

The existence of the bear in the previous example was a reasonable conclusion based on the indirect evidence, IMHO.  The existence of a bear seems likely.  On the other hand, I have not seen anyone give any evidence for a supreme being, or ghosts, or psychic powers, for instance, that would lead me to think that the existence of those things is a reasonable conclusion.  The existence of those things seems at best extremely unlikely, and there are actually arguments against a supreme being/creator of the universe on the basis of logic alone that makes it seem impossible, IMHO, at least until some paradoxes are resolved to my satisfaction.

[Rillion]

It might be impossible or nearly so to argue definitively for any answer being the perfect answer, but "perfect" is no longer subjective once you've established a clear context, an objective criteria for judgment.  But that's why there are infinite forms and not a singular form that represents some sort of supreme perfection outside of any context.

Okay, so what exactly is the point of postulating forms then anyway?  Sure, for any standard there is an ideal which fits that standard absolutely.  So what?  It's still a concept.  How does that affect metaphysics, and what person isn't aware of that very basic fact?

And "Just because you can't sense something directly, doesn't mean you can't come to a reasonable conclusion about it's existence" is the straw man argument used for every form of pseudoscience and new age bullshit that has ever been promoted.

You're reading things into it that I didn't say.  I think you're confusing my statements with the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof to the non-believer.  Like, prove that God doesn't exist.  That's not what I'm saying.  My point is simply that there can be plenty of valid evidence for something other than directly sensing it. 

Again-- everyone with half a brain knows that, and it's the same line that every bullshit peddler tries to use in order to peddle their bullshit.   If you want to market vaccines, for example, "Things that you don't sense can still affect you" is not the best argument for it.  "This thing that you can't sense may cripple or kill your child"  is slightly better, and much better if you can actually couple it with, you know, evidence. 

[BonerJoe]

Atheists, always quick to judge others...

[dalebert]

I'm trying to come to reasonable conclusions about the nature of the universe we live in.  It helps me see patterns in what's going on around me.  A more accurate understanding leads to predicting likely outcomes of my decisions better and arriving at better decisions because of it.

It changes the way I look at things like natural selection and evolution.  It helps me wrap my head around something massively complex and make sense out of it on a level that I can model in my limited mind.  I see a messy universe that started in a state of chaos and is generally moving toward something orderly and I understand how and why that's happening.  It implies something inherent in the nature of the universe that's useful to understand as I'm figuring out what to do with my relatively short life (in the big scheme of things).  It gives me incredible optimism about the future because I see trends that make sense and that I have every reason to believe will take conscious life in a positive direction, even if it's 3 steps forward, 2 steps back, 3 steps forward, 2 steps back.