Philosophy blog 2

The differences between naturalism and dialectical materialsm are what they imply. In essence dialectical materialism is a lenninist-marxist approach to the world which gives you a guideline to make society better, while naturalism says there are no rights or wrongs and only truths to people at those certain situations. Although they are somewhat similar and both are forms of atheism they differ at a few points. Dialectical materialism believes that in everything there is a thesis and an antithesis, which collide to form a new idea. This is a never ending chain which they believe is how the world works. While naturalism simply believes in the idea of constant evolution. They follow very darwinistic beliefs and believe in survival of the fittest, they would also believe in Karma and the ideas of past lifes. The main difference which I see between the two is that one looks to science and depends upon what we can know scientifically as truth, while the other just believes in a constantly changing world due to collision of view points. This was very difficult for me to write on and understand but I think I got what I was trying to say through.

Philosophy 1 Mr.Dyck assignment

Naturalism is described as "nature, as gradually discovered by our intelligence using the tools of experience, reason, and science". It believes that everything we believe is within a box and there is no supernatural world. The problems that can be posed with naturalism as far as reality goes is that no reality is real and that it is just everyones chemicals in there brains. Also they cant explain anything outside the realm of science, so any supernatural thought or our own minds cant be explained accurately at all. It also cannot describe any type of truth. Because it says that we all should follow nature and our own human nature. So it cannot give us any real intepretation on society as how it is. Also there can be no knowledge but just chemicals reacting in the brain. So everything we think we know is simply product of chemicals. So naturalism in no way can describe accurately the world around us, our brains minds and counsciousness and also cannot give any type of example of any sort of truth. So naturalism in no way can accurately describe the world that is which makes it sort of a joke to me. They worship science as god and then claim all religion is god.

God a human invention Theology Number 2

The idea that God is a human invention is easily refuted. As C.S. Lewis stated " If the whole universe has no meaning we sould never found out that it has no meaning; just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. This quote also works for the God argument. If there were actually no God then we should never know the idea of God or how God could exist. I will admit that it is in human nature to try and convince ourselves that we are more important than we are. Yet if there were no God and no true faith would every man not worship himself, or idols? How would we find the idea of a true all knowing God, and also how can you explain the survival of the bible and our faith. Also if there were no God and no meaning we would all be a product of  chance and therefore there would be no moral absolutes, truths or laws. So someone who carries this view literally can have no idea of right and wrong outside of what society teaches. It is like saying Christianity is a crutch for the human mind and eventually we will evolve past the need for it, yet this is not true and never will be. Someone carrying this view shows alot of Marxist views similar to the "opiate of the masses" idea. Yet this view cannot be true because of so many people being willing to die and give there life's to this view. People are not willing to die for something that is imaginary. So there must be something there. I could speak on this subject for hours and there are many many points which make this argument obsolete.

3 Responses to video

The first main re-occuring point that they made throughout this video that I'd like to refute is that we have endless eternal lifes and are the all. This is completely ridiculous to me, although the video does have some points that I do not have answers too, much of it is pure nonsense. Like the idea that we all contribute to the ALL, and that we are the all, this gives no insite to the origin of man, creation of the earth and many other theological issues. It is also incredible to me that he can claim we are eternal and yet have nobody in this world who  has true insite to their past life. If we are all learning always, then why must we re-learn to walk, talk and do everything we would have known how to do in a past life. Also this video would claim that a fly or any inanimate object is the all, so a fly is an intellegent being, or a dog turd is re-incarnated. That is completely ridiculous to me. How can someone actually believe that everything is simply a god? That point is just too off the wall for me to understand on any level.
                 Also they believe we are the all, yet we cannot understand the all. The idea of not understanding what we are is ridiculous. Would the truth not be attainable at some point? How can there be an ultimate truth that we can never attain. It just completely contradicts itself. Also how can you believe that a world that is perfectly balanced, and this complex is not created. They believe that everything is a product of chance. And also if we are all part of a never ending tree, then what happens to our bodies when we die? Do we just turn into an eternal blob or join some force. There are no points in this view that are reasonable to me. It seems like a total stoner religion, and is just weird to me. Alot of it was so off the wall it went over my head, but its difficult for me to believe someone can trust this stuff. But they can.... Just read the comments. I read most of them and it still makes no sense to me.