|
|
| Page 6 of 8 |
DXWarlock
VIP Member
Posts: 11422
Location: Florida, USA
|
 Posted: Fri, 8th Mar 2013 17:27 Post subject: |
|
 |
And like I said, I'm not arguing with you.
I think its just that we are looking at the same thing in the middle, just describing it from different ends of the stick.
-We don't control what happens to us in life, but we control how we respond to what happens in life.
-Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. -G. Michael Hopf
Disclaimer: Post made by me are of my own creation. A delusional mind relayed in text form.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
couleur
[Moderator] Janitor
Posts: 14351
|
| Posted: Fri, 8th Mar 2013 18:02 Post subject: |
|
|
Hah, I must say, the length of your post is a little discouraging, so I will try to give a global answer. (Fuck this, my post is also way too long, sorry)
As I see it, the universe is mechanistic, mathemathic, time/space, only because that is the way we percieve it.
Imagine that cause/effect is a pure logical concept of the intelligent mind. Like a form without content. When you see something through your eyes, eg. the content of your sensations, this gets automatically transformed through these pure forms of reason and cause/effect becomes part of the phenomenon (for us).
What we see is a combination of our a priori logical forms of understanding and the sensorial content we get through our different senses. When we see cause/effect in something, we judge this something with the categories of our mind (cause/effect). That does not mean cause/effect is in this thing, it means we judged this thing to have a certain cause/effect relation. The relation is created in our understanding, it is not inherent to the thing itself.
That is why you are right to say that the universe may be very very simple. But this simplicity will never be understood through concepts, because concepts are, by nature abstract and created by our minds. Cause and Effect are not discovered in the universe. We put cause and effect in our discoveries. Sometimes we change the cause, depending on new discoveries.
So, for me this is how it is:
1. We cannot think the universe without cause/effect, because that is how our intellect works.
2. Causes and effects are not absolutes, they change with every new "discovery".
3. The universe for itself cannot, can never, be what we think it is. Regardless of the complexity of our intellectual grasp, our explicite expression is always different.
4. Underneath the curtain of mathemathics and physics, maybe we share an implicite understanding of what the universe is already, as we are doubtless, part of it.
5. Speculation: Maybe some people have a more intuitive form of understanding a part, but as soon as they try to relate it through language, they are bound to fail, due to the nature of language iself. (And not our intellectual limitations!)
Another example. Lets say, I would make a thorough definition of a frog. Books and books filled with information about frogs, I would literally know everything about frogs, to such point, I'd be able to predict what a frog would normally do in a certain circumstance. Do I reall know what a frog is? No. I just approximated a certain set of constructed rules to match the concept frog. Still every frog is different somehow, but thats not even the point. The point is, I would need to actually be the frog to understand what it means to be a frog.
And yes, I suppose we could imagine beings with a more close relationship to life. I suppose a sitaris muralis, somehow has a knowledge of how to do certain things, and how certain things in nature works, without ever needing to learn any concept. Even its larvae automatically do pretty complex tasks without ever needing to have explicit knoledge about how to perform those tasks. Its just that this instinctive knowledge seems impossible to relate to one another. Any biochemical reconstruction of how the sitaris muralis works automatically places us on the explicit field, making the understanding uncomplete and inherently wrong.
As soon as we use language and logic, we seperate ourselves from the object.
The Borg example is interesting. The question would be: Is it possible, make a computer (which, by definition works with constructed static concepts) relate and share experiences from one to another in such a complete way, that you would think you made those experiences yourself. I'll just think about that some more tonight. (I've been rewatching TNG lately, so my memories of the Borg are still pretty fresh)
I think art works very much more alike instinct than intelligence. (Not all art, thats for sure) With the added bonus that it can also relate a certain more intimate form of knowledge.
"Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed nonage. Nonage is the inability to use one's own understanding without another's guidance. This nonage is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one's own mind without another's guidance. Dare to know! (Sapere aude.) "Have the courage to use your own understanding," is therefore the motto of the enlightenment."
Last edited by couleur on Fri, 8th Mar 2013 18:06; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
couleur
[Moderator] Janitor
Posts: 14351
|
| Posted: Fri, 8th Mar 2013 18:04 Post subject: |
|
|
| DXWarlock wrote: | And like I said, I'm not arguing with you.
I think its just that we are looking at the same thing in the middle, just describing it from different ends of the stick. |
I do not percieve this as an argument. I hope you dont think of me as a pretentious dogmatic. I try not to be actually.
"Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed nonage. Nonage is the inability to use one's own understanding without another's guidance. This nonage is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one's own mind without another's guidance. Dare to know! (Sapere aude.) "Have the courage to use your own understanding," is therefore the motto of the enlightenment."
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DXWarlock
VIP Member
Posts: 11422
Location: Florida, USA
|
| Posted: Fri, 8th Mar 2013 18:24 Post subject: |
|
|
Like I said, I think we are feeling the same elephant, just at different ends 
For example I wouldn't need to be a frog to understand what it means to be one, If frogs had some way of sharing that experience as a pure firsthand concept.
Our lack of being able to get past our communication limits doesn't change what a frog is it only defines that we cannot know with our current abilities as dumb animals, so we make up the concept that if we could be a frog, saying "that would work too to experience it."
I guess the words intellectual limitations was the wrong ones to use. its more our physical limitations, or physiological as the type of creatures we are. we lack any type of ability to share things first person with others.
I mean that sounds common sense, and weird to say you could share something first person to someone else as if they was it..but that's my point, its a totally alien, abstract, idea to us because of that. its not something we can even put in some type of understandable concept other than 'being' that thing to see.
I'm sure its possible for some other life from to see using noises and gestures to relay information as totally abstract and strange..as they share everything in some form of communication that does what we are saying would be needed for 'sharing experiences' without having to be any of them.
You see where I'm coming from? its our ape like simplicity of being physically evolved and focused creatures, that causes us to not be able to grasp or relay such simple things.
The fact of experiencing things in a personal form (as in existing and recording your surroundings and how you react personally) was around million and millions of years in animals before the concept or need to express them to others even was around.
So of course experiencing something is far more 'natural' and pure than the ability to share that in some sort of pure form. It being an optional side track of communication being developed.
So its the same:
Your of the approach of "we can only say things are the way they are, because of our limited ability to perceive it"
As a 1st person biased viewpoint. From the eyes of the observer showing doubt in his findings.
I'm of the approach of "It is what it is, despite our limited ability to perceive it, and probably incorrectly at that".
As a 3rd person biased view from the point of the object, existing in its whole, not capable of caring if its observer can see it all. The object is still what it is, regardless of an observers take on it.
I guess a better way of saying is you are going "We can never know what it is, because of what we are", I'm saying "It doesn't care if we know what it is, because it is that either way".
You take a bottom up approach starting with man and working towards the universe, and centered on how we can understand it.
I take a top down approach and start with the universe and work down to insignificant man, centered on whatever is is, regardless of if we can understand it.
-We don't control what happens to us in life, but we control how we respond to what happens in life.
-Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. -G. Michael Hopf
Disclaimer: Post made by me are of my own creation. A delusional mind relayed in text form.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DXWarlock
VIP Member
Posts: 11422
Location: Florida, USA
|
| Posted: Fri, 8th Mar 2013 18:41 Post subject: |
|
|
| couleur wrote: |
I do not perceive this as an argument. I hope you dont think of me as a pretentious dogmatic. I try not to be actually. |
oh no not at all.
You are one of the few people here that can join a conversation, giving the other side, without coming off as confrontational.(I cant do that either  )
I think there is only a handful of people here that I can say can get into an debate, without it resorting to name calling, insults, referring to the other side as idiots 3-4 pages in..lol
I may get passionate, and a bit of podium pounding in my debates, but I try not to insult or call names. I tend to migrate towards "he is the most angry, opinionated, yet civil person I have debated with"..or at least I hope so.
-We don't control what happens to us in life, but we control how we respond to what happens in life.
-Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. -G. Michael Hopf
Disclaimer: Post made by me are of my own creation. A delusional mind relayed in text form.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
couleur
[Moderator] Janitor
Posts: 14351
|
| Posted: Fri, 8th Mar 2013 18:47 Post subject: |
|
|
Ok, so then the question remains: What is it? What is the universe? How can you start from there if you dont know what it is? Or do you?
Yes, I start from bottom up. I ask about the conditions of understanding first.
"Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed nonage. Nonage is the inability to use one's own understanding without another's guidance. This nonage is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one's own mind without another's guidance. Dare to know! (Sapere aude.) "Have the courage to use your own understanding," is therefore the motto of the enlightenment."
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DXWarlock
VIP Member
Posts: 11422
Location: Florida, USA
|
| Posted: Fri, 8th Mar 2013 19:15 Post subject: |
|
|
I guess the best example would be like a jigsaw puzzle. all its pieces exist regardless if you know what they all are. its picture as a whole is and always will be static to itself. even if we can only see 2 of the 500 pieces and guessing at what is a picture of.
Maybe its an outlook of the universe as a whole has more importance than our understanding of it?
I marvel at its ability to be, it its simple elegance of what parts we can observe, while appreciating what little we can understand of it.
From a questioning standpoint, ' How can you start from there if you don't know what it is?" is a good point, you start with what you know..And when questioning the universe we need to do it that way.
But from an answer to those questions standpoint. the answer was always and will always be the same long before we found out what that answer is. "What is the universe?", it is itself. Me or anyone being able to correctly guess what that it doesn't matter beyond satisfying humans curiosity in it.
I'm doing a horrible job of explaining what I'm trying to get across here..(its this whole barbaric form of communication thing we was talking about, trying to express personal concepts using language and symbols  ) If we wasn't here to question it, what it is, it would still be what it is.
The universe is what it is, and always will be. That fact is separate and non related to the knowledge of how we explain it to each other.
The advances of what we know about it is amazing, and i'm fascinated by it. But the simple answer of what it is, is complicated when we decide we want to ask that in a question form we can understand.
I reallllly hope my rambling of horrible examples gets the point across. As I said, the concept is elegantly simple, its the using human language to share it that's making it complicated. Only way I can think of to put it better after sitting here is as this..and it still murky:
Are we asking "What is the universe?" or "What is the universe as humans understand it?"
The first one of course cannot be answered by man,because then to try to do so would be asking the second question anyway.
Again it cant be answered by man, but to expect an answer that fits it is just egotistical of man to say "unless we can say it, or explain it, its useless as a question".
-We don't control what happens to us in life, but we control how we respond to what happens in life.
-Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. -G. Michael Hopf
Disclaimer: Post made by me are of my own creation. A delusional mind relayed in text form.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frant
King's Bounty
Posts: 24643
Location: Your Mom
|
| Posted: Fri, 8th Mar 2013 19:55 Post subject: |
|
|
| ChinUp wrote: | | Frant wrote: | What makes morality objective? Are we born with the morals we still have as adults? Obviously not, we're born with the basic instincts and children tend to be cruel to each other until they've reached a certain point where they develop a sense of post-ego. Morality is shaped by cultures, society, parents, schools, behaviour etc... And I have no idea what you meant with the use of the word "vindictive" in this context. There's no universal moral code. We have survival instincts that guide us in some ways to make sure the group you live in prospers for the good of the group (what's good for the group is also good for you). But that's not morality.
Yet again I suspect this is a question of language barrier/definition/semantics. |
Morality develops from ones ability to comprehend the effects of ones actions .. to think you get to pick & chose the effects of your actions is silly. |
You get to pick your actions. Isn't that where morality really comes in? When you have a choice to do something with a possible outcome? And different people would no doubt make different choices depending on their own subjective morals.
Example (that I've used before): In an experiment with Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation they managed to affect the moral choices a person made. He was posed with a situation where something "immoral" took place and had to grade how immoral that was on a scale. When he was posed with a similar situation but with TMS active on a particular part of his brain his response was way lower on the moral scale.
So with that in mind I think you're basically taking one thing and making into something it is not.
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!
"The sky was the color of a TV tuned to a dead station" - Neuromancer
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 10th Mar 2013 02:02 Post subject: |
|
|
| DXWarlock wrote: | I mean in ANY sense..any sense at all. not biblical. I mean if there is ANYTHING to us other than the results of random reactions of complex compounds that create complexity that we are.
Give me ANY definition that suits whatever you deem god to be beyond that. its a simple question.
If god in anyway equals more than the sum of the parts of our chemical makeup. please explain.
That specific enough for you? |
There is no God, at least not in the generalized sense of the word. It is a claim that has never been proven. That being the case, the question of what God is, is moot, as there is no God.
Now if we look scientifically at what the so called "power of god", or the variations of throughout history, then perhaps we might begin to understand why we are here. If we even have a purpose at all.
99.99% of all the species that have ever existed on this planet are extinct. They came and went long before modern man reared its ugly head. Personally I think we grant ourselves far more importance than we deserve.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TSR69
Banned
Posts: 14962
Location: Republic of the Seven United Provinces
|
| Posted: Sun, 10th Mar 2013 02:16 Post subject: |
|
|
You should write the word as "god" then.
Formerly known as iconized
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DXWarlock
VIP Member
Posts: 11422
Location: Florida, USA
|
| Posted: Sun, 10th Mar 2013 03:58 Post subject: |
|
|
| OG wrote: |
Now if we look scientifically at what the so called "power of god", or the variations of throughout history, then perhaps we might begin to understand why we are here. If we even have a purpose at all.
. |
I think we are starting to see a bit of the same now. Or finding common ground between me and you.
This point here was what I was somewhat getting at. What I was trying to give the jist of.
Starting way back whenever you wish to pick as the point in time to start. The longer we look, and for every step we take in refining that answer, every new puzzle piece we find that fits the solution, its always been away from having a reason or purpose, never towards.
-We don't control what happens to us in life, but we control how we respond to what happens in life.
-Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. -G. Michael Hopf
Disclaimer: Post made by me are of my own creation. A delusional mind relayed in text form.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 10th Mar 2013 14:05 Post subject: |
|
|
| DXWarlock wrote: | | The longer we look, and for every step we take in refining that answer, every new puzzle piece we find that fits the solution, its always been away from having a reason or purpose, never towards. |
This is because religion has enforced the myth that there is a purpose. The more we explain with science, the lesser the need for blind faith. Blind faith is ignorance. Science attempts to be anti-ignorance. The two, religion and science, they are not mutually compatible, despite how many scientists who proclaim to be men of faith protest otherwise. They are little more than hypocrites.
The whole ethos of religion? That you are here to serve god. It teaches you that you are a slave, that you are stupid, and science is the work of Baphomet.
Remember Galileo? The guy slapped the church in the face by showing the Earth was not "fixed" at the centre of the universe, and no, everything did not revolve around it. Science trumped religious dogma, and he spent the rest of his life under house arrest after the Inquisition found him guilty of heresey. Galileo proved that the so called "word of god" was flat out wrong. This is but one of many many examples of religion perpetuating ignorance.
Stupid people are easy to control. But to stay in control, you need to keep them stupid. Enter religion.
If god did not exist, man would find it necessary to invent him. -Voltair
If god is willing to prevent evil, but not able, then he is not omnipotent.
If he is able, but not willing, then he is malevolent.
If he is both able and willing, then whence cometh evil?
If he is neither able nor willing, then why call him god? -Epicurus
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DXWarlock
VIP Member
Posts: 11422
Location: Florida, USA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChinUp
Posts: 5503
Location: 51.7° N ' 1.1° W
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 11th Mar 2013 14:17 Post subject: |
|
|
| ChinUp wrote: | Supernatural associations with the word God are evidence of an irrational attachment to theist dogma on the subject.
Atheist relgion .. no deity
Theist relgion .. deity |
Atheism is not (a) religion. It is absence of religion.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DXWarlock
VIP Member
Posts: 11422
Location: Florida, USA
|
| Posted: Mon, 11th Mar 2013 16:16 Post subject: |
|
|
If we take just a few adjectives out, and leave the context..it make just as much sense:
| ChinUp wrote: | associations with the word god are evidence of an irrational attachment to dogma on the subject.
|
And again you pointing out why people think things (the pics) is no evidence for proof of the things they think. You can show me 4000 pictures of quotes, and musings of people on how they perceive religion, not one of them gives evidence of its validity. only their personally held outlook on it.
You are still confusing conviction of thoughts, with the proof of reasons to.
-We don't control what happens to us in life, but we control how we respond to what happens in life.
-Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. -G. Michael Hopf
Disclaimer: Post made by me are of my own creation. A delusional mind relayed in text form.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChinUp
Posts: 5503
Location: 51.7° N ' 1.1° W
|
| Posted: Mon, 11th Mar 2013 17:24 Post subject: |
|
|
| OG wrote: | | Atheism is not (a) religion. It is absence of religion. |
For that to be a true statement you would have to worship somebody to be religious. Ie you would have to be thanking somebody to be thankful ..
“Prejudices are what fools use for reason.”~Voltaire
| DXWarlock wrote: | And again you pointing out why people think things (the pics) is no evidence for proof of the things they think. You can show me 4000 pictures of quotes, and musings of people on how they perceive religion, not one of them gives evidence of its validity. only their personally held outlook on it.
You are still confusing conviction of thoughts, with the proof of reasons to. |
For some reason you want relgion to be science .. to be based on reproducible proofs .. i blame theism for convincing people they are not qualified to make up their own mind on matters of faith & must defer their authority on such matters over to church leaders .. for this obvious subterfuge to still be effective in 2013 is sad.
Show a little faith in your own ability to make decisions about matters currently beyond science ..
"Most of the change we think we see in life is due to truths being in & out of favor." ~ Frost
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 11th Mar 2013 17:39 Post subject: |
|
|
| ChinUp wrote: |
For that to be a true statement you would have to worship somebody to be religious. Ie you would have to be thanking somebody to be thankful .. |
Not necessarily true. Religion is basically defined as a set of philosophical beliefs that one lives their lives by. It may have one god, many gods, or no gods at all.
Atheism is the absence of any of these belief systems, not just disbelief in god. There is no philosophy, only that which is self evident or provable.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DXWarlock
VIP Member
Posts: 11422
Location: Florida, USA
|
| Posted: Mon, 11th Mar 2013 17:50 Post subject: |
|
|
| ChinUp wrote: |
Show a little faith in your own ability to make decisions about matters currently beyond science .. |
Impossible for me. I will not, and cannot make decisions without some form of basis of information to start with. What we do not know, we do not know..its as simple as that. You CANNOT make a decision about something you do not know.. that's counter logical. You can 'wish' or 'hope' the result, once found is what you want..but a decision isn't possible.
I doubt even well known science facts (in the context of it all still needs to be refined and researched, its not 'done and move on', which it can never be 'done' anyway).
I only accept them as 'current knowledge that may be wrong but best we have' not 'absolute truths'.
So you can see why faith gets no merit from me at all. It has nothing to start with, as its basis is the lack of knowledge into something and hoping your right on the answer.
I will not blindly stab in the dark while tricking myself into going "well I want this to be true, so I will assume it is as long as I can using the lack of evidence to support my egocentric view of it" .
As Wilson Mizner put it: "I respect faith, but doubt is what gets you an education."
SO if you want to have faith, go for it. I will continue to doubt and look for reasons that that faith might be wrong. As to question everything brings about knowledge. to blindly hope, and change that hope into possibility with no basis brings only complacency and comforting ignorance.
As I much rather have education and knowledge in something that's tangible and provable, than just desire and wish in the things I cannot see are as I want them to be.
I think this is where we will never agree. I cannot, even by forcing myself, drop my curious and skeptical nature of demanding proof before putting trust in something.I cannot do what you say I should do, to be able to understand 'godless religion".
-We don't control what happens to us in life, but we control how we respond to what happens in life.
-Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. -G. Michael Hopf
Disclaimer: Post made by me are of my own creation. A delusional mind relayed in text form.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChinUp
Posts: 5503
Location: 51.7° N ' 1.1° W
|
| Posted: Mon, 11th Mar 2013 18:31 Post subject: |
|
|
| OG wrote: | Not necessarily true. Religion is basically defined as a set of philosophical beliefs that one lives their lives by. It may have one god, many gods, or no gods at all.
Atheism is the absence of any of these belief systems, not just disbelief in god. There is no philosophy, only that which is self evident or provable. |
Its a foot shooting exercise to refer to a deity with the word God as an atheist .. what God is, is in no way theists decision. By rights theists should be made to refer to the deity they believe in with its name & should not be accommodated in their wish to convert everyone to their beliefs about their deity .. they may think their deity is God .. but to operate like atheists should join in, in this belief is beyond foolish.
It shows little faith demanding others refer to what you refer to with the word God ..
"Most of the change we think we see in life is due to truths being in & out of favor." ~ Frost
Last edited by ChinUp on Mon, 11th Mar 2013 18:36; edited 3 times in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DXWarlock
VIP Member
Posts: 11422
Location: Florida, USA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DXWarlock
VIP Member
Posts: 11422
Location: Florida, USA
|
| Posted: Mon, 11th Mar 2013 18:40 Post subject: |
|
|
And belittle me all you want since that seem the main theme of your arguement, about how the 'lame stream religions' are tainting my mind.. I'm not sure how that applies since I not once have used or claimed their teachings are part of my process.
But we are in agreement of my affliction. we are now just arguing if its a positive or negative trait. My affliction is my inability to put trust into something that cannot, will not, and has not been giving and foundation beyond speculation and human assumptions. That I lack the trait that gives me the ability to use faith to see the greater possibles of things beyond our understanding.
We both agree with this being my issue with it.
Just I say that's skeptical curiosity demanding a reason to give it merit before doing so.
You claim its a flaw of not being able to judge what is beyond our knowledge.
Again my wiring in my head is incapable of doing so. Explain why you think its important all you wish. I can see your point of how you think it is. It does not make it so for me.
Much Like how I can explain to you why I find putting effort into maintaining my blood sugar levels are important, relevant, and extremely personally viable to me. You understanding why it is to me, doesn't make it so all of a sudden you want to get into having a deep understanding and caring for them.
Same here, I have no concern, or desire to understand a god like you do. But you confuse my lack of caring to, with the lack of understanding why you do.
Why are you so adamant about convincing me that a non personal god is something I need to believe in?
I'm not trying to stop you from doing so. So i'm assuming this discussion is about your frustration that i do not see god as you do.
Is it that I don't have faith, in the same things you do? Is this what its about? if so isn't faith, by definition, personal to start with?
-We don't control what happens to us in life, but we control how we respond to what happens in life.
-Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. -G. Michael Hopf
Disclaimer: Post made by me are of my own creation. A delusional mind relayed in text form.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChinUp
Posts: 5503
Location: 51.7° N ' 1.1° W
|
| Posted: Mon, 11th Mar 2013 19:00 Post subject: |
|
|
DXWarlock .. ask yourself why you avoid religious terms like a child avoids spiders. Theism only has as much influence over you as you let it .. relgion is all opinion .. any hesitation you feel around terms like God, faith, prayer, soul ect is rooted in your own predisposition to think about them like they are references to something supernatural.
"Most of the change we think we see in life is due to truths being in & out of favor." ~ Frost
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DXWarlock
VIP Member
Posts: 11422
Location: Florida, USA
|
| Posted: Mon, 11th Mar 2013 19:07 Post subject: |
|
|
Ask yourself why its so important to you that I understand a god like you do?
Thats what Im getting at. Not that I think its silly you do. Or that you think its silly I don't. its the fact that you must try to convince me to see one.
Its that you are so concerned with my concept of god being different than yours..that you refuse to drop it until I accept your view of the intangible as my own.
any hesitation you feel around terms like God, faith, prayer, soul ect is rooted in your own predisposition to think about them like they are references to something supernatural.
No again, its my hesitation to use them, because they are references to something intangible and unprovable. I could care less if people label the natural, supernatural, subnatural..etc.
Its the fact they are nothing but 'widget' words with no set definition beyond what each person wants them to be. Why would I use words to talk to others, that only mean that to me?
Why do you keep assuming my hesitation towards those words are for church reasons? I dislike them for the same reason I dislike 'yolo' and 'swag'. They have no definition that anyone has given me that I would need to use in their context.
I really cannot think of anything I would explain and need the words 'faith, soul, or prayer' for. Beyond explaining why OTHER people think they are important.
I never said the words was 'bad' or 'shouldn't be used' use them as freely and openly as you wish. I just have no use for them. Its not that I have a hatred for them. I have as much use for them as the words "Valhalla, avatar, martyr, fashion, trendy, chillaxing..etc" or any other long list of words that I dont have interest in their subject matter..they are just words I really have no context or need for usage in daily life,
-We don't control what happens to us in life, but we control how we respond to what happens in life.
-Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. -G. Michael Hopf
Disclaimer: Post made by me are of my own creation. A delusional mind relayed in text form.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DXWarlock
VIP Member
Posts: 11422
Location: Florida, USA
|
| Posted: Mon, 11th Mar 2013 19:24 Post subject: |
|
|
Would it make your happier if I used the word prayer and god more often when talking? And then it would have to be 'god' as you define it. I mean if I decided that 'god' truly to me ,meant my ability to ejaculate and have a blissful emotional response to it, and prayer was me offering my hand to the phallic powers to do their bidding..and I went "I sure hope god works with me today I need to get off"
wouldn't that still be outside what you define god as..and tell me I'm using it 'wrong'. (like you say organized religion does now)
So admit it, it's not that I don't use god, its that I don't use YOUR version of god. I fail to see the usefulness in doing that.
-We don't control what happens to us in life, but we control how we respond to what happens in life.
-Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. -G. Michael Hopf
Disclaimer: Post made by me are of my own creation. A delusional mind relayed in text form.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChinUp
Posts: 5503
Location: 51.7° N ' 1.1° W
|
| Posted: Mon, 11th Mar 2013 19:49 Post subject: |
|
|
DXWarlock .. are you saying that the only way religious terms make sense to you is if they are used in reference to theist religious ideas ?
"Most of the change we think we see in life is due to truths being in & out of favor." ~ Frost
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DXWarlock
VIP Member
Posts: 11422
Location: Florida, USA
|
| Posted: Mon, 11th Mar 2013 19:57 Post subject: |
|
|
No... I'm saying they make perfect sense in definition in any context given. You keep assuming that since I dont hold that concept myself, that I cannot understand its meaning...are you really that judgmental to assume no one but the people that think like you, can understand it?
I CAN manage to understand basic concepts when given the subject matter in examples and usage. Just because I dont hold them as my life mantra, doesn't mean I cant grasp its usage.
I'm saying I don't follow, support, or place any validity or merit in having a personal use, reason, or situation application of them myself.
lets put it in terms you can understand, using the terms you give, to show I understand, yet don't need them.
"I have no faith in faith'.
That make sense to you? That as not in any theist term..it was simply in its own definitional context used on itself. I lack any need, desire, or connection to any use of those words. Nothing I say, do, or hold as part of my being uses any of those words in the various definitions you put forth. I lack any and all feelings or thoughts that need a concept of trusting in what I do not know...
I'm not denying they mean what you say. I'm pointing out I have no need for words that mean that. Nothing I can reference to would need them to be useful to me.
Cant you just have 'faith' in that I understand your concepts?
Have some faith in me man! you seem to want to point out how important faith in the unknown is..so have faith in the unknown variable of me understand it..and just assume I do.
You are the one claiming to have faith in things..not me. So use it here.
And AGAIN, what is your hangup on getting me understanding god as you do? You care to answer that?
At least with OG and couleur I was having a good debate about our difference of opinions, and giving back and forth on why we do so the other could appreciate it.
Yours is just "I got god 2.0 new and improved from theist gods! All the same great taste and ambiguity of god, with none of the physical bodies or fattening stigmas! so have faith in this god! all others are just imitators and wanna be's"
I still ask why I need that god, not why YOU think I need it.
I really hope this has all been what I suspect. you've been attempting to troll for 3 pages. If not I will have to just go off the worst assumption that you cannot grasp basic concepts of people understanding other viewpoints while also disagreeing with them when asked to take them for themselves.(which would make sense in the needing of faith to explain what you cannot define)
-We don't control what happens to us in life, but we control how we respond to what happens in life.
-Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. -G. Michael Hopf
Disclaimer: Post made by me are of my own creation. A delusional mind relayed in text form.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 11th Mar 2013 20:40 Post subject: |
|
|
| ChinUp wrote: |
Its a foot shooting exercise to refer to a deity with the word God as an atheist .. what God is, is in no way theists decision. By rights theists should be made to refer to the deity they believe in with its name & should not be accommodated in their wish to convert everyone to their beliefs about their deity .. they may think their deity is God .. but to operate like atheists should join in, in this belief is beyond foolish.
It shows little faith demanding others refer to what you refer to with the word God .. |
Semantics. I do not see how you conclude using the term god as a foot shooting exercise. Nor does its use form any sort of acceptance in a belief. It is used "for the sake of argument". Other than that, I have no idea what you're even talking about.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frant
King's Bounty
Posts: 24643
Location: Your Mom
|
| Posted: Mon, 11th Mar 2013 22:52 Post subject: |
|
|
ChinUp is simply obstinate and will drive his point that atheism is a religion until he dies.
Yet it's very very very very simple. Atheism is simply a description of someone with a lack of belief/faith in a deity, nothing more. There are no common denominators, dogmas or something that binds atheists together unless they started an organisation to promote anti-religion or something, but that has got nothing to do with the basic definition of atheism. The old comparison still stands: Atheism is as much a religion as not collecting stamps is a hobby.
There may be atheistic religions (ie. religions without deities) but note the difference between atheist and atheist religions.
The word god to me has no other meaning than being a concept (or several concepts), an irrational hypotheses. It's a man made word, from the beginning used to describe something very powerful (the sun was the first I think) and then it evolved from there and spread to all kinds of various kinds of concepts.
We're simply squabbling about the definition of the word "god" and I believe ChinUp is simply trolling. So far he's been successful since nothing has come out of this thread (as to be expected).
It's all about different archetypes that even atheists can understand. All religions and faiths involving god(s) are based on archetypes, sometimes changed to fit ones own purpose and needs.
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!
"The sky was the color of a TV tuned to a dead station" - Neuromancer
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 6 of 8 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2.0.8 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
|
 |
|
