Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Atheistic dismissiveness?

Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
October 12, 2010, 11:48:59 AM
Am I suggesting God is the room? Are you suggesting God is the person?

You suggested, it seems to me, that as soon as there is awareness of something, the One cannot remain one.
I suggest that this is a false dilemma.
Or maybe I did not understand you correctly, in which case you could elaborate on your argument.

I meant my argument to be: to fully understand the Element, one must only be the Element: as humans, we exist in the world of duality, and this means we cannot understand God because God exists without duality.

Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
October 12, 2010, 11:51:26 AM
Am I suggesting God is the room? Are you suggesting God is the person?

You suggested, it seems to me, that as soon as there is awareness of something, the One cannot remain one.
I suggest that this is a false dilemma.
Or maybe I did not understand you correctly, in which case you could elaborate on your argument.

I meant my argument to be: to fully understand the Element, one must only be the Element: as humans, we exist in the world of duality, and this means we cannot understand God because God exists without duality.

To play the game ; if we exist in a world of duality how can you possibly understand something above that to know it exists there at all?

Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
October 12, 2010, 11:57:17 AM
See my original post in this thread.

Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
October 12, 2010, 12:03:54 PM
See my original post in this thread.

That post doesn't say anything.

Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
October 12, 2010, 12:07:56 PM
Consciousness operates as the overarching system which governs all other systems, including this physical reality, other physical realities, non physical realities, non real realiities, or whatever.  Everything which can exist does exist, somewhere (probably not in the physical space of this reality, though).

If you were to ask me about the God of this reality which we inhabit, I would have to say that reality itself is God.  Brahman.

Is consciousness a necessary component of reality, or is it merely a sufficient one?

What do you mean by reality? Do you roughly mean "those parts of existence which we can be affected by"?

Thanks, "¿Lol, okay?"

You misunderstand: reality is a component of consciousness, as far as this view goes.

I love it when internet warriors try to objectively define "god." I mean, for millennia people have wrestled with the issue, creating thousands of contradictory definitions and killing each other over them, yet no one seems to yet grasp that the word "god" has only become even more confused, meaningless and sloppy as we try to shoehorn it into a world where *edit* forgot to finish this sentence OH WELL

Quote
Consciousness operates as the overarching system which governs all other systems, including this physical reality, other physical realities, non physical realities, non real realiities, or whatever.  Everything which can exist does exist, somewhere (probably not in the physical space of this reality, though).

If you were to ask me about the God of this reality which we inhabit, I would have to say that reality itself is God.  Brahman.

I mean, this is fucking shroomspeak, trying to impose a mystical lens on a world which is real as shit. Here's an idea, instead of being a pretentious fuck who deems himself too enlightened to say what he means clearly, say what you goddamn mean. What do you gain by saying "god" instead of "reality"? Street cred with the British Pagan Association? "Spiritual" feelings?

Beware of beautiful feelings, they are without exception intoxicating. The desire to call every little thing "god" is merely a case of mass drunkenness on the part of humanity.

/realtalk

I don't say God instead of Reality.  Secondly, what on earth gave you the impression that my concept of existence as a whole actually affects my daily life in any way?  Most of this is simply following logical conclusions, chosen by chance out of a myriad of possibilities, to ever further conclusions, which are also logical.  If anything, your objection is to "pointless" conjecture, whereas I would maintain that any thought which builds upon the concepts already held by the mind (which we commonly call "imagination", "creativity", etc.) is beneficial to the mind and to the individual entertaining such fantasies.  That's why we advocate Lord of the Rings instead of doing nothing.

As far as the benefits "belief" in God (or, to be more accurate, acceptance of the entirety as something which must be revered as God would be, and is, for all intrinsic purposes, definably "God") has yielded go, they're generally personal and little to write home about - the ability to flip to an entirely rational/realist way of thinking as soon as I remember that I am infinitesimal compared to the entirety of existence is probably the main thing, and has been very useful over the past couple of years or so, when it's become necessary to act in volatile and unforeseen situations.  I am now more intelligently connected to the world around me, which is a concept I could explain if I had an essay's space and enough time to write that essay.  I mean, seriously, I haven't had any biblical revelations or anything, it's simply an incredibly useful tool for someone of my disposition and character, and I intend to use it to its fullest extent.  The main point is reverence, I would say.

Also, nothing I said in the post you quoted was "mystical" in the slightest, and did nothing to what was "real" (except possibly expanding the scope of "reality").  Furthermore, I was elaborating on something which had been asked of me earlier, since, at the time, I didn't have the time to give a full answer (and, even then, I didn't have the time to give a full answer).

In conclusion, you're a bit of an arse.

I CAN BE INSULTING TOO

Have you ever read Wittgenstein?

Also, Wolfgang - have YOU ever been as far even as decided ever want to do go look more like?  No?  Well, God has.

Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
October 12, 2010, 12:15:57 PM
See my original post in this thread.

That post doesn't say anything.

It doesn't matter whether it really exists in any meaningful way.

Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
October 12, 2010, 12:17:39 PM
See my original post in this thread.

That post doesn't say anything.

It doesn't matter whether it really exists in any meaningful way.

This.

Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
October 12, 2010, 12:18:27 PM
Also, Wolfgang - have YOU ever been as far even as decided ever want to do go look more like?  No?  Well, God has.



Can I get a translation into pidgin or ebonics or a dialect I could better understand?

Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
October 12, 2010, 12:20:48 PM
Sorry, it's a meme.  It probably came from 4chan or something.  "How can you possibly understand something above that to know it exists there at all?" simply reminded me of it.

Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
October 12, 2010, 12:29:10 PM
Sorry, it's a meme.  It probably came from 4chan or something.  "How can you possibly understand something above that to know it exists there at all?" simply reminded me of it.

You know what? Fuck.


Sorry it's a meme. I heard it on metal-archives or something.

Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
October 12, 2010, 12:40:14 PM
Beware of beautiful feelings, they are without exception intoxicating.

It feels so good every time I read "Only death is real", a fear crept in: I got AIDS:

Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
October 12, 2010, 01:04:02 PM
Have you ever read Wittgenstein?

Wittgenstein is a true poet, but ultimately mistaken.

Science doesn't know everything by a long shot. But it makes sense. It is supported by data and has facts that can be proven. Nothing else is supported by data. I'm gonna keep it simple here and just stick with what has been proven to work. Even if we don't know everything. It is absurd to assume we can't look to scientific theory simply because it is incomplete. We'd never be able to accept anything then if complete knowledge of the true nature of everything is our acceptance standard. You'll say that that isn't what you're saying, but it really is.

You are a primate and you exist only because chemicals randomly formed DNA in the primordial soup. I am sorry if this makes your life boring.

Don't get caught up in 'keeping things simple' and 'making sense', as this will only limit your understanding.  Your knowledge of evolutionary theory is second-hand, and thereby you understand it only in the abstract.  Sure, it makes sense, but it is on the same level as most theology, which, were you willing to actually engage with what was being said, you would find 'makes sense' as well. *edit* That is to say, a major problem with professed Atheists is that they dismiss the concept of God as something that is merely 'believed', ignoring how the concept is actually defined, and not even considering the possibility that such concepts can be rooted in empirical evidence.  I agree that the word tends toward ambiguity, and often serves as a cover up for misunderstanding and, really, an unwillingness to conceive of things outside of certain embraced doctrines.  However, your Atheism, so far as you have displayed and articulated it here, falls victim to these same tendencies.

Living your life isn't about choosing a catchphrase to which you will adhere.

Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
October 12, 2010, 01:33:07 PM

"Second hand" "you don't understand any better than Theists do" "catch phrases". This is all underhanded nothingspeak.

I've studied evolution plenty enough to know it is real and it exists. There is no debate in the rational arena. All that is trying to do is use some version of relativism to assassinate science so you can then "open your mind" for superstitious nonsense to infest it again. Save it.

I don't have to know exactly how a jet engine works through first hand knowledge to know it works and why it works. I can read a book on jet engines and have enough information to not doubt its existence. I really doubt that those parroting this have spent much time really learning about evolution or the origin of life in the first place. Why would they when meta meta meta genies make them tick? That stuff registers little interest. For me, it's theories about life on extra solar planets. It is the evolution of avian birds from non-avian dinosaurs. It is Devonian life. While compared to some(those who work in the field, other nerds like myself with a head start/more free time) I've only cracked the surface here but at least this is real. Not goofy ass contrived abstracts about the true face of God based literally on nothing.

Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
October 12, 2010, 03:12:35 PM
ITT we confuse poetry with philosophy, everything with nothing

what's next, metal with ska???????


Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
October 12, 2010, 04:10:49 PM

"Second hand" "you don't understand any better than Theists do" "catch phrases". This is all underhanded nothingspeak.

I've studied evolution plenty enough to know it is real and it exists. There is no debate in the rational arena. All that is trying to do is use some version of relativism to assassinate science so you can then "open your mind" for superstitious nonsense to infest it again. Save it.

I don't have to know exactly how a jet engine works through first hand knowledge to know it works and why it works. I can read a book on jet engines and have enough information to not doubt its existence. I really doubt that those parroting this have spent much time really learning about evolution or the origin of life in the first place. Why would they when meta meta meta genies make them tick? That stuff registers little interest. For me, it's theories about life on extra solar planets. It is the evolution of avian birds from non-avian dinosaurs. It is Devonian life. While compared to some(those who work in the field, other nerds like myself with a head start/more free time) I've only cracked the surface here but at least this is real. Not goofy ass contrived abstracts about the true face of God based literally on nothing.

The existence or non-existence of God has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of Scientific discoveries.

Also, is thought nothing?  I thought that matter/energy couldn't be destroyed, so thought must be something.