Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Atheistic dismissiveness?

Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
October 13, 2010, 01:36:08 AM
Oh. Well, I think saying that reality cannot be subjugated to interpretation is somehow to interpret it, as is saying it exists independent of will. And saying that it exists independent of will may or may not be true. It exists independent of who's will? As we all know, or brain creates a lot of what we perceive (a LOT). So a lot of stuff that you think is reality is existing in that exact way only in your brain, of course once in your brain it's part of reality. But maybe there is a higher will, that humans, or some humans, don't know, from wich reality derives, so in that case reality is dependent on some will (and if you agree there is order/laws in the universe, it's not hard to end up agreeing with this).

No. A basic general understanding of even the natural world contradicts that reality can be reduced to interpretation only. While it can be interpreted, it is not the sum of those interpretations.

I misunderstood the words: I read subjugate like to subject reality to interpretation, not reduce it. Sorry.

My views on God are a mix of belief that serious wisdom can come out of meditation and altered states, that psychedelics don't exist for nothing, that our feelings exist for a reason, that all that we perceive has two aspects, higher and lower. I believe in the theories that time does not exist, that we are everyone and God at the same time, reincarnation, we can invoke entities and talk to the dead, that all is happening at the same time and in no time including multiple universes, that we are all one but have individual spirits, that if I work hard on creating a mental being I can somehow send it at distance to another person's perception, that alchemy was real and did transmute other metals into gold and the elixir of life was real, that the hierarchy of beings and conciousness goes on a ladder to infinity (like angel, archangel, etc.), and at the same time God does not exist and reality is meaningless.

Quote
Just kidding.

chv

Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
October 13, 2010, 11:01:14 AM
You are correct but only in a way. Now it is up to you to discern the nature of these words and how that way is possible.

chv

Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
October 13, 2010, 11:31:18 AM
Credentials only get you so far. If you lack the property to disseminate and synthesize, then "knowledge" is simply a badge of honour.

Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
October 13, 2010, 12:27:18 PM
How the fuck do you even know for a fact that machines didn't create YOU?

Well in Matrix we created the machines before they created us.  You did see that movie right? o.0


By the way, here's a great interview with God:

http://www.amerika.org/politics/interview-with-god/



I love God's honesty.


Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
October 13, 2010, 12:51:11 PM
So that's basically the answer to the whole "where did the first proteins come from?" question?  I don't know how the hell anyone is going to figure that one out for sure.  Of course, I'm a clueless guy so what the hell...Brünhilde, I think you're a bit crazy, but you are trying much harder than I am so kudos.

chv

Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
October 13, 2010, 12:53:11 PM
Credentials only get you so far. If you lack the property to disseminate and synthesize, then "knowledge" is simply a badge of honour.

You are wrong. Knowledge is -NOT- a badge of honour, it is an acumulative survival skill. This is also the same regarding credentials. Band names, song names, and such, are also credentials. That doesn't mean you can improvise on the spot, be it the improvisation of a poem, of song lyrics, of law statements, of philosophical aforisms.
Modification to this Document: or even a fuckin' spoon, fork, knife, plate, or spear... or a fuckin' hermit hut, or a Mansion. Ok, Count Chivalry?

Who lacks the property to disseminate and to synthesize? Even fucking synthesizers have those properties, and they are -MACHINES-, get it? We CREATED THEM. Or do you disagree with this? Because if we are going to (like normal, everyday people) doubt the existance of God and ice-skate the fine line of agnosticism, then why the hell wouldn't you turn the perspective on the issue of industrialization as well? How the fuck do you even know for a fact that machines didn't create YOU? So what if that is paranoid fucking reasoning? You are other things besides being a paranoid fuck, you know? And so am I, and so is everyone reading this. So, instead of acting like some Chivalresque Renaissance insane "wise and holy knight", why don't you ACTUALLY BECOME ONE INSTEAD? And that means: if you take Physics seriously, then take Metaphysics EVEN MORE SERIOUSLY.
But you are entitled to do whatever the fuck you want, "you know?". And -yes-, you should defend that right with your -LIFE-, no matter fucking -WHAT-.

Why do I even reply to you, if you already know this?

Cheers.

Your replies lack one distinction involving language. Knowledge exists also independent of will and thought. Understanding of knowledge is something else entirely. Language is the foundation in which idea's are built, you cannot circumvent this. In this commonality is reached and realized, and therefor synthesis to create other fundaments and adjacent supports to allow the filling out of understanding. If you paid attention to metaphysics as well as physics then you would know this, but your statements do indicate a lack of completion.

chv

Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
October 13, 2010, 01:32:27 PM
Your replies lack one distinction involving language. Knowledge exists also independent of will and thought. Understanding of knowledge is something else entirely. Language is the foundation in which idea's are built, you cannot circumvent this. In this commonality is reached and realized, and therefor synthesis to create other fundaments and adjacent supports to allow the filling out of understanding. If you paid attention to metaphysics as well as physics then you would know this, but your statements do indicate a lack of completion.

"Your replies lack one distinction involving language."  <- I have no beef with the Tradition of Lingüistic Studies. I do not like Analitic Philosophy. I am a Continental Person myself, but I respect the Analitic Tradition. Their name has become very cheapened around these parts.... but I like Wittgenstein, The Circle of Viena, and such. I appreciate the work of Jacques Derrida, but I don't consider him to be a True Artist... not to the likes of someone such as Gilles Deleuze. Yeah, I'm "one of those people". . . . but I am not a yuppie. . . . I'm just a Nomad.

"Knowledge exists also independent of will and thought." <- λóγος

"Understanding of knowledge is something else entirely." <- Yes, that is correct. Please reffer to (Cf.) Immanuel Kant, "The Critique of Pure Reason". Kant agrees with you, as you already know.

"Language is the foundation in which idea's are built, you cannot circumvent this."  <- Language is divided into "speech" ("habla") and "toungue" ("lengua"). This is Saussure's distinction, not mine. I preffer Saussure's paradigm, instead of Charles Sanders Peirce's one. I do not like Umberto Eco. Not only does the toungue speak, the body also speaks. They eyes speak, the ears speak, the nose speaks, the hairs speak.... even grains of salt on a Beach, or raindrops in a Storm, speak.

"In this commonality is reached and realized, and therefor synthesis to create other fundaments and adjacent supports to allow the filling out of understanding." <- Formal request for further elaboration.

"If you paid attention to metaphysics as well as physics then you would know this, but your statements do indicate a lack of completion." <- This assumption is wrong. It is good advice for other people, though. But it is not my case. Such a premise is sincere and is well constructed.... you are simply speaking to the wrong person.


Language is not only a human trait, but can be understood in causality formula by humans. By creating the will to understand, you create the fundament for commonality, by that, through natural evolution, everything else develops as long as that will is intact.

Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
October 13, 2010, 02:31:23 PM
Knowledge exists also independent of will and thought.

If there is no will/tought to know it, how come it is knowledge?

chv

Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
October 13, 2010, 02:46:36 PM

Mr. Chivalry overthere thinks he has my absolute attention, but he/she/it forget's that I actually -don't- like Hegel, or his Works.
He is simply trying to engange in conversation with me, but in all honesty, I need a rush of nicotine.

You are incorrect about my perpetuation of Hegel, as well as assigning intent.

chv

Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
October 13, 2010, 04:25:25 PM
O' To speak a flaw
a Germanics greatest
an er of form, mind and fate
his father he did uncreate

dear Brünhilde
how you know
the truth in kind
of the words I sow

lo the past is passed
in er' we seek
to look to the south
to think truth is greek

Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
October 14, 2010, 09:06:40 AM
Brunhilde: nobody cares.