Who Really is an Atheist?

[Nick_A]

Hobbes wrote:

If you can't sustain an argument, accuse your interlocutor of being evil.

For those that thing an ad hominem is just an insult, please take note THIS is the perfect ad hominem. Obviously since Hobbes is the spawn of the devil, his argument in invalid.

Not only does this clown believe in god, he also believes in the Devil.

Hobbes, the Great Beast isn't the Devil; it is society itself.

Weil gets the term "Great Beast" from Plato. Specifically, this passage from Book VI of his Republic (here Plato critiques those who are "wise" through their study of society):

I might compare them to a man who should study the tempers and desires of a mighty strong beast who is fed by him--he would learn how to approach and handle him, also at what times and from what causes he is dangerous or the reverse, and what is the meaning of his several cries, and by what sounds, when another utters them, he is soothed or infuriated; and you may suppose further, that when, by continually attending upon him, he has become perfect in all this, he calls his knowledge wisdom, and makes of it a system or art, which he proceeds to teach, although he has no real notion of what he means by the principles or passions of which he is speaking, but calls this honourable and that dishonourable, or good or evil, or just or unjust, all in accordance with the tastes and tempers of the great brute. Good he pronounces to be that in which the beast delights and evil to be that which he dislikes...

Without any sense of objective morality or objective conscience to feel it, you are limited to feeling subjective morality or what was created by the Great Beast. Maybe you are amoral. But without objective morality you must be influenced by subjective morality in which case you are owned by the Great Beast.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Hobbes wrote:

If you can't sustain an argument, accuse your interlocutor of being evil.

For those that thing an ad hominem is just an insult, please take note THIS is the perfect ad hominem. Obviously since Hobbes is the spawn of the devil, his argument in invalid.

Not only does this clown believe in god, he also believes in the Devil.

Hobbes, the Great Beast isn't the Devil; it is society itself. .

Now I am society.

You are one confused puppy.

[Nick_A]

Hobbes wrote

Now I am society.

Yes you are a particle of the Great Beast or society itself and as such you are owned by it. I am also. Our difference is that you relish it and accept it as your god. The Great Beast is the greatest good for you and seen as the pinnacle of Man's evolution. I don't. I believe a human being can become more than just a particle of the Great Beast moving about in Plato's cave. You accept your slavery. I don't blindly accept mine and make efforts to outgrow it. I believe there is a far greater source for the "good" that doesn't require either blind belief or blind denial.

[sthitapragya]

Hobbes wrote

Now I am society.

Yes you are a particle of the Great Beast or society itself and as such you are owned by it. I am also. Our difference is that you relish it and accept it as your god. The Great Beast is the greatest good for you and seen as the pinnacle of Man's evolution. I don't. I believe a human being can become more than just a particle of the Great Beast moving about in Plato's cave. You accept your slavery. I don't blindly accept mine and make efforts to outgrow it. I believe there is a far greater source for the "good" that doesn't require either blind belief or blind denial.

Wow. "philosophy" of religion. This is why I say that discussions on religion should not be part of philosophy. Anyone who thinks this is philosophy needs to get their head examined. I mean just look at what this guy writes. Even Theists should agree that this is pathetic.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Hobbes wrote

Now I am society.

Yes you are a particle of the Great Beast or society itself and as such you are owned by it..

You are looking in a mirror, except that your particle is a spec in the hoard of blind believers. You believe out of fear and thrash out at those, like myself, who have had the courage to separate themselves from the great ant-hill of god-botherers, like yourself.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Hobbes wrote

Now I am society.

Yes you are a particle of the Great Beast or society itself and as such you are owned by it. I am also. Our difference is that you relish it and accept it as your god. The Great Beast is the greatest good for you and seen as the pinnacle of Man's evolution. I don't. I believe a human being can become more than just a particle of the Great Beast moving about in Plato's cave. You accept your slavery. I don't blindly accept mine and make efforts to outgrow it. I believe there is a far greater source for the "good" that doesn't require either blind belief or blind denial.

Wow. "philosophy" of religion. This is why I say that discussions on religion should not be part of philosophy. Anyone who thinks this is philosophy needs to get their head examined. I mean just look at what this guy writes. Even Theists should agree that this is pathetic.

It's scary to think that before the enlightenment, people like him had our lives in their hands, and still do in places like Saudi-Arabia.

[Nick_A]

sthit wrote:

Wow. "philosophy" of religion. This is why I say that discussions on religion should not be part of philosophy. Anyone who thinks this is philosophy needs to get their head examined. I mean just look at what this guy writes. Even Theists should agree that this is pathetic.

As usual, when a blind denier writes something, always consider the opposite. Atheism shouldn't be a part of philosophy since the love of wisdom or the purpose of philosophy is denied by emotional skepticism. Suppose some kid read about Plotinus and it resonated. The worst mistake possible would be to ask an educator skilled in the art of blind denial. So the kid learns the hard way and contemplates in private. Suppose he reads just the beginning of this link

http://ls.poly.edu/~jbain/mms/handouts/mmsplotinus.htm

2. The One. Plato's the Good. Ineffable, transcendent, perfect; knowable only through what it is not.

3. Intellect. The Realm of Being; the Realm of the Forms/Ideas. A "One-in-Many": the Forms are the thoughts of the Intellect; in thinking them, they are given being. Aristotle's Prime Mover (self-thinking thought). Eternity is the mode of existence of Intellect.

4. Soul. Immanent in the physical world of Becoming, but transcendent to it. The "higher" part of Soul contemplates Intellect. The "lower" part generates the Physical World guided by the seminal reasons (logoi spermatikoi). A "One-and-Many". Three distinctions: Soul, World Soul, individual souls; the latter two are aspects of the former. Time is the "life" of the Soul.

Atheists will cry absurd. There is no" ONE". We know this because we can't measure it. Where did that kid go? We must restrict his reading material. This is simply not philosophy of the World which is all the kid should be concerned with in support of our God: the Great Beast. So the kid learns to avoid the educators skilled in blind denial and seek those who understand more than three inches in front of their nose. Not easy but fortunately it can be done.

[Skip]

"I am a Ranger."
"We walk in the dark places no others will enter."
"We stand on the bridge, and no one may pass."
"We live for the One, we die for the One"

– Anla'Shok credo

"I am Grey. I stand between the candle and the star."
"We are Grey. We stand between the darkness and the light."

– Grey Council greeting

[sthitapragya]

sthit wrote:

Wow. "philosophy" of religion. This is why I say that discussions on religion should not be part of philosophy. Anyone who thinks this is philosophy needs to get their head examined. I mean just look at what this guy writes. Even Theists should agree that this is pathetic.

As usual, when a blind denier writes something, always consider the opposite. Atheism shouldn't be a part of philosophy since the love of wisdom or the purpose of philosophy is denied by emotional skepticism. Suppose some kid read about Plotinus and it resonated. The worst mistake possible would be to ask an educator skilled in the art of blind denial. So the kid learns the hard way and contemplates in private. Suppose he reads just the beginning of this link

http://ls.poly.edu/~jbain/mms/handouts/mmsplotinus.htm

2. The One. Plato's the Good. Ineffable, transcendent, perfect; knowable only through what it is not.

3. Intellect. The Realm of Being; the Realm of the Forms/Ideas. A "One-in-Many": the Forms are the thoughts of the Intellect; in thinking them, they are given being. Aristotle's Prime Mover (self-thinking thought). Eternity is the mode of existence of Intellect.

4. Soul. Immanent in the physical world of Becoming, but transcendent to it. The "higher" part of Soul contemplates Intellect. The "lower" part generates the Physical World guided by the seminal reasons (logoi spermatikoi). A "One-and-Many". Three distinctions: Soul, World Soul, individual souls; the latter two are aspects of the former. Time is the "life" of the Soul.

Atheists will cry absurd. There is no" ONE". We know this because we can't measure it. Where did that kid go? We must restrict his reading material. This is simply not philosophy of the World which is all the kid should be concerned with in support of our God: the Great Beast. So the kid learns to avoid the educators skilled in blind denial and seek those who understand more than three inches in front of their nose. Not easy but fortunately it can be done.

Wow! This is even better. I think he is devolving. Anyone remembers Fanman?

[Hobbes' Choice]

Wow! This is even better. I think he is devolving. Anyone remembers Fanman?

I really think Immanuel Can't, and Nick A ought to get together. I'm really surprised that their "Streams" have not crossed on the Forum yet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyKQe_i9yyo

[Lacewing]

Anyone remembers Fanman?

Yes! Those interactions were such a perfect demonstration of the willingness and power of humans to outrageously cling to insane notions -- against ALL to the contrary -- if it protects their ego/identity platform. A fascinating and revealing look into our desperate and fragile selves!

I heard that Fanman has greatly expanded his boundaries since then... which makes me admire his brilliance and courage! Good for him and the example he sets! It's inspiring and reassuring to see that we are never "too deep" to come up for air... or too "set" to stop evolving.

[Lacewing]

I really think Immanuel Can't, and Nick A ought to get together. I'm really surprised that their "Streams" have not crossed on the Forum yet.

Maybe something bad would happen... like in Ghostbusters.

It seems that theist arguments don't go head-to-head very often because then the inconsistencies and variances would be on display, and there would be more to call into question. It's easier for theists to rail against non-theists from the "knowing platform" they've set up for themselves, if there are no other theists confusing their claims and arguments.

[Hobbes' Choice]

I really think Immanuel Can't, and Nick A ought to get together. I'm really surprised that their "Streams" have not crossed on the Forum yet.

Maybe something bad would happen... like in Ghostbusters.

It seems that theist arguments don't go head-to-head very often because then the inconsistencies and variances would be on display, and there would be more to call into question. It's easier for theists to rail against non-theists from the "knowing platform" they've set up for themselves, if there are no other theists confusing their claims and arguments.

I agree and I think they know this; that their areas of agreement would be slim and each of their beliefs would be fundamentally heretical to one another. And has neither of them is the interrogating authority, no resolution would be reached, as it was with, say, Joan D'Arc whose, when confronted with charges of Heresy, life was saved by the French priesthood who recognised a good political tool against the Englsih when they saw one. Here the playing field is even. Still I'd like to see the contest.

Or - Maybe the whole Forum shall be SLIMED!!!!

[Walker]

The tribe hears and the tribe gathers. The beating of the conceptual drums. The rumble in the jungle. They gather in the ring just beyond the campfire.

[Nick_A]

Lacewing wrote:

It seems that theist arguments don't go head-to-head very often because then the inconsistencies and variances would be on display, and there would be more to call into question. It's easier for theists to rail against non-theists from the "knowing platform" they've set up for themselves, if there are no other theists confusing their claims and arguments.

Out of curiousity, why do you believe atheists feel compelled to argue? Is calm discussion centered around a mutual interest in human meaning and purpose our species as a whole has become oblivious to really so offensive that they have to argue? Theists argue and atheists argue. Discussion is an expression of intelligence while arguing is an expression of ignorance. Is it really necessary to wear ignorance as a badge o honor?