Atheism

[Alexis Jacobi]

Babble begets babble

But Henry has told us that it's not rubbish. So do we clean it up or let it stick?

I vote for Let it stick. But not necessarily glue it on. It has I think some *stay-put* (a term from the coating industry) as well as some *flow-out*.

However, I admit to having a pony in the race.

[Gary Childress]

This is meaningless rubbish.

No, it's not.

Precious? Absolutely.

100% on the mark? Of course not.

But it ain't meaningless or rubbish.

I'm sorry, henry, but my verdict is final.

Harbal, I know you like a clean place, but is it possible to recycle it or use it as a skating rink?

[Dontaskme]

Statement 1: Life is what happens when we are busy making other plans.

Statement 2: Or posting on the internet.

Statement 3: Or when assassinating John Lennon.

Gotta see things from all angles, right?

There's No left seeing in right seeing, so no, can't see from all angles.

[phyllo]

Babble begets babble

But Henry has told us that it's not rubbish. So do we clean it up or let it stick?

I'm referring to this kind of babble :

Who sees two playing the same game, but the same one, not two.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Why precious?

Your filigree is off-putting. Almost as eye-blistering as Age's. Your substance -- kinda -- makes up for it.

Generally, when people move to critiquing style -- 9 times out of 10 -- the purpose is to undermine what has been said.

It is sort of like saying (to put it inversely) "If you'd express it differently I might listen to you". But why bother critiquing style? What is to be gained?

What, if anything, makes sense, and what doesn't?

[Iwannaplato]

Sorry, but I don't agree with you Iwannaplato that there is a 'someone' who is conscious.

And, to take that literally: you certainly don't have to be sorry you don't agree. And then less literally: I know you don't agree. I assume you'd let me know if you agreed. I don't assume my responses will convince you.

For me it's more like this. You start a thread or make posts, sometimes calling in experts, to put forth a position. I reply, often, regarding how your position or these quotes don't convince me.

Truly, truly, I have little expectation that you will drop your position on things.

I've seen it happen in 20 years of online discussions, but it's so rare. I've shifted on a number of issues, but generally that connected more to experiences I had in the world and no while on line. Perhaps some online discussions did some nudging.

[Gary Childress]

Why precious?

Your filigree is off-putting. Almost as eye-blistering as Age's. Your substance -- kinda -- makes up for it.

Generally, when people move to critiquing style -- 9 times out of 10 -- the purpose is to undermine what has been said.

It is sort of like saying (to put it inversely) "If you'd express it differently I might listen to you". But why bother critiquing style? What is to be gained?

What, if anything, makes sense, and what doesn't?

Your call, Henry. Do you want us to clean it up or not?

[Harbal]

Harbal, I know you like a clean place, but is it possible to recycle it

It's already been recycled; it used to be goulash. I don't know what it's supposed to be now.

[Dontaskme]

Sorry, but I don't agree with you Iwannaplato that there is a 'someone' who is conscious.

But there are unconscious metaphors? Even if you don't believe in individuals or someones, you brought up unconsciousness, which only makes sense and certainly in Lakoff who you were quoting as contrasted with consciousness. Perhaps it's non-dual consciousness. But Lakoff spent decades bringing unconscious metaphors into consciousness. You present it as if this cannot be done. Oh but it can, persons existing or not.

Why do you listen to other people's stories, like Lakoff's and not your own?

These are here only ideas.

I listen to ideas of which there are many appearing as there are authors.

There is no 'someone' who is conscious. A 'someone' is an idea arising in consciousness.

[Gary Childress]

Harbal, I know you like a clean place, but is it possible to recycle it

It's already been recycled; it used to be goulash. I don't know what it's supposed to be now.

I'm sorry, Harbal. I guess I never should have invited him. I'll take the blame for this. I can't do anything right.

@AJ, can you mind your manners a little more next time or at least make art instead of goulash? The goulash is, if I say so myself, starting to let off an odor.

[Dontaskme]

Sorry, but I don't agree with you Iwannaplato that there is a 'someone' who is conscious.

And, to take that literally: you certainly don't have to be sorry you don't agree. And then less literally: I know you don't agree. I assume you'd let me know if you agreed. I don't assume my responses will convince you.

For me it's more like this. You start a thread or make posts, sometimes calling in experts, to put forth a position. I reply, often, regarding how your position or these quotes don't convince me.

Truly, truly, I have little expectation that you will drop your position on things.

I've seen it happen in 20 years of online discussions, but it's so rare. I've shifted on a number of issues, but generally that connected more to experiences I had in the world and no while on line. Perhaps some online discussions did some nudging.

If the whole of reality is one ocean. There need not be a requirement for the contrast of a ship on the ocean and a ship on the land, since everywhere is the same one ocean, is my philosophy, so I have nothing much to discuss with you personally Iwannaplato, partly due to my problem of having no idea what point you are trying to make when you respond to my ideas about the nature of consciousness.

My personal ideas are quite straight forward, I'm not one for tangling up into a huge conceptual pile of mess, what is very straight forward in my understanding anyway.

[Alexis Jacobi]

See? Two can play at the same game!

Who sees two playing the same game, but the same one, not two.

Aaaaarggh! I can't win for losing!

[Dontaskme]

See? Two can play at the same game!

Who sees two playing the same game, but the same one, not two.

Aaaaarggh! I can't win for losing!

I can't lose for winning.

[Gary Childress]

See? Two can play at the same game!

Who sees two playing the same game, but the same one, not two.

Aaaaarggh! I can't win for losing!

Now you know how I feel sometimes. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Gary Childress]

Who sees two playing the same game, but the same one, not two.

Aaaaarggh! I can't win for losing!

I can't lose for winning.

Perhaps if you try harder to win, then you'll lose? Otherwise, I'm not sure what can be done.