Atheism

[henry quirk]

There is no 'henry' known as 'me' in the mirror, you cannot shave the beard in the mirror to remove the beard.

I didn't say I could shave the beard in the mirror: I said I see my mug everyday, in the mirror (when I bother to shave).

I exist. I call myself Henry. I have a hairy face. When I have a mind to: I can shave my face with a razor. and I use a mirror to see myself as I do it.

The seer, or seeing can only see a reflection of itself, and a reflection is the production of an image by or as if by a mirror image of what is actually imageless. If the mirror wasn't imageless, it wouldn't be able to reflect an image. Does the image reflect, or does the imageless reflect?

The world exists, exists independent of us, and is apprehended by us as it is (*not in its entirety but as it is). We **apprehend it directly, without the aid of, or intervention of, [insert hypothetical whatsis] and without constructing a model or representation of the world somewhere in our heads.

*If you take into account perspective (where the observer stands in relation to the observed); intervening, inconstant, possible, distortions (water instead of atmosphere, for example); and the inherent limits of the observer himself; then what is seen is as it is.

**Direct realism, of course, is not just about sight. Hearing, taste, smell, touch: the entire interface of a person, as he's in the world, is the concern of the direct realist. That's why I define it as I do. Apprehension covers it all, the whole of a person's direct contact with the world.

Well even if you did post a picture of what a 'not an atheist' looks like, it wouldn't be anything at all

It would be, to me, an image of me: I would recognize myself in the image; to you, it would be the image of a stranger. Either way: it would be sumthin'.

because a picture is not a live conscious living entity.

Of course it's not.

So you wouldn't be able to say what a 'not an atheist' looks like

I'm a deist (not an atheist), I can post a picture or description of myself, so, you're wrong.

[Gary Childress]

That is OK, too. It is OK to lack interest. You lack interest because God has not given you something to be interested in yet. God will never give you more than you can handle. Only a human being would do that. And all human beings are also God's children.

Thank you, Gary, but I need no guidance on matters of God.

I know that. I also know otherwise. And it's OK. There is matter and anti-matter and there is no matter and no anti-matter. There are only human beings and human beings ought to do what is the right thing to do.

[Harbal]

And from where do these texts get theit authority.

Distilled from extensive human experience or god or both.

Well I am a human with experience, which is all I have to draw on, as God and I don't communicate.

[phyllo]

And from where do these texts get theit authority.

Distilled from extensive human experience or god or both.

Well I am a human with experience, which is all I have to draw on, as God and I don't communicate.

You have the experience of one person in a particular time and place.

Experience gathered over a long time from many people is different ... more credible and more objective.

[Harbal]

Distilled from extensive human experience or god or both.

Well I am a human with experience, which is all I have to draw on, as God and I don't communicate.

You have the experience of one person in a particular time and place.

Experience gathered over a long time from many people is different ... more credible and more objective.

Regardless of what I read, or who I listen to, I still have to use my own judgement to evaluate it. Besides, there is bad morality in books as well as good.

[Dontaskme]

A man, any man, every man, has, as I say (over and over), an inalienable, natural right to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property.

So, don't eat people...it's wrong...it's murder....it's theft.

Does the ''other's'' life, include other sentient feeling creatures, those who are non-human?

[Harbal]

A man, any man, every man, has, as I say (over and over), an inalienable, natural right to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property.

So, don't eat people...it's wrong...it's murder....it's theft.

Does the ''other's'' life, include other sentient feeling creatures, those who are non-human?

I suspect his answer will mainly depend on how much he likes steak.

[Dontaskme]

The book purports to transcend subjective opinions about morality.

That's a significant advantage over any personal morality.

If you are referring to the Bible, you are on the wrong track. The Bible wasn't one of the books.

Also, if you did mean the Bible, I don't see any value in it.

"The book" can refer to any number of texts which deal with ethics.

Morality requires that two or more people agree on what is ethical conduct.

Saying "I have this personal morality" doesn't go anywhere. Why should anyone else also have that particular morality? I think that's the point that IC is raising.

The texts tell you why two or more people ought to have that morality.

Well obviously it requires two things to understand moral ethical conduct... because it takes two to tango, to know anything at all, is to know the experiencer and the experience in the exact same instance of recognition in the immediate awareness of what's happening.
Cause and effect or karma is always instantaneous in the moment, to any one with a working conscience.

The point is, the biblical text was not God's word, it was Man's word to himself. The text was a kind of psychological self-help manual to help and heal thyself, to come to know thyself, and how the mental wounds men and women feel are self-inflicted, and in a conscious self-awareness, there is the instant knowing of what feels right and wrong. What is felt as wrong and uncomfortable happens instantaneously as and through their own direct experience.

[Dontaskme]

A man, any man, every man, has, as I say (over and over), an inalienable, natural right to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property.

So, don't eat people...it's wrong...it's murder....it's theft.

Does the ''other's'' life, include other sentient feeling creatures, those who are non-human?

I suspect his answer will mainly depend on how much he likes steak.

But surely man is more than just meat. Kind of like we must not kill the inedibles attitude. We must never eat the human meat because it also contains the inedibles. The inedibles have a natural right to their life, liberty, and property. And come to think of it, what Henry is actually saying is that MEAT itself, has a natural right to it's life, liberty, and property.

Meat has natural rights. But not non-human meat, that has no natural rights.

[Age]

And from where do these texts get theit authority.

Distilled from extensive human experience or god or both.

Well I am a human with experience, which is all I have to draw on, as God and I don't communicate.

How do you KNOW that God and you do NOT communicate?

[henry quirk]

Just out of interest: what is your foundation for declaring cannibalism objectively wrong?

A man, any man, every man, has, as I say (over and over), an inalienable, natural right to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property.

So, don't eat people...it's wrong...it's murder....it's theft.

Yes, I know you think that, but where is the objective foundation that makes it more than just your opinion? Is it carved into a mountain by some devine hand, or something?

As I say: it's universal, this sense of self-possession. Any where, any when, every person knows he is his own and knows it would be wrong to be used or murdered or slaved or etc. As I say: even the slaver, as he fixes prices to men, knows he is his own. No one has ever truthfully said I ought be property. Now, considering the wide range of biological, psychological, cultural, sociological, societal, philosophical, religious, etc. differences between men and groups of men, it's reasonable to assume over the long haul of history some men or groups of men would have found it natural to be used as commodity or pack animal or food. But no such men or groups of men exist. There's never been a slaver who said or sez as it it right for me to own others, it wouid be right for another to own me. A man may violate another but he never takes his own violation as acceptable or right. This universal could be simply a brute fact, a peculiarity of human biology/neurology, but as it never varies, never goes away, this seems far-fetched to me. You could conceivably breed man to be eyeless or armless; it does not seem to me you could breed away man's innate intuition of self-possession. So, as self-possession is not a biological trait, but it exists, it must be sumthin' other than a function of biology.

You with me so far?

It's universal (everyone lives as though it were true), not material, easily recognizable thru deduction, and immutable. It's part & parcel to free will (causal & creative power), to personhood. That alone makes it objective. But, as I say, it -- the intuition of ownness -- does not seem to me to be a brute fact. Such an immutable, it seems to me, has purpose behind it. Purposefulness/intention, this too is part & parcel to personhood. That is: a Person is responsible for man being a person. Conventionally, this Person is called God.

-----

We seem to come into the world with the capacity for moral sensibility

Yes.

but, for the most part, what we come to regard as morally good or bad is determined by the prevailing moral landscape of the society we are born into.

We come to differ on details of outlying matters, but never on the core of things.

-----

Does the ''other's'' life, include other sentient feeling creatures, those who are non-human?

I suspect his answer will mainly depend on how much he likes steak.

Well, we have to dig into what constitutes a person to answer DAM's question. And, yes, I enjoy meat. If, however, Bessie is a person it would be wrong to eat her.

-----

But surely man is more than just meat.

He is.

what Henry is actually saying is that MEAT itself, has a natural right to it's life, liberty, and property.

Nope.

Meat has natural rights. But not non-human meat, that has no natural rights.

Nope.

[Age]

Just out of interest: what is your foundation for declaring cannibalism objectively wrong?

A man, any man, every man, has, as I say (over and over), an inalienable, natural right to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property.

UNTIL ANY human being just TOUCHES the IMAGINED "OWNED" 'toothpick', for example, OF "henry quirk", then that, laughable and so-called, "man" here known as "henry quirk, BELIEVES 'it' can SHOOT DEAD ANY "OTHER" human being, man, woman, or child.

Which IS AS ABSURD, CONTRADICTORY, AND AS HYPOCRITICAL as it REALLY SOUNDS here.

AND there is NO WAY ANY human being could 'JUSTIFY' this MOST IDIOTIC BELIEF of "henry quirks" here.

So, don't eat people...it's wrong...it's murder....it's theft.

BUT you CAN KILL and EAT EVERY OTHER animal on the planet. As that is PERFECTLY FINE WITH the one KNOWN AS "henry quirk".

HOWEVER, "henry quirk" WHEN 'TRYING TO' DEFEND 'its' CLAIM here, OR, WHEN 'TRYING TO' COUNTER what I have SAID here, WILL ONLY CONTRADICT "itself" ONCE MORE, and ONCE AGAIN.

Of course, if the person is already dead, and you're stranded on a mountain top with the corpse, and the dead guy's wishes (about disposal of his body) are unclear, then you can eat him (more accurate to say: you may eat him...if you can).

BUT if the WISHES of that "DEAD PERSON" BEFORE were NOT TO BE EATEN, then you MAY NOT EAT that MEAT.

HOWEVER, if OTHER ANIMALS are ALLOWED to EAT that MEAT, then we WILL have to WAIT, to SEE, what "henry quirk" BELIEVES or thinks here.

BUT we ALREADY KNOW that "henry quirk" BELIEVES that 'it' can SHOOT ANOTHER HUMAN BEING DEAD if the "OTHER" just TOUCHED "henry quirks" 'toothpick', for example. Although, "henry quirk" ALSO BELIEVES that 'it' CAN NOT or MAY NOT be ALLOWED to EAT the MEAT of the 'one' that was just SHOT DEAD.

The HYPOCRISY, INCONSISTENCIES, and CONTRADICTIONS here are ENDLESS.

[Dontaskme]

There is no 'henry' known as 'me' in the mirror, you cannot shave the beard in the mirror to remove the beard.

I didn't say I could shave the beard in the mirror: I said I see my mug everyday, in the mirror (when I bother to shave).

I exist. I call myself Henry. I have a hairy face. When I have a mind to: I can shave my face with a razor. and I use a mirror to see myself as I do it.

I said have you ever seen the image of the ''me'' and you said yes in a mirror.
So then I said, you cannot shave the beard in the mirror where your image is seen.
If there is another way to see ''me'' then where can ''me'' be seen, if you don't like the mirror image analogy?

I'm a deist (not an atheist), I can post a picture or description of myself, so, you're wrong.

Ok, prove you have an image of yourself, post a picture of Henry the deist?

[Age]

Harbal, the end has not yet come. There is still time for you. You see what is happening but you have given up. You have given up because you lack faith. You lack faith because of what others have done and continue to do. It is good that you lack faith. You too are one of God's children. Whether you know it or not. No one can tell you differently.

Yes, I do lack faith, but more than that I lack interest.

That is OK, too. It is OK to lack interest. You lack interest because God has not given you something to be interested in yet.

'This' IS A TRULY WEIRD 'things' TO SAY, and CLAIM, ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING what the ACTUAL Truth IS here.

God will never give you more than you can handle. Only a human being would do that. And all human beings are also God's children.

BUT IF God gave the Universe, which is BEFORE 'you', then would that NEVER be 'more than you could handle'?

Are you SURE that 'you', "gary childress", COULD 'handle' the Universe, or the Life, 'given to you'?

Or, were 'you' NOT 'given life'? Or, if 'you' WERE, then was 'it' NOT 'given' by God?

[Age]

Just out of interest: what is your foundation for declaring cannibalism objectively wrong?

A man, any man, every man, has, as I say (over and over), an inalienable, natural right to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property.

So, don't eat people...it's wrong...it's murder....it's theft.

Yes, I know you think that, but where is the objective foundation that makes it more than just your opinion? Is it carved into a mountain by some devine hand, or something?

WHERE THE 'objective foundation' IS, EXACTLY, was alluded to in 'the words', and 'by' what "henry quirk", wrote here, bolded and underlined:

If by this you mean: a person's innate moral intuition, his moral compass, can be screwed with, then yeah, you're right.

If, though, you mean: a person's morality is installed by his culture, then: you're wrong.