Atheism

[henry quirk]

There is no 'Henry' looking out of your eyes either, you said yourself, you can only see yourself as a mirror image of the imageless.

I said no such thing.

Are you playing the whore selfie game or not ?

No.

You said you would post a picture of yourself, you said it here >

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

I can, not I will.

By the way, you can never see yourself

Yeah, I could. I told you how just up thread.

and is why you have to use a mirror as to know you are only a reflected image of the imageless

I use a mirror becuz I can't, crab-like, turn my eyes to view myself.

[Age]

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.

BUT, WHERE does so-called "man's word" COME FROM, EXACTLY?

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.

In the days when this was being written, did ANY of 'you' come to KNOW thy 'self'?

If yes, then WHAT WAS 'THE ANSWER'?

[henry quirk]

Basically, all you are saying is that God who is human said humans can eat animals but not humans

Nope.

[Harbal]

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?

Yes, I am, and I can go along with it, and being an atheist is not an obstacle to my going along with it.

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.

I agree with, "a Person is responsible for man being a person", but not, " Conventionally, this Person is called God". I think most people mean something else when they talk about God.

But I don't see the problem: Why can't I be both moral and atheist?

[Dontaskme]

Like all the others who were in my penalty box, Age is free again to pollute my forum view with his eye-blisterin' posts. And like some of those others: I will never respond to him.

Autists, dick-flashers, gammas: I see you, but you are beneath me.

'nuff said on that.

Just scroll past Age's posts if they annoy and pollute your mind, it's not too difficult to just scroll past them, but why insult?.. Age has just as much right to post as everyone else does. We all have to live on the same planet, and breathe the same air. Age is human, please do not exclude Age.
Age has natural rights to exist too.

[Dontaskme]

I can, not I will.

Even if you did post a picture of yourself, there would be no conscious entity named Henry in the picture. That's all I'm pointing out.

I use a mirror becuz I can't, crab-like, turn my eyes to view myself.

Nothing can see/view itself.

Then you like looking at yourself, like everyone else, so you too are a stupid attention seeking selfie whore. Could you ever not depend on a mirror to see yourself, can't you just know you exist, without looking at yourself?

[Harbal]

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

Are you ABSOLUTELY SURE of 'this' here?

I am an atheist, God does not come into my reckoning.

[Dontaskme]

Basically, all you are saying is that God who is human said humans can eat animals but not humans

Nope.

And what is so stupid about exposing our image via a photograph so other people can look at us?

Why is that seen by you as being an attention seeking selfie whore?

Surely, you would want to see the face of some potential love interest you have before you lovingly engage with it, wouldn't you?

Or would you rather engage with people who were wearing blindfolds? Are you ashamed of yourself?

[Age]

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.

YET here 'you' are "henry quirk" ALSO ARGUING OVER and FIGHTING FOR 'your' laughably so-called 'right' to OWN a GUN so that 'you' CAN SHOOT DEAD and/or OVER POWER "others" if 'they' just TOUCH, for example, "your" 'toothpick" of all things.

you SAY you KNOW that it is WRONG to MURDER or SLAVE "another" but while at the EXACT SAME time TELLING 'us' that 'you' CAN SHOOT and MURDER "others" if they 'touch your stuff'.

WHEN WILL you EVER SEE the HYPOCRISY here?

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.

Even 'you', "henry quirk", are the GREATEST EXAMPLE of this phenomenon, as even 'you' although would SHOOT DEAD "ANOTHER" human being and would take CONTROL OVER and SLAVE OVER "ANOTHER" and "their property" with YOUR WEAPONS HELD HIGH to SHOW "your power" OVER "others" STILL would NEVER say, 'you ALSO can SHOOT me DEAD, TAKE CONTROL OVER ME, or TAKE and OWN my property IF I EVER 'touched your stuff'.

And BECAUSE you could NEVER REFUTE this Fact, you ARE SHOWING and PROVING just how CONTRADICTORY and HYPOCRITICAL 'YOUR CLAIMS' ARE here. And, if you EVER EVEN TRIED TO REFUTE what I just SAID here, then you WOULD END UP REFUTING YOUR OWN CLAIM/S here.

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?

If you would just STOP CONTRADICTING "your" OWN 'self' here, then what 'you' ARE SAYING here now could NOT be MORE Truthful.

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.

What do you mean by, 'does NOT seem to be a brute fact, to you'?

'It' is an OBVIOUS Fact, well to me, anyway.

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.

LOL Anthropomorphism at its BEST.

-----

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.

Is 'this' just NOT OBVIOUS.

By the USE of the words 'the core of things', are we not more or less JUST SAYING, ' 'that' what we ALL AGREE WITH and ACCEPT '?

-----

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.

Here we have the VERY OLD and VERY COMMON PRACTICE, among adult human beings, of 'TRYING TO' "justify" and/or "minimize" the Wrong that WAS BEING DONE, by 'them', back in those VERY OLDEN DAYS when this WAS BEING WRITTEN.

This here is A PRIME EXAMPLE of SCREWING, TWISTING, or DISTORTING 'that' what IS INNATELY or INTUITIVELY KNOWN, WITH 'that', which was LEARNED ALONG THE WAY from living WITHIN a 'society' or 'culture' that was Truly SCREWED UP.

The FUNNIEST PART WAS WATCHING 'them' ALL BELIEVE that 'the society or culture' that 'they' grew up IN 'WAS the RIGHT or BEST one'.

EVERY one of 'them' KNEW that 'they' did NOT want to be KILLED and EATEN, but EACH OF 'them' BELIEVED that it was ALL RIGHT to EAT 'cows', 'pigs', or 'sheep' OR NOT, ALL DEPENDING ON IN which country, society, culture, and time 'they' lived IN and were brought up IN.

The HYPOCRISIES, INCONSISTENCIES, and CONTRADICTIONS here were so BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS, yet ALL of 'them' WERE SO BLINDED, by their OWN BELIEFS, that they could NOT OPEN UP to SEE just how BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS ALL of 'this' WAS.

-----

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.

Would you LIKE to ELABORATE ON your two 'Nope' responses here, and EXPLAIN what you ACTUALLY MEANT?

Or, will 'you' RUN AWAY from 'this' ALSO "henry quirk"?

[Dontaskme]

There is no 'Henry' looking out of your eyes either, you said yourself, you can only see yourself as a mirror image of the imageless.

I said no such thing.

You did say that, when I asked you who is the ''me'' and can you see ''me'' you answered yes, when I look in the mirror, I see myself, the mirror reflects what the''me'' looks like.

A mirror firstly must be imageless before it is capable of reflecting an image back at the looker. The point is, the ''me'' is the looked upon, not the looker. The looker cannot look at itself because it has no image of itself, it can only reflect an image, and all reflected images are basically images of what is imageless.

[Age]

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

Nope.

So non-human meat has no natural rights..why? because humans say so, do they make the rules as to whether non-human meat has rights or not. Don't non-human creatures also have feelings and a natural right to exist?

Meat has no rights, persons do.

WHO and/or WHAT is a 'person', EXACTLY?

And, WHEN, EXACTLY does this so-called 'person' come TO EXIST?

And, let us NOT FORGET that 'you', "henry quirk", have previously CLAIMED that 'you', the 'person', is that 'body', 'of meat', correct?

[Advocate]

[quote=Iwannaplato post_id=633776 time=1680863964 user_id=3619]
He's being misquoted, slightly, but further it's not an argument for the existence of God. It's part of looking at, fairly or not, the psychology of atheists.
[quote]Atheism is, I suppose, the supreme example of a simple faith. The man says there is no God; if he really says it in his heart, he is a certain sort of man so designated in Scripture [i. e. a fool, Ps 53:2]. But, anyhow, when he has said it, he has said it; and there seems to be no more to be said. The conversation seems likely to languish. The truth is that the atmosphere of excitement, by which the atheist lived, was an atmosphere of thrilled and shuddering theism, and not of atheism at all; it was an atmosphere of defiance and not of denial. Irreverence is a very servile parasite of reverence; and has starved with its starving lord. After this first fuss about the merely aesthetic effect of blasphemy, the whole thing vanishes into its own void. If there were not God, there would be no atheists.[/quote]
[/quote]

That's an awful lot of words to say nothing. There's not a fact or a speck of wisdom there.

[Age]

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?

Oh, FFS

Everyone who is sentient draws upon their own human imagination,

AND WHERE WAS and IS 'your' IMAGINATION 'drawn upon FROM', EXACTLY, "dontaskme"?

where else is the source of your knowing, but your own knowing direct experience?

NOT JUST FROM 'there' "dontaskme".

And, if 'you' had ALREADY KNOWN HOW to LOOK AT and SEE ALL 'things' from the Truly OBJECTIVE vantage point and/or view point, then 'you' would have ALREADY KNOWN, EXACTLY, WHERE the SOURCE of the ONLY True KNOWING there IS.

Source is only known, it is not seen by the way.

BUT LOL 'I' have ALREADY SEEN, and thus ALREADY UNDERSTAND, 'THE SOURCE', EXACTLY, and FULLY.

[Age]

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 could have my eyes surgically extended out so, like a crab, I could turn them toward myself and see myself.

But, that's a little extreme to prove a point.

'you' are STILL YET TO SEE that "myself" is A MISNOMER and, literally, the GREATEST EXAMPLE of A Truly 'self-contradictory' term or phrase. "myself" IS an OXYMORON, itself.

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

No. I will, as I say, describe myself, but, no, I'm playin' that stupid, attention whore's game of postin' selfies.

LOL SHOW 'us' how 'you' DESCRIBE "your" 'self'.

[Dontaskme]

Are you playing the whore selfie game or not ?

No

Then stop looking in the mirror drawing attention to your whore selfie self.

Other people are your mirror, the external world is your mirror, other people can't see their own face either, they depend on the external image created by the mirror too.

EVERYONE IS YOUR MIRROR
EVERYTHING AND EVERYONE IS YOU PUSHED OUT