Atheism

[henry quirk]

Yes, obviously. I see, I see my hand, my hand is part of me, I see myself.

Not much escapes you, does it, henry?

Your point: it escapes me.

[Harbal]

Your point: it escapes me.

I don't know what you mean, henry.

[Alexis Jacobi]

All hail, Atheist, that shalt rule hereafter!

Stay, you imperfect speakers. Tell me more.

[Gary Childress]

Stay, you fellow imperfect speakers. Tell me more.

Well, it would depend to some extent on what you have to say also. That would make a lot of difference on whether we imperfect speakers are all able to stay or not.

[Dontaskme]

How people express their world views to others, is either met with a true genuine connection with what is being expressed, in the sense of deep resonance, or it is totally dismissed as being gobbledegook.

This is not philosophy, its sentimentality. Personal communion is distinct from concordance of ideas.

True genuine connection — you’ll have to explain more.

Connection cannot be created nor destroyed, it's either there or it's not. Disagreement is acceptable, disrespect is not.

What are we even here for if we are not interested in seeking resonance and connection, like connecting all the dots (ideas) in an attempt to form the whole picture.

[Dontaskme]

Can that which is SEEING... be seen?

Yes, obviously. I see, I see my hand, my hand is part of me, I see myself.

So all you've said is the 'hand' that is seen...is the seer?

[henry quirk]

Your point: it escapes me.

I don't know what you mean, henry.

Not surprising.

[henry quirk]

Can that which is SEEING... be seen?

Yes, obviously. I see, I see my hand, my hand is part of me, I see myself.

So all you've said is the 'hand' that is seen...is the seer?

No.

[Gary Childress]

Yes, obviously. I see, I see my hand, my hand is part of me, I see myself.

So all you've said is the 'hand' that is seen...is the seer?

No.

Is the hand part of the seer?

[henry quirk]

So all you've said is the 'hand' that is seen...is the seer?

No.

Is the hand part of the seer?

Can you read?

I see, I see my hand, my hand is part of me, I see myself.

[Gary Childress]

No.

Is the hand part of the seer?

Can you read?

I see, I see my hand, my hand is part of me, I see myself.

OK, is "myself" (you Henry) only your hand or do you have other parts of yourself that you are unable to see when looking at your hand? And are you able to "see" all of yourself if you only saw your body? Would there be parts of "self" that you don't see if you simply looked in a mirror while checking if your tie is on straight or not? Or is mind simply body (that which can be seen in a mirror when trying to adjust one's tie) and nothing else?

[Dontaskme]

Yes, obviously. I see, I see my hand, my hand is part of me, I see myself.

So all you've said is the 'hand' that is seen...is the seer?

No.

Yes.

All you've said in the answer to the question is ''I see my hand''...you haven't answered what the seer looks like, because a 'hand' is not the seer.

Is your hand looking at you? that's all you are implying.

Nevermind.

[Dontaskme]

Is the hand part of the seer?

Can you read?

I see, I see my hand, my hand is part of me, I see myself.

OK, is "myself" (you Henry) only your hand or do you have other parts of yourself that you are unable to see when looking at your hand? And are you able to "see" all of yourself if you only saw your body? Would there be parts of "self" that you don't see if you simply looked in a mirror while checking if your tie is on straight or not? Or is mind simply body (that which can be seen in a mirror when trying to adjust one's tie) and nothing else?

Thank you for trying to help.

[Gary Childress]

So all you've said is the 'hand' that is seen...is the seer?

No.

Yes.

All you've said in the answer to the question is ''I see my hand''...you haven't answered what the seer looks like, because a 'hand' is not the seer.

Is your hand looking at you? that's all you are implying.

Nevermind.

But dear, I think he needs a body too. Perhaps we should allow him to have at least the hand that he sees? We can of course work on fleshing him out a little more, but so far all we seem to have is a hand to work with.

[henry quirk]

if you want in to the conversation, get caught up: review the exchange between DAM me, upthread. Some of what you're askin' about has been addressed. She's too dim to get it: mebbe you're not so dim.

Also, there's this...

If mind is sumthin' other than a product of the brain, then that sumthin' isn't necessarily confined to the brain. We might say it, this sumthin', is focused on or in the brain, but it also interpenetrates the body in its entirety.

My belief, as I've said elsewhere, is man is a composite being, an admixture of spirit and substance, two very different things, each utterly reliant in the other. Man is, in my view, not a soul ridin' around temporarily in a meat car, the driver's seat bein' the brain. No, man is an amalgam, both flesh and spirit equally.