Philosophy Now Forum

Happy to have been of service. Let me know how I may help in the future.

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:Happy to have been of service. Let me know how I may help in the future.

Please stop assessing and telling other people what they are and how they think because you have no fucking idea and it makes everything you say look like a jerk-off session with yourself.

But I DO have an idea: the evidence is in the words and the concepts that appear in you-plural's posts.

True, very true, we will always get some parts wrong, it is the nature if the medium, but this is a two-way street.

Also, part of all this has to do with the misapprehension, the hearing wrong, and the correction. It is a field for the enacting of an age-old game: dialectic.

Your anger is cute! I am always charmed, sort of, when girls cuss!

Lacewing wrote:Whereas atheists seek beyond a vast array of religious templates, and must use reason in order to do so.

This is an interesting statement. But in fact, at least in my experience, 'atheists' do little reasoning 'beyond' since, there is no 'beyond': only dead molecules, a blind, intentionless universe, and as far as I am aware no way to define 'psyche' or interpretive intelligence. So, in general, the atheistic position, like Scepticism generally, spirals down to a bland materialism, in ever-shrinking circles.

You still 'dance' but I have a sense that that is capital built up through religio-philosophical speculation.

Rationally atheist thou art, but sentimentally?

As Obvious, you have a limited, a dry, an incomplete definition of 'reason'. You mean 'mathematical thinking' and you mistake it for reasoning.

Big difference.

Lacewing wrote:

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:Happy to have been of service. Let me know how I may help in the future.

Please stop assessing and telling other people what they are and how they think because you have no fucking idea and it makes everything you say look like a jerk-off session with yourself.

We may have disgreed in the past, but on this issue you are spot on.

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:

Lacewing wrote:Whereas atheists seek beyond a vast array of religious templates, and must use reason in order to do so.

This is an interesting statement. But in fact, at least in my experience, 'atheists' do little reasoning 'beyond' since, there is no 'beyond': only dead molecules, a blind, intentionless universe, and as far as I am aware no way to define 'psyche' or interpretive intelligence. So, in general, the atheistic position, like Scepticism generally, spirals down to a bland materialism, in ever-shrinking circles.

You still 'dance' but I have a sense that that is capital built up through religio-philosophical speculation.

Rationally atheist thou art, but sentimentally?

As Obvious, you have a limited, a dry, an incomplete definition of 'reason'. You mean 'mathematical thinking' and you mistake it for reasoning.

Big difference.

The big difference is that atheists - at least those on this forum are rational and value evidence. In your case you seem to have abandoned reason and fill the gap of your embarrassment with hot air. Yes, you think beyond; beyond reason; beyond common sense; beyond sanity; but most of all beyond the pale.

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:But I DO have an idea: the evidence is in the words and the concepts that appear in you-plural's posts.

Your interpretations are wrong... so you shouldn't spew them at people. What's in your head (and how you skew it based on your own stuff and limited perspective) is not a reflection of ultimate truth/reality.

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:Your anger is cute! I am always charmed, sort of, when girls cuss!

Do you like it when girls SMILE while they do it? Because I am.

The mad unfolding of it all is pretty funny! We're both playing the game -- and now I've flicked your game piece off the board I'm playing on, and I don't want to play with you anymore. You need to go play "What do you see in this picture" with Bob.

Hobbles wrote:The big difference is that atheists - at least those on this forum are rational and value evidence. In your case you seem to have abandoned reason and fill the gap of your embarrassment with hot air. Yes, you think beyond; beyond reason; beyond common sense; beyond sanity; but most of all beyond the pale.

And aaaalllll of this can and will be gone into. I will present to you, Child of the Swamp, the *field* where the 'evidence' occurs, and then what in essence the evidence is.

It will be quite interesting I think for all concerned.

All in good time, m'boy!

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:

Hobbles wrote:The big difference is that atheists - at least those on this forum are rational and value evidence. In your case you seem to have abandoned reason and fill the gap of your embarrassment with hot air. Yes, you think beyond; beyond reason; beyond common sense; beyond sanity; but most of all beyond the pale.

And aaaalllll of this can and will be gone into. I will present to you, Child of the Swamp, the *field* where the 'evidence' occurs, and then what in essence the evidence is.

It will be quite interesting I think for all concerned.

All in good time, m'boy!

I won't hold my breath waiting.

I'll need that for when you begin your flatulent discourse.

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:As Obvious, you have a limited, a dry, an incomplete definition of 'reason'. You mean 'mathematical thinking' and you mistake it for reasoning.

Don't you dare put words into my mouth, you sermonising charlatan. I have always taken great pains to stress that mathematics and logic are NOT synonymous constructs.

Lacewing wrote: and now I've flicked your game piece off the board I'm playing on, and I don't want to play with you anymore. Y

Anybody who doesn't like a good bitch-fight has no sense of the theatrical. You have plenty of supporters in your corner, Lacewing, and you will be expected to make short work of this self-preening queen.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:...
And can you answer the question? ...

Sure, once you phrase one that makes sense. So what do you mean by 'religion' in this instance? As until then you can't answer this 'need to be' as needs will differ depending upon the religion and as such your binary solution is an answer to nothing but your own limited philosophical thinking.

Thanks for not stopping by.

My pleasure.

Arising_uk wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:...
And can you answer the question? ...

Sure, once you phrase one that makes sense. So what do you mean by 'religion' in this instance? As until then you can't answer this 'need to be' as needs will differ depending upon the religion and as such your binary solution is an answer to nothing but your own limited philosophical thinking.

Thanks for not stopping by.

My pleasure.

Since you don't know what religion is, then you can't answer the question so thanks again for not stopping by.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Since you don't know what religion is, then you can't answer the question so thanks again for not stopping by. ...

Go ahead, tell me what 'religion' is in reference to your question and whilst you're there tell me your answers?

Arising_uk wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Since you don't know what religion is, then you can't answer the question so thanks again for not stopping by. ...

Go ahead, tell me what 'religion' is in reference to your question and whilst you're there tell me your answers?

You seem to know all the answers. Why don't you tell us what you think it is.

PhilX

I don't know, that's why I was asking you, as I know there are particular religions but your question refers to this 'religion'?

Like most weebles who visit this philosophy forum you demonstrate your lack of any philosophical education or knowledge of the subject in your reply, as if you had you'd take the opportunity of my questions to clarify your thoughts rather than get threatened by them. An inability to answer a sentence with a question mark is pretty much one of the defining features of the interweeble.