Philosophy Now Forum

Reflex wrote:

uwot wrote:Well, if your analogy is to the point, then us atheists are not denying colour, we genuinely don't see it. As for your rich inner life: enjoy it.

So; back to my question. What have I said that makes you think my mind is unfocused?

I think "unreceptive" would have been a better choice of words, or even too focused, like casting a net designed to capture one species of fish.

It is incomprehensible to me that to cannot see what is in front of your face

Well, apart from the pockets of stupidity and ugliness, what I see is an awe inspiring, beautiful universe. For all I know, there is a god. If so, for some reason it has made me completely blind to it, rather than unreceptive. As for your net analogy; I think that is unkind. I don't think that by not limiting my options to one specific metaphysical possibility, as theists do, that I am limiting my options to one specific metaphysical fish.

Dontaskme wrote:

Reflex wrote:It's interesting to see just how unfocused atheist minds are. Logic leads them to the threshold of new and unexplored regions of thought, but fear of being wrong or looking foolish in the eyes of their peers prevents them from making the leap from the seen to the unseen.

I tend to agree with this.

People fear what other people think of them preferring the status quo. It takes courage and conviction to stand alone,to not follow the postage stamp consensus. People who think outside the box are not afraid to have their idea invalidated. Truth is, those who speak with confidence and commitment do not fear rebuttal in any debate. We learn from each other, we are each holding our own unique piece of the jigsaw puzzle, the point is to complete the bigger picture together not pull the picture apart with our ego wanting to be proved right. No one is right and everyone is right. There is only truth.

One cannot find truth, truth finds us.

Keep up the good work.

I really have never figured this argument out. 90% of the world population is religious. How can you guys be standing alone? And what new and unexplored are you talking about? Everyone and his aunt has explored what you have. Do you seriously believe atheists haven't thought about the stuff you have or the god you believe in? What do you think it is? Rocket science?

For you, if God doesn't exist, nothing exists. Period. That is the end. your minds refuse to look beyond. You refuse to think beyond that. We are exploring a world without God. if anyone is exploring the unexplored, it is the atheist.

EVERYONE is exposed to God. EVERYONE. 90% people believe in some God or the other. Your God might be different from most of the other Gods, but you are still religious. 90%. You are not alone. You are not thinking out of the box. 90%. Postage stamp consensus indeed.

uwot wrote:Atto, me old mucker, any of your characterisations are logically possible. The point about logic is that it is only a set of rules that determines whether an argument is valid. So for instance:
'All gleaks are frupulent.
Frazmitz is a gleak.
Therefore, Frazmitz is frupulent.'
is a valid argument.
Personally, I have no trouble accepting that there may be something that equates to 'god'. I just happen not to believe it.

uwot - i believe i have a pretty good understanding of how logic works - otherwise the code ive written over the years wouldnt still be in use. I dont understand why you have posted the above with respect to my OP.

All i am ever attempting to do on this forum is discuss how an entity known as God, that i have defined with at least one attribute, exists. I have provided 4 possible forms of the 'God' entity 3 of which i still consider plausible after many years of experience of 'IT'.

attofishpi wrote:uwot - i believe i have a pretty good understanding of how logic works - otherwise the code ive written over the years wouldnt still be in use. I dont understand why you have posted the above with respect to my OP.

My apologies, I know very well how irritating it is when people assume you don't know what you are talking about.

attofishpi wrote:All i am ever attempting to do on this forum is discuss how an entity known as God, that i have defined with at least one attribute, exists. I have provided 4 possible forms of the 'God' entity 3 of which i still consider plausible after many years of experience of 'IT'.

Well, as you will know, there is no logical reason why any of them cannot be the case.

uwot wrote: Well, apart from the pockets of stupidity and ugliness, what I see is an awe inspiring, beautiful universe. For all I know, there is a god. If so, for some reason it has made me completely blind to it, rather than unreceptive. As for your net analogy; I think that is unkind. I don't think that by not limiting my options to one specific metaphysical possibility, as theists do, that I am limiting my options to one specific metaphysical fish.

Why? What do you mean by "awe inspiring"? What do you ascertain from beauty? A sense of belonging? Or is all just a pointless sensation? "The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift." Logic can only take you so far: a fish does not discover the water in which it swims either through logic or sensation.

You alone are responsible for being bound to the already known; you are the weaver of your net. If you do not perceive a reality beyond mere physical sensation, the fault is yours.

I do not dispute that many, if not most theists, stop at the threshold of the unknown, but at least they acknowledge a reality beyond the senses.

sthitapragya wrote:
For you, if God doesn't exist, nothing exists. Period. That is the end. your minds refuse to look beyond. You refuse to think beyond that. We are exploring a world without God. if anyone is exploring the unexplored, it is the atheist.

Your exploration begins and ends with the already known, the obvious, physical sensation. I can't imagine anything more stifling. I suggest reading The Book of Not Knowing or similar Zen-type book, or if you really are as daring as you say you are, read Holophany: The Loop of Creation.

Question for the religious-minded:

Centuries ago, a theologian famously wrote:"In the end we know God as unknown." Now, is there something about this atheists do not understand, or does prejudice blind them to its implications?

Reflex wrote:You alone are responsible for being bound to the already known; you are the weaver of your net. If you do not perceive a reality beyond mere physical sensation, the fault is yours.

Right. Before we go any further, show me the quote you are basing this vacuous nonsense on.

uwot wrote:

Reflex wrote:You alone are responsible for being bound to the already known; you are the weaver of your net. If you do not perceive a reality beyond mere physical sensation, the fault is yours.

Right. Before we go any further, show me the quote you are basing this vacuous nonsense on.

Have you ever made a leap from the observable known to the logical but invisible unknown? Or strayed outside the social norm of preconceived ideas? Take, for example, the excerpt from the Philisophy Now article I mentioned. What, if anything, do you take from it? Any extrapolations? What do you mean by "awe inspiring"? Why is something beautiful? What does it mean? What inspires and why? A sense of belonging? Or is all just a pointless sensation?

I would argue that you are not skeptical enough of your own understanding and 'knowledge.'

You have to be willing to get out of your head, to actively unknow by putting all thinking aside, by listening with a kind of passive receptivity. Only in this way can you transcend the limitations of looking from your preestablished point of view and becomes united with the One -- to see, as it were, from another dimension.

Reflex wrote:

uwot wrote:

Reflex wrote:You alone are responsible for being bound to the already known; you are the weaver of your net. If you do not perceive a reality beyond mere physical sensation, the fault is yours.

Right. Before we go any further, show me the quote you are basing this vacuous nonsense on.

Have you ever made a leap from the observable known to the logical but invisible unknown? Or strayed outside the social norm of preconceived ideas? Take, for example, the excerpt from the Philisophy Now article I mentioned. What, if anything, do you take from it? Any extrapolations? What do you mean by "awe inspiring"? Why is something beautiful? What does it mean? What inspires and why? A sense of belonging? Or is all just a pointless sensation?

I would argue that you are not skeptical enough of your own understanding and 'knowledge.'

You have to be willing to get out of your head, to actively unknow by putting all thinking aside, by listening with a kind of passive receptivity. Only in this way can you transcend the limitations of looking from your preestablished point of view and becomes united with the One -- to see, as it were, from another dimension.

Okay, and what will happen after you look? You say in the new you know God is unknown. So you won't know him after searching for your whole life. Okay. Forget that. What happens after the search. Let us say you find him or understand that he is unknown or whatever. What will happen at the end of the search? Let say, you find him. Then what?

sthitapragya wrote:Okay, and what will happen after you look? You say in the new you know God is unknown. So you won't know him after searching for your whole life. Okay. Forget that. What happens after the search. Let us say you find him or understand that he is unknown or whatever. What will happen at the end of the search? Let say, you find him. Then what?

Who cares? Taking responsibility for my perception empowers me with a wider range of choices than the belief that there is nothing more than some kind of objective reality.

Relating to the world with preconceived ideas makes it appear to us in the specific framework of our opinions and ideas. We miss out on other possible ways of relating. Hence, "By love he may be gotten and holden; by thought, never." Instead of limiting yourself to mere facts, concentrate on how to create the kind of framework that will serve as a general direction our advancement. One should at once expand into the qualitative dimensions of oneness and at the same time, be practical and rational.

Reflex wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:Okay, and what will happen after you look? You say in the new you know God is unknown. So you won't know him after searching for your whole life. Okay. Forget that. What happens after the search. Let us say you find him or understand that he is unknown or whatever. What will happen at the end of the search? Let say, you find him. Then what?

Who cares? Taking responsibility for my perception empowers me with a wider range of choices than the belief that there is nothing more than some kind of objective reality.

Relating to the world with preconceived ideas makes it appear to us in the specific framework of our opinions and ideas. We miss out on other possible ways of relating. Hence, "By love he may be gotten and holden; by thought, never." Instead of limiting yourself to mere facts, concentrate on how to create the kind of framework that will serve as a general direction our advancement. One should at once expand into the qualitative dimensions of oneness and at the same time, be practical and rational.

Wat are you talking about? The most preconceived of all ideas is God. It it drilled into everyone's head from childhood. There is no one who can escape this preconceived notion. As a child one has a basic conception of God and as one grows older, the conception becomes more and more sophisticated. But the basic preconception just stays with you. Look at you. You take pride in your belief that if God does not exist nothing can. Period. Nothing else. You have no proof. You have tones of doubts which you won't admit to. You see the inconsistencies too and simply sweep them under the carpet, but you refuse to even consider a world without God.

What if God does not exist is not a question that comes easily to most people. So don't call it a preconception. Even you know it is not. Why do you insist on such bizarre arguments? What do you get out of it?

sthitapragya wrote: Wat are you talking about? The most preconceived of all ideas is God. It it drilled into everyone's head from childhood. There is no one who can escape this preconceived notion. As a child one has a basic conception of God and as one grows older, the conception becomes more and more sophisticated. But the basic preconception just stays with you. Look at you. You take pride in your belief that if God does not exist nothing can. Period. Nothing else. You have no proof. You have tones of doubts which you won't admit to. You see the inconsistencies too and simply sweep them under the carpet, but you refuse to even consider a world without God.

What if God does not exist is not a question that comes easily to most people. So don't call it a preconception. Even you know it is not. Why do you insist on such bizarre arguments? What do you get out of it?

What part of "By love he may be gotten and holden; by thought, never" do you find confusing?

Reflex wrote:

sthitapragya wrote: Wat are you talking about? The most preconceived of all ideas is God. It it drilled into everyone's head from childhood. There is no one who can escape this preconceived notion. As a child one has a basic conception of God and as one grows older, the conception becomes more and more sophisticated. But the basic preconception just stays with you. Look at you. You take pride in your belief that if God does not exist nothing can. Period. Nothing else. You have no proof. You have tones of doubts which you won't admit to. You see the inconsistencies too and simply sweep them under the carpet, but you refuse to even consider a world without God.

What if God does not exist is not a question that comes easily to most people. So don't call it a preconception. Even you know it is not. Why do you insist on such bizarre arguments? What do you get out of it?

What part of "By love he may be gotten and holden; by thought, never" do you find confusing?

I don't care about that pointless quote of yours. The fact is God is the father of all preconceived notions. You might have taken your God to degree of sophistication which is phenomenal in your own eyes and mind, but the fact is you are simply building on the preconceived notion you received as a child and refuse to let go of, even for the sake of argument. For you if God does not exist, nothing exists. You refuse to consider any other possibility. That is a closed mind.

And what love are you talking about? Your behaviour and insults reek of bitterness bordering on hatred. Or is love supposed to be exclusively spent on God?

God is in your head. And when your head goes, so to, God. I get that people want there to be more, but I've made my peace with less.