Philosophy Now Forum

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote: I suppose the question you are asking, fundamentally, is where will the evolution of thought, science, and understanding lead us eventually?

No. The question I am asking is, if God wants us to understand him, why does he not just come out and tell us what it is, instead of playing this hide and seek game? I find this another example of inefficiency or lack of communication. If we are truly intended to understand God, he should have made it easier. Why did he not?

You are essentially asking seeker's questions!

There is no God to reveal anything and because there is no revealer, your focus in this area is absurd. That is your position.

What you don't understand, to all appearances, is that I already considered the ramifications of your rejection of the entire structure of questions and questioning, and then moved well beyond it to what these questions ultimately presage.

We are in a period of radical upheaval and redefinition in all arenas.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Lacewing wrote:Do you think there are just two categories to divide everyone into: theist or atheist? Does such a label determine much of anything about a person, really?

In the case of atheist and theist, yes obviously there are only two categories. /... People who are not theists are atheists.

What about all the people who believe there is "something" permeating and/or controlling everything, some power or essence, but it may be described in many different ways than the particular idea of a Christian god? Are those people theists or atheists? What are the parameters?

Hobbes' Choice wrote: I'm surprised you have to ask.

Maybe that's because you think you have it all sewn up. Whereas I don't think it's that black and white. That's why I ask questions -- to challenge/explore limits and what we think we know or what we've decided to settle on.

I'd like to hear your response to my second question: "Does such a label determine much of anything about a person, really?"

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

bobevenson wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:I'm puzzled why you are not an atheist.

I'm puzzled why everybody does not subscribe to "The Ouzo Prophecy," which cuts across all religious and spiritual points of view.

Because it is complete shite.

At least I have the balls to spell words correctly.

sthitapragya wrote:

bobevenson wrote:Obviously, it's impossible to connect with you people on spiritual matters.

Forget the spiritual level.

The spiritual level is the only level that counts, my friend.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

bobevenson wrote:

Obvious Leo wrote:I've already told you to count me in, Bob, but I'm still waiting for my tinfoil hat and my AK-47.

Just sent the money via Western Union for the AK-47, and I'll include your hat at no charge, OK?

Sadly an AK-47 has no intrinsic value in excess of the shipping cost, so it would not make economic sense to sent it - just like your economic theory does not make economic sense. By definition an AK-47's intrinsic value is the same as the scrap value of the metal and wood of which it is comprised.

As I have probably mentioned to you before, since you have absolutely no understanding of economics, that's a subject you should stay away from. On the other hand, as a divinely inspired prophet on all things spiritual, political and economic, my utterances on these subjects should be interpreted as coming from God himself.

Lacewing wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Lacewing wrote:Do you think there are just two categories to divide everyone into: theist or atheist? Does such a label determine much of anything about a person, really?

In the case of atheist and theist, yes obviously there are only two categories. /... People who are not theists are atheists.

What about all the people who believe there is "something" permeating and/or controlling everything, some power or essence, but it may be described in many different ways than the particular idea of a Christian god? Are those people theists or atheists? What are the parameters?

Hobbes' Choice wrote: I'm surprised you have to ask.

Maybe that's because you think you have it all sewn up. Whereas I don't think it's that black and white. That's why I ask questions -- to challenge/explore limits and what we think we know or what we've decided to settle on.

I'd like to hear your response to my second question: "Does such a label determine much of anything about a person, really?"

I'm not sure why you don't like the term "atheist". I realise that it has attracted a lot of negative association. The point about having a clear definition is that the label is as effective as the term suggests. There are many persons to which "atheist" applies, and NOT label can ever be exhaustive. I'm also a pedestrian when I am not in my car.

When you have decided to rest on a particular definition of your god, and have chosen to believe in it: then you will be on the "theist" side of the fence, and will find yourself defending your position.

The problem only exists because you and others like to attach too many meanings to word.

bobevenson wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

bobevenson wrote: Just sent the money via Western Union for the AK-47, and I'll include your hat at no charge, OK?

Sadly an AK-47 has no intrinsic value in excess of the shipping cost, so it would not make economic sense to sent it - just like your economic theory does not make economic sense. By definition an AK-47's intrinsic value is the same as the scrap value of the metal and wood of which it is comprised.

As I have probably mentioned to you before, since you have absolutely no understanding of economics, that's a subject you should stay away from. On the other hand, as a divinely inspired prophet on all things spiritual, political and economic, my utterances on these subjects should be interpreted as coming from God himself.

I've left you a dictionary under your rock, open at the page which has "intrinsic" on it. Why not crawl back under your rock now and try your best to read it.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:I've left you a dictionary under your rock, open at the page which has "intrinsic" on it. Why not crawl back under your rock now and try your best to read it.

As a divinely inspired prophet, I have already stated the definitions of economics and intrinsic market value. My definitions are unchallengeable by anybody on Earth, or the entire universe for that matter.

Lacewing wrote: What about all the people who believe there is "something" permeating and/or controlling everything,

They are theists, regardless of whatever label they choose to apply to themselves, because they accept the notion of the puppetmaster. An atheist sees reality as self-causal.

So you are saying that there is no God and it is also not true that there is no God. When someone says that A is true and not A is true it tells me they should take a logic course.

raw_thought wrote:So you are saying that there is no God and it is also not true that there is no God. When someone says that A is true and not A is true it tells me they should take a logic course.

Bob doesn't do logic. Bob just does prophecy but he does it very secretively because I've never actually heard him predict anything.

Big Nurse Leo wrote:They are theists, regardless of whatever label they choose to apply to themselves, because they accept the notion of the puppetmaster. An atheist sees reality as self-causal.

To describe a 'self-causal' manifestation is non-different to describing an intended universe. With this phrasing you reveal, I think, that you function in largely the same concept-domain, but what you have done is to absent a 'presence' who creates.

What 'self-creates' creates the whole pattern of what flows from self-creation. There is no other alternative. It is virtually the same as describing a consciousness overseeing its creation.

The fellers and me would like to watch a basketball game but it comes on outside of established TV time. Can we change TV hour please?