Philosophy Now Forum

Age wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 11:41 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 6:45 pm

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 6:42 pm

Anybody who would claim that gods interfere with reality.

For any detectable phenomenon is in the realm of scientific enquiry, and therefore ‘natural’.

Indeed. Belief in gods is irrational because the whole concept is a contradiction in terms. No wonder they are so screwed up and impossible to reason with.

Some might also say, Belief in no gods is irrational also, because the whole concept is a contradiction in terms. They might also say, No wonder they are so screwed up and impossible to reason with.

People can 'try to' argue any thing, especially when they are so dearly trying to hold onto their beliefs.

So you have a belief in no belief in non-god belief then?

Age wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 11:21 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 6:34 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 12:24 pm

But WHO would be silly enough to suggest that 'God' was supernatural?

For the very reason you have so simply and easily demonstrated, by definition, if some thing was supposedly 'super-natural', then it would be above, beyond, or not a part of what IS, natural.

Can any person name any thing that is above, beyond, not a part of, or super, natural?

If not, then let this rest in peace, once, and for ALL.

But WHO would be silly enough to suggest that gods are natural?

WHO suggests that there are gods?

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 6:34 pmYou are right about one thing; no one can name anything that is above nature, because there isn't anything above nature.

But I did NOT say that no one can name anything that is above nature. What I did say, however, was a clarifying question, which WAS and still IS;
Can any person name any thing that is above, beyond, not a part of, or super, natural?

I remain OPEN, awaiting an answer. For all I know there may in fact be a person who can name some thing like that. Not that I have seen any thing like that, and at the moment I can not even envision any thing like that. But I am still OPEN.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 6:34 pmI'm not arguing such a stupid topic

WHAT topic?

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 6:34 pmwith smug, superstitious god-botherers (it's unbearably futile),

WHO do you think is a god-botherer?

ALL I have asked is who/what is 'God' exactly?

I ask this to any person on any side of the debate about whether God exists or not.

I find it futile that any person debates such a ridiculous thing when they do NOT even have an idea of what God actually IS. In other words they, literally, do NOT know what they are actually talking about when discussing 'God's existence', or not, issue.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 6:34 pm especially not one as delusional,

What do you propose that I am actually delusional about exactly?

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 6:34 pmself-important, and overcompensatingly condescending as yourself.

Do you KNOW who 'I' am?

How is that for a "self-important and overcompenstaingly condescending" response?

Pathetic.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 2:56 am

Age wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 2:48 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 4:41 am
Note you're a part and parcel of reality.
There is no way you can extract yourself away from reality to stand on a God's eye view to make any objective conclusion such as

Are you Absolutely 100% SURE of this?

By the way does one NEED to extract them self away from reality to have a God's eye view of things?

Seems a rather UNreal thing to expect.

Note the general view of reality is 'ALL there is'.

Where does this 'general view' come from? And who has this so called "general" view?

I certainly do NOT have that 'view'.

The word 'general' is in relation to WHAT exactly?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 2:56 amTherefore you cannot claim 'you' and the rest of all humans are not part and parcel of 'ALL there is."

How can you logically jump from YOUR first premise, which is still very much in doubt by the way, to YOUR conclusion here?

You say I can not claim such a thing, but WHY would you even ASSUME that I would want to claim such a thing.

The very reason I have NEVER claimed such a thing is because I would NOT.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 2:56 amYou dispute this?

No.

Why would you even think I WOULD?

You have obviously completely misread what I have written, AGAIN.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 2:56 amIf one does not extract oneself from reality to have a God's eye view then how can one claim to have an absolute independent objective view.

VERY, VERY easily.

Once you KNOW how to gain and have God's eye view, of things, then you can also SEE just how easy it really is.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 2:56 amMy claim is humans will always have a co-dependent objective view/beliefs/knowledge conditioned within an agreed Framework and System.

You can claim whatever you like.

But can you clarify it?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 2:56 amSince God is a belief,

First time I have ever seen this written.

When did this happen?

Is this a new idea, a new tactic, and a new attempt of yours now at just TRYING TO justify your OWN BELIEFS, once again?

If God is a belief, then what is a 'belief'?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 2:56 amGod cannot exists as an absolute independent entity.

Why NOT?

Just because you 'now' say that 'God is a belief'?

You, veritas, will, literally, TRY just about any thing to back and support your own BELIEFS, no matter how WRONG they really ARE.

This is ALSO what I have been saying all along about how the BELIEF-system and the brain works. They work together, completely unconsciously, TRYING to absolutely any thing, even deception, to "support" themselves.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 2:56 am Rather God has to be co-dependent with human conditions, thus the basis of psychology.

What do you mean when you say 'psychology'?

Also, what is the basis of psychology?
That 'human conditions' are the basis of psychology?
That 'God has to be co-dependent with human conditions' is the basis of psychology?
Or, some thing else is the basis of psychology?

Also, I thought you were arguing before that 'God is an impossibility', but now you appear to be saying that 'God is a belief' and the basis of psychology, or some thing along those lines. You are a bit hard to follow some times.

Do 'beliefs' exist to you?
Does God exist to you?

You were arguing before that beliefs MUST exist, because human beings can not live without beliefs, but now you appear to be saying that God is a belief, and therefore, if this is now the case, then God MUST also exist, have I got you correct, this time?

If I have not got you right this time, then could you please just say what it is that you are trying to say, and "argue" for?

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 11:49 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 11:41 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 6:45 pm
Indeed. Belief in gods is irrational because the whole concept is a contradiction in terms. No wonder they are so screwed up and impossible to reason with.

Some might also say, Belief in no gods is irrational also, because the whole concept is a contradiction in terms. They might also say, No wonder they are so screwed up and impossible to reason with.

People can 'try to' argue any thing, especially when they are so dearly trying to hold onto their beliefs.

So you have a belief in no belief in non-god belief then?

No.

I neither believe nor disbelieve any thing.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 12:10 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 11:49 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 11:41 am

Some might also say, Belief in no gods is irrational also, because the whole concept is a contradiction in terms. They might also say, No wonder they are so screwed up and impossible to reason with.

People can 'try to' argue any thing, especially when they are so dearly trying to hold onto their beliefs.

So you have a belief in no belief in non-god belief then?

No.

I neither believe nor disbelieve any thing.

Then you need to work on your writing skills.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 12:31 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 12:10 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 11:49 am

So you have a belief in no belief in non-god belief then?

No.

I neither believe nor disbelieve any thing.

Then you need to work on your writing skills.

Hey Veg, will you ever take me on in a debate about God\'God'?
I've been keeping away from the 'philosophy of religion' area until recently, sometimes, atheists irk me a tad, and this is where their militant forms try and hammer home their ill conceived notions of such an entity.

As an addition your statement:- Indeed. Belief in gods is irrational because the whole concept is a contradiction in terms. No wonder they are so screwed up and impossible to reason with.

Due you consider me impossible to reason with?

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 12:46 pm
As an addition your statement:- Indeed. Belief in gods is irrational because the whole concept is a contradiction in terms. No wonder they are so screwed up and impossible to reason with.

The lungs breathe. The stomach digests. The kidneys filter. The mind believes. So what?

Well, U.G. Krishnamurti tells us that without belief, the human will die.
He specifies this will not be a metaphorical death.
It will be the physical death of the body.
With a total loss of belief, the body will die.

Now, that's something to think about.
No breathing or no digesting or no filtering or no believing = no living.

For the purposes of analysis, assuming that his premise is true, then correlations in phenomena must be found for verification.

Here’s one:
Often, long-time spouses soon follow one another into mahāsamādhi (or death depending on the perspective).

In light of U.G. Krishnamurti’s knowing, this would mean that the official cause of death, for a spouse that soon follows another into death, when the death is said to be caused by natural causes, is actually caused by loss of all belief.

It would also mean that death of belief results in death of the body and the world, which is in you.

This also makes sense because as many know who reach the point when simply facing another day is an effort that requires some kind of motivation, that if examined closely, the omph to move is rooted in some kind of belief.

Science will someday acknowledge the worship gene, which causes belief, which enables continuation of life and the species. Acknowledging dark matter is just the first step in this recognition.

It would also help to invent another word for worship.
Folks balk* at that word.


*All rational faculties shut down.

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 pmScience will someday acknowledge the worship gene, which causes belief, which enables continuation of life and the species. Acknowledging dark matter is just the first step to this recognition.

Belief does not 'enable continuation of life and species', not sure what you are implying there.
Science, and the comprehension that we are within a system, a construct of a 3rd party intelligence, are not mutually exclusive.

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 pmIt would also help to invent another word for worship.
Folks balk at that word.

How about this:-
WORSHIP = ROW_SHIP

Good luck with that.

Belief enables continuation of life and species', not sure what you are implying there.

That is the concise, precise, exact, and accurate implication.

The proof has been stated.

So far, your counter is merely your own belief.

Give it some thought.



The proof, once again:

The lungs breathe. The stomach digests. The kidneys filter. The mind believes. So what?

Well, U.G. Krishnamurti tells us that without belief, the human will die.
He specifies this will not be a metaphorical death.
It will be the physical death of the body.
With a total loss of belief, the body will die.

Now, that's something to think about.
No breathing or no digesting or no filtering or no believing = no living.

For the purposes of analysis, assuming that his premise is true, then correlations in phenomena must be found for verification.

Here’s one:
Often, long-time spouses soon follow one another into mahāsamādhi (or death depending on the perspective).

In light of U.G. Krishnamurti’s knowing, this would mean that the official cause of death, for a spouse that soon follows another into death, when the death is said to be caused by natural causes, is actually caused by loss of all belief.

It would also mean that death of belief results in death of the body and the world, which is in you.

This also makes sense because as many know who reach the point when simply facing another day is an effort that requires some kind of motivation, that if examined closely, the omph to move is rooted in some kind of belief.

Science will someday acknowledge the worship gene, which causes belief, which enables continuation of life and the species. Acknowledging dark matter is just the first step in this recognition.

It would also help to invent another word for worship.
Folks balk* at that word.


*All rational faculties shut down.

G - I hope the above was not intended for my consumption. I don't bother with long winded waffle - as above.

I like clear concise rational points, the above, just as a skim was far beyond my patience = waffle.

Belief enables continuation of life and species

Waffle that, without your belief.

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:50 pm Belief enables continuation of life and species

Waffle that without your belief.

That's more like it. Now, belief in what?

As was stated, think about it.

You yourself stated your belief.
(Maybe you should pay attention.)

attofishpi wrote: “Belief does not 'enable continuation of life and species”

I countered your belief, literally with a big and bold statement.
The exposition of that statement is the proof, which you cannot be bothered to comprehend.

You know what they say. You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.

When you’re ready for rational discussion, I’ll know by your response.

Until then, you have plenty to think about, namely, you have asserted that you have no belief, when in fact your belief is hidden from you.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 12:46 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 12:31 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 12:10 pm

No.

I neither believe nor disbelieve any thing.

Then you need to work on your writing skills.

Hey Veg, will you ever take me on in a debate about God\'God'?
I've been keeping away from the 'philosophy of religion' area until recently, sometimes, atheists irk me a tad, and this is where their militant forms try and hammer home their ill conceived notions of such an entity.

As an addition your statement:- Indeed. Belief in gods is irrational because the whole concept is a contradiction in terms. No wonder they are so screwed up and impossible to reason with.

Due you consider me impossible to reason with?

Well you aren't like the usual bog-standard theist (eg Nick-A). I think of you more as an atheist with a partial brain malfunction (rather than a full malfunction in the case of Nick and his kind).

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 2:02 pm As was stated, think about it.

You yourself stated your belief.
(Maybe you should pay attention.)

auto wrote: “Belief does not 'enable continuation of life and species”

I countered your belief, literally with a big and bold statement.
The exposition of that statement is the proof, which you cannot be bothered to comprehend.

You know what they say. You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.

When you’re ready for rational discussion, I’ll know by your response.

Until then, you have plenty to think about, namely, you have asserted that you have no belief, when in fact your belief is hidden from you.

How's this for ya, you are an irrational wanker. Don't condescend to me with your nonsense without the intelligence to back it up, get anuva 'big bold' statement and shove it up your over bloated arse.