Philosophy Now Forum

Hobbes' Choice wrote: Your analogy is false. A dichotomy exists between happiness and sadness; between up and down. But tell me what is the opposite of a lemon?

You are making a category error by conflating analogies.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:...Atheism is just another belief system as inadequate and useless as all belief systems.

Nice way to put it. I can't recall the number of times I've said religion is not about the ideas expressing it.

Relationship (religion) is about quality, not quantity -- not intellectual content. Beliefs are merely the conceptual vehicle.

The Inglorious One wrote: How many "ups" do you know of without a corresponding "down"?

How is this about opposites? What would be the opposite of a flying purple elephant?

Based on what you said, was my question unreasonable/unanswerable? "Are you saying that to have no belief is actually to BELIEVE in the opposite of any thing's existence? (So, ALL the things in this universe of which you have NO BELIEF, are actually beliefs in themselves... which you are denying...?)" Like the flying purple elephant.

The Inglorious One wrote: Many, if not most, of the things you say are in reference to perspective. It would be nice if you gave some thought into what you say rather than just emoting.

I can say the same thing about you. Of course we're both speaking from our own perspectives and giving thought to what we say. Trying to invalidate me with insults simply looks like avoidance.

The Inglorious One wrote:...implicit in every disbelief an unstated belief in something different.

So, are disbelief and no belief the same to you?

You are saying that non-theists have a disbelief... whereas non-theists are telling you that there is no belief. I think there is a difference/distinction between these, especially for non-theists. Disbelief is defined as the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true; refusal or reluctance to believe. Its very definition SUGGESTS that there is something being avoided. And, like the flying purple elephant, non-theists are saying there simply is NO BELIEF in it at all. It's not a matter of "disbelief" (which, of course, is how theists would think of it). For non-theists, there is no opposite that the "non belief" is resisting or opposing. It simply does not exist. Can you see this distinction even if you personally choose a different perspective?

Lacewing wrote:

The Inglorious One wrote: How many "ups" do you know of without a corresponding "down"?

How is this about opposites? What would be the opposite of a flying purple elephant?

That's the same category error Hobbes made.

I can say the same thing about you. Of course we're both speaking from our own perspectives and giving thought to what we say. Trying to invalidate me with insults simply looks like avoidance.

We're part and parcel of a hierarchical and participatory universe. Your egalitarian ideals are simply out of touch with reality.

So, are disbelief and no belief the same to you?

They are opposite ends of the same stick.

Disbelief is defined as the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true; refusal or reluctance to believe.

Disbelief is meaningful only in a field of belief: it breaks the symmetry of our existence no less than belief. That one does not recognize or acknowledge their underlying beliefs does not mean they are not there. It means only that that the non-believer is locked in a dark room full of furniture without a light.

...non-theists are saying there simply is NO BELIEF in it at all.

Which is itself a statement of belief -- especially since some here have some very concrete ideas about what their disbelief denies.

The Inglorious One wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: Morons think that Atheism is just another belief system as inadequate and useless as all belief systems.

Nice way to put it. I can't recall the number of times I've said religion is as stupid as I am.
.

I knew you'd agree in the end.

The Inglorious One wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Oh right, and the constipated pretentious pseudo-intellectual bullshit you just wrote is REALLY coherent. Don't tell me what I believe, just because you feel like an idiot for believing garbage.

I'm pretty sure a third-grader thinks the same thing when he or she hears sees complex mathematical equations.

Don't flatter yourself. I know pretentious bullshit when I see it.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

The Inglorious One wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Oh right, and the constipated pretentious pseudo-intellectual bullshit you just wrote is REALLY coherent. Don't tell me what I believe, just because you feel like an idiot for believing garbage.

I'm pretty sure a third-grader thinks the same thing when he or she hears sees complex mathematical equations.

Don't flatter yourself. I know pretentious bullshit when I see it.

The trouble with Inglorious is that he knows exactly how third graders think, as he never graduated to the fourth.

Hobbes' Choice wrote: The trouble with Inglorious is that he knows exactly how third graders think, as he never graduated to the fourth.

I don't even know what age '3rd-graders' are. As it's the US then probably about 18.

Inglorious... so, although you again avoided answering my question, it appears that your answer is YES... you are saying that "to have no belief is actually to BELIEVE in the opposite of any thing's existence. So, ALL the things in this universe of which you have NO BELIEF, are actually beliefs in themselves... which you are denying."

And this somehow aligns with you repeatedly demonstrating an inability and disinterest in fathoming any other view/reality or acknowledging any validity beyond yourself and your ideas. It sounds like you're making up all the rules as you go (about what matters and has meaning, and where all the dividing lines are) -- such that there is ONE view of truth... and you're the one who has it. Wow, how awesome is that fantasy?!

hehehehe. I love it when "enlightened" atheists show their true colors.

The Inglorious One wrote:hehehehe. I love it when "enlightened" atheists show their true colors.

Oh, why thank you!!

Your true colors are rather striking too.

The Inglorious One wrote:hehehehe. I love it when "enlightened" atheists show their true colors.

Hehe. I love it when smug, self-righteous religious nut-jobs show their true colours.

The Inglorious One wrote:
Clearly, either you did not read the article article about symmetry or it simply went over your head. I say that for two reasons. First, because telling God how he must be in order to be God is exactly what you are doing.

I am telling you what you are telling God to be. I don't believe in the Guy. What do I care how he behaves.

Second, because you do not seem to realize just how right you are when you say you don't really exist. If everything is relation, then nothing is concrete and what you call your "self" is nothing more than a tightly defined set of relations with which you identify.

I said it but I don't realize how right I am. I think I understand these concepts far better than you will for some time to come.

Infinite Being (perfect symmetry) implies unity and immutability, but it does not imply immobility nor does it exclude the possibility of self-differentiation and self-limitation. In fact, to deny the possibility of God's volitional self-differentiation and self-limitation amounts to a denial of the very concept of God's volitional absoluteness. (The word "God" is an indicator only, it does not name, describe or define the perfect symmetry to which it points, which is indefinite.)

I am not the one denying it, my friend. You are when you say, "Everything is God, in a certain sense".

God can only act upon himself because there is nothing else -- that's what infinite being entails. God's being, then, is a self-referring process, which is exactly how many neuroscientists explain the emergence of consciousness. God's being-ness is the relating of a relation -- a verb, a synthesis of the Infinite and the finite, Eternal and the temporal, Freedom and necessity -- relating to itself. Only when you disengage from being focused on you individual world, the differentiation between you and the rest of the world, can really begin to "hear" what there is to "hear."

SO you agree that it is all God in EVERY SENSE or are you still going to stick with "in a certain sense"?

Being is meaningless without non-being and non-being is meaningless without being. They are interdependent ideas. That is say, the perfect symmetry of pure being is indistinguishable from non-being. Hence, many theists say God does not exist, but, rather, is existence itself. Human beings are the product of broken symmetry.

But nothing of what you said explains why you think humans are at the bottom of the quality chain, or words to that effect. Everything you said above is in contradiction with how you behave. If you actually believed that you could never be as childishly abusive as you are because you would literally see God everywhere. So you might be saying these words by rote. But I am pretty sure you don't believe them.

In dialogue between God and Abraham, God begins by chiding Abraham, "If it wasn't for Me, you wouldn't exist." After a moment of thoughtful reflection, Abraham respectfully replies, "Yes, Lord, and for that I am very appreciative and grateful. However, if it wasn't for me, You wouldn't be known."

I don't see the point of this story.

BTW, you still haven't answered why you feel compelled to take things out of context and why you assume unity and diversity are mutually exclusive.

This is not even a question. However, seems to feel a strange need for the answer to such a strange question.

I did not take anything out of context. I just took up "God is everywhere" instead of "God is everywhere IN A CERTAIN SENSE". Now if you actually believed that unity and diversity are not mutually exclusive, you would not have insisted on "in a certain sense" because you would understand that even if God does self differentiate, ultimately it is ALL GOD IN EVERY SENSE. So if you truly understood your own God, you would understand that I DID NOT take anything out of context.

. I do not think unity and diversity are mutually exclusive. I have never said so. You, for some reason, have attributed this to me, probably because you find it hard to understand things I say . I did however, ask you to explain why you said everything is God "in a certain sense", if you believed that unity and diversity are not mutually exclusive. If you understood that unity and diversity are not mutually exclusive, then you would not have said "in a certain sense". But I suppose this is yet another case you you writing words without believing in them.

sthitapragya wrote: SO you agree that it is all God in EVERY SENSE or are you still going to stick with "in a certain sense"?

Dimwit. You clearly do not understand the concept of broken symmetry.

The Inglorious One wrote:

sthitapragya wrote: SO you agree that it is all God in EVERY SENSE or are you still going to stick with "in a certain sense"?

Dimwit. You clearly do not understand the concept of broken symmetry.

There you go calling God a dimwit again. Or do you mean to say that there is no God in me in any sense? You love God. You worship him. You think everything is God "in a certain sense". So that would make me God "in a certain sense". So If you call me dimwit, you are calling God a dimwit "in a certain sense".

So considering your love for God, you would only call me a dimwit if you believed that there is no God in me in any sense whatsoever. In which case God is not everywhere and he is not in me even in a certain sense. So now how do you explain your stand that "everything is God in a certain sense"? Unless you are calling me a dimwit knowing that there is God in me in a certain sense, and you are calling God a dimwit in that sense too. Is that allowed for you guys?

Do you actually believe in God or is that just words too?