Philosophy Now Forum

Lacewing wrote:Nick, Walker, Yios... you guys are so full of made-up crap about what an atheist is, and what an atheist thinks and does... and you cannot FUCKING know!!! You can only describe yourself to such a degree. But I'm guessing that it will be impossible for you to grasp this and to stop projecting your short-sightedness onto a vast range of people that cannot be defined by your tiny-ass view. You want to judge and invalidate, so much... that you completely ignore what non-theists are saying back to you. You insist that you know better than they know themselves. It is the height of arrogance and ignorance... and it vividly displays why theists get such a bad reputation for intruding on everyone else. You are being too ignorant to even talk to.

Evidence indicates that someone is sure making up something, that’s for dang sure.

Could be Concept Worshiping Atheists, as opposed to those of the tribe not prone to concepts but try none-the-less.

Why?

Because the definition of God was changed.

Yes, but who did it? Who's making stuff up?

God was once defined as every person-place-thing-thought-action.

Who changed the real definition of God?

Was it The Philosopher King?
(was it the mortal who arbitrarily redefines happy to include … morte?)

Or was the change created by Duality, the clever one who differentiates the amorphous chaos of reality into this-and-that so that man can predict the growing season and survive the winter?

Walker wrote:

Lacewing wrote:Nick, Walker, Yios... you guys are so full of made-up crap about what an atheist is, and what an atheist thinks and does... and you cannot FUCKING know!!! You can only describe yourself to such a degree. But I'm guessing that it will be impossible for you to grasp this and to stop projecting your short-sightedness onto a vast range of people that cannot be defined by your tiny-ass view. You want to judge and invalidate, so much... that you completely ignore what non-theists are saying back to you. You insist that you know better than they know themselves. It is the height of arrogance and ignorance... and it vividly displays why theists get such a bad reputation for intruding on everyone else. You are being too ignorant to even talk to.

Evidence indicates that someone is sure making up something, that’s for dang sure.

Could be Concept Worshiping Atheists, as opposed to those of the tribe not prone to concepts but try none-the-less.

Why?

Because the definition of God was changed.

Yes, but who did it? Who's making stuff up?

God was once defined as every person-place-thing-thought-action.

Who changed the real definition of God?

Was it The Philosopher King?
(was it the mortal who arbitrarily redefines happy to include … morte?)

Or was the change created by Duality, the clever one who differentiates the amorphous chaos of reality into this-and-that so that man can predict the growing season and survive the winter?

"Pantheism" is the God-definition of "God in all things".

It is indeed a primitive form of definition, and even some modern philosophies still follow it.

Deism of the "clockmaker God" is a more common philosophical notion now however -- this God came, saw, and created, then he disappeared again. At least it explains the paradoxes of first cause, prime mover, artistic artificer, and purposeful designer.

Agnosticism takes an Empirical scientific approach and says "show me first then I will believe it" however the apparent reclusive nature of the Deist-God does not allow for such an "encounter first".

Athism is not worth discussing. It is pure nonsense -- a belief system that is based on the assumption of a negative which cannot be proved.

Apathy is even more dignified and logical than atheism. Atheism tries to justify itself. Apathy simply does not care.

Currently these 3 godless views -- apathy, agnosticism, and atheism -- are no longer covered under the same umbrella terminology. Now they are treated separately. They should have always been, but we have all since gotten smarter.

Lacewing wrote: If theists really wanted to explore and understand non-theism, they would truly listen and open their minds and hearts. But I'm guessing that such an action would reveal too much to the contrary for maintaining their own theist structure. If non-theists aren't "wrong" and "bad"... then theists would have to find contentment in their own path being simply one "choice" of many. My question is: Why do theists need to demand so much more than that?

First of all, how do you define a theist? Does that include Tao? If a person believes in the Tao, are they a theist?

Tao
dou,tou/
noun
1. (in Chinese philosophy) the absolute principle underlying the universe, combining within itself the principles of yin and yang and signifying the way, or code of behavior, that is in harmony with the natural order. The interpretation of Tao in the Tao-te-Ching developed into the philosophical religion of Taoism.

I’ve described this as the transcendent God or the source of creation beyond the limits of time and space within which the process of existence takes place. Either way it isn’t a personal god. Blind denial has a way of lumping everything together concerning God. God for blind deniers is like a red flag to a bull. They charge for the sake of charging. The OP post asks who really is an atheist. There is no condemnation. Yet it is assumed. A person’s god could be money or the unknowable. The word itself has lost its meaning. It is like art and love. They have become so distorted they have lost their meaning and consequently their value.

The sad part is that they inflict their hostility on the young. It is fine to have personal beliefs but to intentionally block the ancient knowledge from the young who are still spiritually alive is really a crime. It is fashionable now to say we all have our own truths. But a bright kid will know this is just stupidity. If everyone has their own truths, then there is no value in truth. If he is lucky he may learn of how Plato distinguished between knowledge and opinion and realize that this person understood something. But since the spirit killers are doing their best to deny such knowledge as useless for getting a job and serving the Great Beast, the kid’s chances for becoming aware are not that good. So the OP asks who really is an atheist? In order to answer it is necessary to agree on what is being opposed. Is the Tao included in Theism? Why not? You can answer that it isn’t a personal god conception. So Simone would be right in asserting that if one feels the “good” as she did they are not an atheist as she professed to be. They are simply opposed to the personal god concept.

Nick_A wrote: First of all, how do you define a theist? Does that include Tao? If a person believes in the Tao, are they a theist?

Oh yes, please... let's avoid answering the question and redirect the focus by dragging in everything we can think of to obscure and confuse the intent. Oh, and so that you can talk more about blind deniers and hostility against the young.

C'mon Nick... this is not confusing: "If non-theists aren't "wrong" and "bad"... then theists would have to find contentment in their own path being simply one "choice" of many. My question is: Why do theists need to demand so much more than that?"

Pick any theist that this applies to -- any theist that must believe that non-theists are wrong and bad, in order to validate the importance and truth of their own theist beliefs. Is it not intriguing to ask why a theist belief system would require such a thing?

lacewing wrote:
C'mon Nick... this is not confusing: "If non-theists aren't "wrong" and "bad"... then theists would have to find contentment in their own path being simply one "choice" of many. My question is: Why do theists need to demand so much more than that?"

Pick any theist that this applies to -- any theist that must believe that non-theists are wrong and bad, in order to validate the importance and truth of their own theist beliefs. Is it not intriguing to ask why a theist belief system would require such a thing?

There are many different blind believers and blind deniers. Why do people have to fly planes into buildings in support of some deity? People are gullible. Why this is so is an involved question. But I agree that both blind believers and blind deniers are part of what is sometimes called the human condition which creates this psychological blindness and the dominance of imagination.

My path is closer to Panentheism. it creates a skeleton of the universe which a person is invited to fill in through personal impartial verification. It is both spiritual and intellectual which attracts me. From this perspective the universe is the body of God and serves a similar function as your body provides for you. I can appreciate through it human meaning and purpose. It is good for me. I would never try to force it on anyone. How many will understand it to begin with. So for me it isn't a matter of right and wrong. We are all caught up in opinions. Some are attracted to the source of opinions from which they have devolved. I've read that it is foolish for one idiot calling another idiot an idiot. That is our situation. We are all idiots so right and wrong has nothing to do with it.

Click on "look inside" of this book and read first pages. Must the young be deprived of the heart of philosophy to satisfy blind deniers who rule over them?

https://www.amazon.com/Heart-Philosophy ... 1585422517

Philosophy as it is frequently taught in classrooms bears little relation to the impassioned and immensely practical search for self-knowledge conducted by not only its ancient avatars but also by men and woman who seek after truth today. In The Heart of the Philosophy, Jacob Needleman provides a "user's guide" for those who would take philosophy seriously enough to understand its life-transforming qualities.

Even an atheist can agree that you can have a more useful conversation with God than with Nick.

FDP wrote:

Even an atheist can agree that you can have a more useful conversation with God than with Nick.

How can a person take anyone seriously when their pants are flashing?

Nick_A wrote:FDP wrote:

Even an atheist can agree that you can have a more useful conversation with God than with Nick.

How can a person take anyone seriously when their pants are flashing?

Because I am so goddamn fucking charming you cannot help yourself. My cheeky smile is so far beyond your limited mortal comprehension that you cannot deny it makes you feel warm and fuzzy and slightly damp around the gusset.

Agnosticism takes an Empirical scientific approach and says "show me first then I will believe it" ...

No it doesn't. It says no one knows and it's probably unknowable so would everyone please shut up.

however the apparent reclusive nature of the Deist-God does not allow for such an "encounter first".

Too funny for words.

Athism is not worth discussing.

Nor apparently spelling correctly but I bet he goes on to discuss it.

It is pure nonsense -- a belief system that is based on the assumption of a negative which cannot be proved.

I'm a bloody prophet!

Once more for the hard of thought godbotherers. It is not the position that there is evidence for no 'God'. It is the position that there is no evidence for a 'God'. As such it is not a belief, it is the absence of a belief. What this means is I have no thoughts about a 'God' with respect to the happenings in my life, unlike, I guess, the theist who with every happenstance has to consider why their 'God' did this, that is called a belief system.

Apathy is even more dignified and logical than atheism. ...

I bet he can't tell you why, this is just a nice sound-bite.

Atheism tries to justify itself. ...

No it doesn't. It's simply that we don't even think about it other than replying to the theist who tells us there's a 'God' that we just don't see convincing evidence to support such an entity as they describe.

I think the issue is with all the ex-theists who appear pretty bitter towards their ex-brethren and faith.

Apathy simply does not care.

Neither does this atheist.

Currently these 3 godless views -- apathy, agnosticism, and atheism -- are no longer covered under the same umbrella terminology. Now they are treated separately. They should have always been, but we have all since gotten smarter.

We have, that's why there is also Ignosticism, so that'll be 4 godless views then.

Arising_uk wrote:there is also Ignosticism, so that'll be 4 godless views then.

I'd never heard of that one. But now I have, I wish to convert.

Can Simone Weil provide any advice for which idol I must venerate in order to believe the question of god's existence is meaningless?

Elvis I reckon but to truly show the meaningless of 'God's' existence I think Kim Kardashian.

FDP asks: Can Simone Weil provide any advice for which idol I must venerate in order to believe the question of god's existence is meaningless?

She doesn’t tell you what idol to venerate but rather tells you which idol to avoid in order to appreciate how far the Source is from your comprehension. That idol is YOU

“To give up our imaginary position as the center, to renounce it, not only intellectually but in the imaginative part of our soul, that means to awaken to what is real and eternal, to see the true light and hear the true silence.” ― Simone Weil,

Nick_A wrote:

FDP asks: Can Simone Weil provide any advice for which idol I must venerate in order to believe the question of god's existence is meaningless?

She doesn’t tell you what idol to venerate but rather tells you which idol to avoid in order to appreciate how far the Source is from your comprehension. That idol is YOU

“To give up our imaginary position as the center, to renounce it, not only intellectually but in the imaginative part of our soul, that means to awaken to what is real and eternal, to see the true light and hear the true silence.” ― Simone Weil,

Consciousness (our only centre) is all we have until we die, and then it's given up. Look at how she romanticizes everything. She talks about a soul, yet there is none. She is not only not reasoning, she's is doing it from an unproven premise, to an unproven outcome. That is unsound philosophy, if it can even be truly called philosophy. More akin to fantasizing.

Dalek Prime wrote:

Consciousness (our only centre) is all we have until we die, and then it's given up. Look at how she romanticizes everything. She talks about a soul, yet there is none. She is not only not reasoning, she's is doing it from an unproven premise, to an unproven outcome. That is unsound philosophy, if it can even be truly called philosophy. More akin to fantasizing.

Simone Weil is known as Plato's spiritual child. She was heavily influenced by Plato. You can say Plato's description of the tripartite soul is unsound philosophy and should be removed from philosophy courses in university but for the time being it is still there. So as far as the soul:

http://www.redbubble.com/people/fyfe/wr ... th-discuss

Plato held that this tripartite soul is in a constant cycle- being trapped in a human body, and then escaping the body at death to return to the ‘realm of the forms’, and back to a human body, and so on ad infinitum- as the soul is both eternal and immutable.

Makes sense to me in the context of universal meaning and purpose. It isn't to be believed but only impartially contemplated. Unfortunately this mind opening practice is becoming a lost art.

You shouldn't have opened your mind so much that it ran away and never came back. The problem with Nick is his beliefs are multiple. He believes in God and he believes in a purpose of life. He believes in the soul and most of all he believes anything Simone says. This is a lost case. His open mind is so closed that he doesn't read anything which he does not agree with and goes on harping on the same things over and over again. So far there is not a single uncomfortable question either he or little chihuahua have answered. The only way you know that the question was uncomfortable is if you get inevitable generalised ad hominems for an answer.

Tell me this, Nick. You have the ability to sense God beyond space and time. But the same ability dies not allow you to sense your meaning and purpose of life.why is that?

Also, if God created you for a purpose, wouldn't it make more sense for him to tell you what it was so that you could fulfill it, rather than make you waste your life looking for the purpose with the real danger that you will not find it and therefore not fulfill the purpose God made you for? Isn't it a rather stupid thing to do, if God wanted you to fulfill your purpose? It should be something yo become aware of early in your childhood, so that you can focus and train yourself towards achieving it. So why did God omit to tell you what he sent you here for?