aphilosophy

[evangelicalhumanist]

...because the one important thing about it is that it says nothing at all about what anybody else is supposed to do, only what I am supposed to do.

And what your ideology has told you you're supposed to do is make a career out of telling others they aren't supposed to be religious.

Now, really, have I? Or have I, rather, said that "whatever you believe, you must not attempt to force others to behave accordingly?" I've said many times, just as an example, that if your god doesn't want you to marry a same-sex partner, then perhaps you'd better not, but what the heck does that have to do with me? Nowhere, ever, have I said "you should not believe in God," though I have said many times that I do not. Nowhere, ever, have I said that "God is impossible," though I have said I doubt such a thing exists, and the gods that I've seen described most of the time are fundamentally self-contradictory, and therefore certainly seem unlikely to exist as believed.

And then, when confronted with this blatant contradiction, your ideology instructs you to back peddle, waffle, and so on, in an attempt to maintain the illusion of separation between you and those of the other ideology, which is involved in the same process.

Sorry, but read just above again. That's not waffling, it's a pure statement of my own belief.

And seventh, that because we are social and interdependent, working as I am able to benefit society can only maximize my own individual happiness. As a social animal, I will thrive better in a society that is less wanting, less disfunctional.

Sounds good. Which brings us to the question of where all the dysfunction that surrounds us comes from.

From, as I've said many times, the expectation that others must believe as you do, and the relentless effort to coerce that belief.

So um, why is your screen name "evangelicalhumanist" and why are you continually evangelizing???? I don't object to this, I'm only asking, why are your sales efforts so different than that of any other ideology?

That name was chosen long ago, and is the name on my own writings and my own blog for quite a few years, so it's a little late to change it now. I do regret the choice, and it was made mostly tongue-in-cheek, meant more to be fun and provocative than self-descriptive.

As to why am I continually "evangelizing," it's because I like to discuss and argue, and nodding one's head and agreeing with everything everybody else says is pretty much the antithesis of stimulating conversation.

So why are you always worrying about whether gods exist or not etc?

As I've said so many times before, I do not worry "about whether gods exist or not." I worry about what gods people give life and force to on this earth by acting out their own beliefs. The gods in all their heads do become very real here on earth, and often enough make life a misery for others. Let me give you two tiny examples, from this past weekend alone. First, someone calling themselves "Anonymous" posted the following on my blog just yesterday morning!

What a sad sad person you must be, to look for love with another man, to believe that this is all you have......without Jesus you are dead my friend......are you prepared to take on eternity with you being your best friend? Have you managed to bring yourself in permanent joy or are you still seeking.......you are still seeking, your time is running out, and you will be seeking forever, because you deny the only Being which can help you, I feel so sorry for you... You fell for satan's trap and what did it bring you? Unholiness, lawlessness, immorality, etc.

Gotta love them loving Christians, eh? For the record, I've been listening to that sort of trash all of my life. It's a wonder I don't just commit seppuku on the spot, out of sheer shame for being me!

Second, as reported in The Toronto Star on Saturday, Toronto's Coptic Christians are threatening to pull their children out of our Catholic school system because that system is entertaining notions of "gay equality." Also, our public system already has that, so the Copts could do no better than go private ("we are a rich church, so we'll fund a new school if we have to" says priest Jeremiah Attaalla).

(See the article here: thestar.com mobile: article)

The fact that this would harm the Catholic school system greatly, or that forcing that system to go back to hating/excluding their gay students would harm those students greatly, is simply not important to them. Trying to force society to behave as they wish is all that matters.

And just for fun, let me quote from that article: "the Coptic Church is vehemently opposed to any education about homosexuality." Then let me paraphrase that: "Ignorance of what we don't like, however much a natural part of the real world, must be preserved - even in the educational system!"

[Typist]

Ok dude, whatever you say...

[Arising_uk]

Ok, cool. Using your penetrating analysis you have revealed aphilosophy ideology to be nothing more than a pathetic scam.

Not so, as I see no subs being asked for. What I do see is that it has no coherent content other that what its cobbled together from the standard gnu sources.

Given your conclusion, it would intellectually honest of you to now discard your supposed interest in aphilosophy ideology entirely, in the same way you discard reported sightings of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Who says I do?
http://www.flickr.com/groups/noodliness/pool/
http://www.venganza.org/category/sightings/

But as usual you assume about others, as whilst I have little interest in your 'aphilosophy', given that you can't say what it is, I do have an interest in gnus who propose what you do, not thinking, and as such I am always interested if they actually have any concrete techniques for what they propose? And importantly to me, whether they have any explanation or description for the words, "thought" and "thinking"? And even more importantly whether they've come up with any coherent conclusions that can be of use to us in a world of global capitalism.

It's over. It's done. You've been there, done that, and the T-shirt wasn't worth buying.

Again with your assumptions.

This is good. Really, it is. Progress.

You've cleared out one more pile of conceptual trash that would have had to been discarded sooner or later anyway. You're ahead of the curve by doing it right from the start.

Have you any idea what you are talking about?

And now your mind is cleared, allowing you to more directly inspect whatever it is that is compelling you to hit the reply button all day long every day.

I have no need for this as I know why I reply to you and those that I do reply to.

[Typist]

What I do see is that it has no coherent content other that what its cobbled together from the standard gnu sources.

Exactly, it's a complete mess.

Please feel free to debunk, discard, dispute, destroy, diminish, and disagree with aphilosophy as much as you like. The whole point of aphilosophy concepts is that they should destroy themselves, and leave "no coherent content" in their wake.

What you will learn by this process is that the analysis of aphilosophy concepts is a method students commonly use for delaying the aphilosophy experience. This is completely normal, and for most of us, we just have to go through it.

Again, because you aren't really interested in this topic, you've not applied yourself to understanding it, and thus will continue to do things like trying to evaluate something that is explicitly about exploring outside of thought by the rules of philosophy.

But as usual you assume about others, as whilst I have little interest in your 'aphilosophy',

You have little interest, but you keep replying, replying, replying. This is exactly what I've been saying all along.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.





"The purpose of the word is to convey ideas.


When the ideas are grasped, the words are forgotten.


Where can I find a man who has forgotten words?


He is the one I would like to talk to."

~~~ Chuang Tzu ~~~







......................












.

[evangelicalhumanist]

Ok dude, whatever you say...

How odd. With your addiction to typing, those few keystrokes couldn't have provided you with even a modest rush! Sorry to have so let you down.

[Typist]

"Where can I find a man who has forgotten words?
He is the one I would like to talk to."

Wow, good one Bill! Clever, and right on target.

It's funny, cause you'd never know it from watching me here, but when you get me out in the woods I can wander around for weeks and not be a sayin nuttin.

Sit me down in front of a computer, I become Mr. Mouth.

I blame the whole thing on Steve Jobs!

[Typist]

How odd. With your addiction to typing, those few keystrokes couldn't have provided you with even a modest rush! Sorry to have so let you down.

Well, you know, I've stated my opinion on those topics so many times. At this point the only way left to freak you out is to like, act mature and stuff.

OMG!!

I'm slowly (so very slowly) learning from these conversations. I've stated repeatedly that I believe theism and atheism to be fundamentally the same, faith based belief systems. Nothing's changed there, but...

So, why don't I start acting like I believe my own words?

You see, I gave up debunking theists when I was 17. I figured, their system is based on faith, as they clearly declare, so how do you argue with faith, using logic? Such a procedure would be nonsensical. So I leave the theists alone in peace to do their thing.

Bit by tiny little bit, I'm ever so slowly learning how to do that with you too. I'm racing forward, at um, geological speeds!

But wait just one darn minute, and let me tell you right now why you're wrong, Wrong, WRONG!

Oops... Reality just came crashing back down upon me.

[Arising_uk]

Exactly, it's a complete mess.

Please feel free to debunk, discard, dispute, destroy, diminish, and disagree with aphilosophy as much as you like. The whole point of aphilosophy concepts is that they should destroy themselves, and leave "no coherent content" in their wake.

But you haven't said what this content is or what any of these concepts are!?

What you will learn by this process is that the analysis of aphilosophy concepts is a method students commonly use for delaying the aphilosophy experience. This is completely normal, and for most of us, we just have to go through it.

What concepts? What students? What subject? What experience?

Are you sure you're not a marxist as you have the same approach to questions? Or is it just your religious background that causes this? Or is it just that like most gnus you have no coherent thought about what you say.

Again, because you aren't really interested in this topic, you've not applied yourself to understanding it, and thus will continue to do things like trying to evaluate something that is explicitly about exploring outside of thought by the rules of philosophy.

Again with your assumptions about what others think. If there's one thing I'm realising its that the 'aphilosopher' thinks they are mindreaders.

How would you know if there are any 'rules' in philosophy given you've said you've not read any? There's another thing I'm learning about the 'aphilosopher', they have much to say about what they state they don't know.

You have little interest, but you keep replying, replying, replying. This is exactly what I've been saying all along.

And you think a reply shows little interest? Have you noticed that my replys are in general questions. Why don't you take your head out of your gnu arse and try answering them for once?

What are you describing when you say "thought" and "thinking"?

What techniques do you offer to achieve these states you talk about?

What insights does 'aphilosophy' offer to the subjects of ethics and morals, epistemology and metaphysics? Apart from being a poor metaphysic itself.

[evangelicalhumanist]

How odd. With your addiction to typing, those few keystrokes couldn't have provided you with even a modest rush! Sorry to have so let you down.

Well, you know, I've stated my opinion on those topics so many times. At this point the only way left to freak you out is to like, act mature and stuff.

I'm slowly (so very slowly) learning from these conversations. I've stated repeatedly that I believe theism and atheism to be fundamentally the same, faith based belief systems. Nothing's changed there, but...

OMG!!

Good! Let us go there together, and really try to get to the meat – the very bone – of this beast neither of us can kill.

We both talk endlessly about “beliefs” and “ideologies.” But we do it from different angles. I have not, in all the posts I’ve written, ever told anybody what they should or should not believe – only what I believe, and why. Nor have I told anybody what the consequences of their beliefs (like heaven and hell) must be. But then, more importantly than that, I have never once told anybody, not you, not anyone on this board, not anyone elsewhere on the net, and not even those I speak to face-to-face on a daily basis, what they should do (respecting their own persons) as a consequence of what I believe and don’t believe.

Unlike the communists, I’ve never pronounced on who should be allowed to own property. Unlike the Christians, I’ve never pronounced on who should be allowed or forbidden to be married. I’ve voted against capital punishment, and for same-sex marriage, but only because I was given the opportunity – that is, I was asked by my state (Canada) to speak to those issues on my ballot. I have voted on other issues in which I was in the minority, and accepted the will of the majority and remain a (mostly) law-abiding citizen.
 

But take a look at both of those issues. (And while we’re at it, let’s look at the issue of physician-assisted suicide, as well – which I will also vote in favour of, if given the chance). In the case of capital punishment, I voted against the power of the state to do what I believed to be wrong to another person “on my behalf.” On same-sex marriage, I voted against the power of the state to declare what relationships others ought to enjoy. On suicide, I will vote that the state has no place in the end-of-life decisions of its citizens, just as it has no place in their bedrooms.

Many of the religious debates that so plague us, however, are not about such things as those at all. They are, rather, about insisting that the state step in and prevent other people doing what your particular belief systems says they ought not to do. Tell me California’s prop 8 wasn’t precisely that – give me the lie, do!

I do wish I could make you see that there is a difference between my arguments and those of others – or alternately, that you could make me see that I’m wrong, in which case I would have to go back and seriously reconsider my positions.

So, why don't I start acting like I believe my own words?

I don’t know. I seem (to me) to act as if I believe mine. As I admitted earlier, I am perhaps too earnest, but there is, after all “The Importance of Being Earnest.”

You see, I gave up debunking theists when I was 17. I figured, their system is based on faith, as they clearly declare, so how do you argue with faith, using logic? Such a procedure would be nonsensical. So I leave the theists alone in peace to do their thing.

Not quite, I hope. It’s one thing to give up debunking their beliefs. You won’t win that one. It’s an entirely different thing to give up denying them the right, based on their beliefs, to define the terms of your life. It may even be (I hope for you, as it is for me) right to insist that belief cannot give license to mutilate the genitals of defenseless children. Or perhaps not. But do have a read of Aayan Hirsi Ali (Infidel) and her description of the procedure, if you’d like to sharpen your perspective.

Bit by tiny little bit, I'm ever so slowly learning how to do that with you too. I'm racing forward, at um, geological speeds!

To “deal with me?” An odd turn of phrase, as though I were some garden pest, rather than someone who has – possibly more than others here – at least made the effort to understand where you’re coming from. (Well, I suppose that could be considered the mark of a pest, if you don’t really want anybody to know where you are coming from.)

But wait just one darn minute, and let me tell you right now why you're wrong, Wrong, WRONG!

Oops... Reality just came crashing back down upon me.

Wrong? Have been frequently, and will be again. Still trying to learn. Sorry that the process irritates you so.

(Edited to add one little, but important, postscript. I am not the smartest person in the room. I did not finish highschool, as so many abused children in public care did not, though I did eventually make it to VP of IT for a very large financial institution. But in spite of my lack of formal education, I believe myself to be honest. I hope I am not deluded, though I admit the possibility.)

[Typist]

But you haven't said what this content is or what any of these concepts are!?

In actual documented fact, I've been typing about them relentlessly for months. People are complaining that I'm hijacking threads with my endless typing of aphilosophy concepts, Rick Lewis is suing me for disk space destruction, I'm boring many forum members to tears, the national guard has been called out, and yet....

You keep saying I'm not talking enough.

What concepts? What students? What subject? What experience?

Be here now.

Are you sure you're not a marxist as you have the same approach to questions? Or is it just your religious background that causes this? Or is it just that like most gnus you have no coherent thought about what you say.

Be here now.

Again with your assumptions about what others think. If there's one thing I'm realising its that the 'aphilosopher' thinks they are mindreaders.

Be here now.

How would you know if there are any 'rules' in philosophy given you've said you've not read any? There's another thing I'm learning about the 'aphilosopher', they have much to say about what they state they don't know.

Be here now.

And you think a reply shows little interest? Have you noticed that my replys are in general questions. Why don't you take your head out of your gnu arse and try answering them for once?

Be here now.

What are you describing when you say "thought" and "thinking"?

Be here now.

What techniques do you offer to achieve these states you talk about?

Be here now.

What insights does 'aphilosophy' offer to the subjects of ethics and morals, epistemology and metaphysics? Apart from being a poor metaphysic itself.

Be here now.

[Arising_uk]

In actual documented fact, I've been typing about them relentlessly for months. People are complaining that I'm hijacking threads with my endless typing of aphilosophy concepts, Rick Lewis is suing me for disk space destruction, I'm boring many forum members to tears, the national guard has been called out, and yet....

You keep saying I'm not talking enough.

And here is your deafness. As it's obvious that you type a lot, its that you don't answer any questions that is the issue.

Be here now.

Be where when?

Be here now.

Be where when?

Be here now.

Be where when?

Be here now.

Be where when?

Be here now.

Be where when?

Be here now.

Be where when?

Be here now.

Be where when?

Be here now.

Be where when?

[Typist]

Good! Let us go there together, and really try to get to the meat – the very bone – of this beast neither of us can kill.

The beast neither of us want to kill.

We both talk endlessly about “beliefs” and “ideologies.”

According to the Mayan calendar, our talk will end on December 21st, 2012.

Many of the religious debates that so plague us, however, are not about such things as those at all. They are, rather, about insisting that the state step in and prevent other people doing what your particular belief systems says they ought not to do. Tell me California’s prop 8 wasn’t precisely that – give me the lie, do!

The Taliban aside, what theists are doing in these circumstances is the same thing you are doing. They are expressing their point of view, and voting for it where they can.

These theists you refer to are doing the same thing you're doing. They are lumping all gays in to one big group, and then making statements about that group. You routinely lump all theists in to one big group, and then make statements about that group. I read very little recognition from you that many theists embrace gays, and that many theists are gay.

You are looking for a group to be superior to, and the traditional groups used for this purpose have been made unavailable in your circles by political correctness.

A ll that said, I fully share you disdain for gay hating theists. I just don't obsess about them as you do, probably because I'm not gay. When they get around to aiming their hate at nerds, then my shit is going to hit the fan!

I do wish I could make you see that there is a difference between my arguments and those of others – or alternately, that you could make me see that I’m wrong, in which case I would have to go back and seriously reconsider my positions.

Because you are a person of logic, I would suggest a logical course to you.

When you are in a position to take meaningful action on behalf of your positions, such as in the voting booth, then do so.

During the vast majority of time when such opportunities are not present in the current moment, let your positions go. Give them a rest. They'll still be there when you need them.

I hope I may gently suggest that crusading against theism on forums full of atheists is not a fully logical endeavor. Just as crusading for aphilosphy on a philosophy forum is not.

As I admitted earlier, I am perhaps too earnest,

We share that. My gravestone is going to read, "Enthusiasm, his best and worst feature."

Not quite, I hope. It’s one thing to give up debunking their beliefs. You won’t win that one. It’s an entirely different thing to give up denying them the right, based on their beliefs, to define the terms of your life.

The law does this every day of the week.

If we wish to change the law, the challenge is to persuade those who don't agree with us, not those who already do.

It may even be (I hope for you, as it is for me) right to insist that belief cannot give license to mutilate the genitals of defenseless children. Or perhaps not. But do have a read of Aayan Hirsi Ali (Infidel) and her description of the procedure, if you’d like to sharpen your perspective.

I'm much more worried about the Mexican mob smuggling nukes in to Dallas.

To “deal with me?” An odd turn of phrase, as though I were some garden pest,

I can't see where I said "deal with you". What I meant was "allow you to be you" without constantly challenging your faith. You know, every time you say "theism this, or theism that" there's no law requiring me to jump up and get in your face. Perhaps I should give it a rest? That was my thought...

rather than someone who has – possibly more than others here – at least made the effort to understand where you’re coming from.

Yes, you have indeed, and it wasn't at all my intention to blow that off. If I wrote poorly, please allow me to apologize and correct the record.

Wrong? Have been frequently, and will be again. Still trying to learn. Sorry that the process irritates you so.

What irritates me is my own compulsive need to stick my nose in to your business, and debate your beliefs over and over, when anybody with an IQ above 55 would know it's time to let it go, and let you be you.

I keep suggesting you let your anti-theism jihad go, so maybe I should try to let my anti-anti-theism jihad go too. That's all I'm trying to do here, let you have your say, without jumping on every word and trying to rip it to pieces.

My predicament is that I have a natural inborn knack for shredding the group consensus where ever I go. It just happens, effortlessly. But I don't have the sense to grasp that nobody wants this silly service, and that there are much better things I could be doing with my time.

I'm mostly at peace with this, because I have to allow me to be me as well, and anyway, it's gettin on too late to cook up a new me.

One value I do see, is that when I can find sturdy people like yourself, and we kick the shit out of each other, and then realize we can survive that, that's a cool kind of friend to have.

[Typist]

As it's obvious that you type a lot, its that you don't answer any questions that is the issue.

I answer your questions, you DO NOT read the answers.

I just gave you a very precise answer. Seriously, I'm not being sarcastic.

BE HERE NOW.

If you want answers, go do it!

THAT is my answer.

[Arising_uk]

If you want answers, go do it!

THAT is my answer.

Ever thought that the meaning of your words is the response they get?

You think bold and a larger font makes your answer any more true or coherent?

Again with your assumptions!

What makes you think I haven't 'done it', whatever this 'it' is? What makes you think that I'm not here now?

That I don't come to a philosophy forum and write incoherent contradictory statements?

That I don't talk the new-age waffle that you do?

That I've studied philosophy as well?

That I don't make assumptions about others nor think I can mindread?

That I ask questions about what others claim?

That all I ask is for you to say what you think "thought" and "thinking" are? A simple description will do, try John Locke.

You talk much about these things and how we should stop doing them, all I ask is what meaning you have for them? It'd be the least I thought you could do given what you say.