Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Sat Feb 01, 2020 3:10 am**

gaffo wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2020 3:09 am we both value wisdom, and so we are both on the same side, my we help each other in that endever (I lifetime struggle).

Yep. I like that sentiment.

Posted: **Sat Feb 01, 2020 3:30 am**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2020 3:10 am
gaffo wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2020 3:09 am we both value wisdom, and so we are both on the same side, my we help each other in that endever (I lifetime struggle).
Yep. I like that sentiment.

I always suspected we have much in common, and why i get feathers ruffled when i see your posts about "Athiests this and Athiests that" (i see you only see the "i hate Christian" loudmouths - which are a minority in my "camp" -all of them former Christians, usually from Fundie homes - so at war with your God................the rest of "us" like me - the majority of Athiests (75 percent) , are not loud mouths, NOT at war with your God (fk worship any fking god you want - including speghti(sp0 moster if it floats your boat (i ties in with the whole Gay-thing" - like Ted Haggers and the 100 other "devout christians railing against gays (ya the rail against so much because they themselves are GAY!!!!!!!!!!!!! - so the "so called former Athiests loudmouth "athiests" are still hating their former God - because they are not really Athiests!, they are still Christians, just as Ted Haggerd is fking boys and man when not in from the alter decrying the evils of being Gay).

I am not a war with your God, nor any other Gods, i value all religious works - yes i do use my "horse sense" (conscience) to determine value of particular works - Amos is my personal fav, hating Pride, second is Jonah, liking universal humanism, and Job is my third, valuing humility (why ask why god is shitting on me - he is not me, so has reasons or not, either way its beyond me as a man to understand).

and ya, those three works i do value more than all the other works in both the OT and NT.

Mark in NT is my forth - for the humanity of Jesus.

the rest of both the OT and NT is "erm ok, mostly nice"

--------------

then there is the filth, like Liviticus, and 1/3 of the Torah - where stoning and killing for reason found in the lesser parts of the Koran are to be read and affirmed,

those books i use my "hell bound because i am an Atheist" horse sense (Conscience) to reject.

thanks for reply, you have the trifecta Sir, education, heart, and thought.

for that i thank you and welcome discussion.

Posted: **Sat Feb 01, 2020 3:43 am**

gaffo wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2020 2:45 am
RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 4:07 pm
I'm also not anti-religious. I have no interest in changing anyone else's beliefs (which would be impossible anyway) and I'm certainly not anyone's enemy.
my view too.

but still unclear when you say you are not a Atheist?

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 4:07 pm Religion is a very broad subject. In this article I was only addressing the silliness of it all. Here is another of my views on religion: "An Atheist's Defence of Christianity."
I'll check the link out - i guess i have too............ugh (some sort of mumbo jumbo about not being a Thiest nor Athiest at the same time?) - let the 6 beers metabolize from my liver first.

or maybe you can just tell me how you are not an Atheist, while not also a Theist, to save me the future bother to check your link tomorrow (next week) - lol.

It's the label I reject. I think it is absurd to identify oneself in terms of what one does not believe. If I identified myself as a non-believer in every ludicrous and inane thing that people passionately embrace I would never be able to list them all. I'd be an a-astrologist, an a-spiritualist, an a-fatalist, an a-supernaturalist, an a-mysticist, an a-determinist, an a-physicalist, an a-logcial-positivist, an a-collectivist, an a-altruist, an a-post-modernist, an a-Kantian, an a-Humean, and an a-theist, to name a few.

I also have no interest in convincing anyone else that their views are wrong. I'm not, "opposed," to others mistaken beliefs, and believe everyone has their own mind and must use them to decide for themselves what to believe. I honor their right to do that, but that does not mean I have to pretend that their beliefs are right or important if they are the typical absurdities that most believe.

I also do not subscribe to any ideology; I am not a, "member," of any -ism. My views and beliefs are entirely my own, as I believe everyone's should be. As soon as someone says, "I'm a [name any ideology, school of philosophy, social or political view] I already know they are mistaken.

Probably more information than you wanted. Thanks for the question, though.

Posted: **Sat Feb 01, 2020 3:55 am**

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Fri Jan 31, 2020 3:15 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jan 31, 2020 8:03 am I have written about it many times.

1. DNA/RNA wise ALL humans has an inherent potential of an existential crisis which for the majority is exuded subliminally and manifested as various indirect negative psychological feelings and behaviors.

2. DNA/RNA wise, ALL humans are "programmed" to survive till the inevitable.

3. To ensure survival [2] all humans are "programmed" with a subliminal* terrible fears to avoid premature death. * note subliminal, not so much conscious fears.

4. DNA/RNA wise, ALL humans [not non-humans] are "programmed" to be self-conscious, self-aware and the likes.

5. Thus all 'normal' self-aware humans are aware of inevitable death which trigger the subconscious to activate 3 above, i.e. subliminal fears.

6. Therefore there is a contradiction between 2 [survive else fears] and 5 [naturally cannot survive ultimately]. This generate a cognitive dissonance, i.e. the inherent unavoidable existential crisis faced by all 'normal'* humans. * mental cases are the exception.
VA, I sincerely mean this kindly, but, if you really believe any of those things, you have a mental problem. There are no mysterious, "subliminal," or, "subconscious," influences except to those suffering from some form of schizophrenia, or extreme neurosis. If you really have these irrational fears of death, especially if you allow them to affect your thinking or behavior, you have a very serious problem. When you attribute these irrational fears and mysterious causes to, "all humans," you are projecting, attributing to others your own personal psychology. Perhaps you are hanging around with the wrong people. In my eighty years I have known thousands of people, the only ones who have the kinds of experiences you are describing (and they are very rare) are sick.

I do thank you for explaining. Just as I suspected, there is no, "existential crises," except, perhaps in your own life. The rest of us, fortunately, do not suffer any such thing. You do not need to either, but you'll have to get rid of the psycho-babble if you want to be rid of your problem.

It is unfortunate your 80 years of life is filled with so much ignorance.

As usual you have not provided any researched evidence for your points. You are only expressing your shallow personal opinions.

Note "subliminal"

Subliminal stimuli (/sʌbˈlɪmɪnəl/) (the prefix sub- literally "below, or less than"),[1] contrary to supraliminal stimuli or "above threshold", are any sensory stimuli below an individual's threshold for conscious perception.[2] A 2012 review of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies shows that subliminal stimuli activate specific regions of the brain despite participants being unaware.[3] Visual stimuli may be quickly flashed before an individual can process them, or flashed and then masked, thereby interrupting the processing. Audio stimuli may be played below audible volumes or masked by other stimuli.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subliminal_stimuli

You are banging on a strawman again.
I did not claim I have an irrational fear of death. Besides, all humans are "programmed" not to have a conscious or irrational fear of death [with exceptions]. This is to ensure all humans are not paralyzed with the conscious fear of death, thus not being able to do anything productive.

But the unconscious mind being 90% more powerful is fed with the fact of inevitable death, thus is stimulated to react in various indirect ways, such as Angst, anxieties and all sort of uneasiness.

Posted: **Sat Feb 01, 2020 4:08 am**

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2020 3:43 am
gaffo wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2020 2:45 am
RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 4:07 pm
I'm also not anti-religious. I have no interest in changing anyone else's beliefs (which would be impossible anyway) and I'm certainly not anyone's enemy.
my view too.

but still unclear when you say you are not a Atheist?

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 4:07 pm Religion is a very broad subject. In this article I was only addressing the silliness of it all. Here is another of my views on religion: "An Atheist's Defence of Christianity."
I'll check the link out - i guess i have too............ugh (some sort of mumbo jumbo about not being a Thiest nor Athiest at the same time?) - let the 6 beers metabolize from my liver first.

or maybe you can just tell me how you are not an Atheist, while not also a Theist, to save me the future bother to check your link tomorrow (next week) - lol.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 4:07 pm It's the label I reject. I think it is absurd to identify oneself in terms of what one does not believe.
I understand, just have a hard time with "i not an atheist nor a theist" mindset.

maybe you are an Agnostic?

that fine if you are, i understand there i limits to language, but come on man, how can you not be either a Thiest nor an Athiest????

i have no beef with Agnostics, if honest ones (maybe i an one too - though self identify with being an Athiest (though not "i know for sure there is not God due to proove of his nonexistance). I've been an athiest since age twelve in late 70's due to lack of evidence of existance of a God/s.

I tend to view (maybe via predjudice(sp)) agnostics as "fence sitters".

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 4:07 pm I also have no interest in convincing anyone else that their views are wrong. I'm not, "opposed," to others mistaken beliefs, and believe everyone has their own mind and must use them to decide for themselves what to believe. I honor their right to do that, but that does not mean I have to pretend that their beliefs are right or important if they are the typical absurdities that most believe.
I agree fully, and welcome debates about the nature of God/s per perticular works of rel texts,,,,,,,,,,,,,and willing to converse about concepts with "Beliviers" morality, right and wrong etc........

what i have no interest in is the debate about the existance of God. the Gods. such debates are folly, for i cannot prove the gods (Heil Zeus!!!!!!!!!) exists, do not exist. such debates literally bore me (as to the "oh the baby feotuses (abortion) , and Guns (and common law right - not a 2nd amendment right only).

get me on Jury Pardon power and i all in!!!!!!!!!!!!!! otherwise.........zzzzzzzzzzzzzz,

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 4:07 pm I also do not subscribe to any ideology; I am not a, "member," of any -ism. My views and beliefs are entirely my own,
and what are those beliefs? honestly asking and welcome discussion of them, i may agree or disagree with them.

you are an Agnostic??? asking here for understanding of your views.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 4:07 pm as I believe everyone's should be. As soon as someone says, "I'm a [name any ideology, school of philosophy, social or political view] I already know they are mistaken.
yes i too affirm the liberty of thought, regardless of its folly.

liberty of action? maybe not so much, but that is for another discussion.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 4:07 pm Probably more information than you wanted. Thanks for the question, though.
NO NO!!!!!!!!! I'm not veg, i weclome info, the more you give me the more i understand you and to know where you are coming from!!!!!!!!!!!! if you nor i am a troll then its all good!

lets discuss and debate and agree or dissagree about our views - that is why this forum is here yes? - to allow you to understand me and vise versa,

and to then agree or disagree as two adults valuing others views.

-God dammit! folks smarter than me (most here?) tell me how to reply without my posts being "greyed out". ;-/. i'm too dumb to figure it out myself.

help in reply edicate welcome.

Posted: **Sat Feb 01, 2020 4:19 am**

Lacewing wrote: ↑Fri Jan 31, 2020 8:10 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jan 31, 2020 9:31 am It is like that intuitive feelings you get when you don't consciously know why, but there is some uneasy feelings that you felt when you are face to face with certain people.
Yes... I know intuitive receptors can be very informative -- and no, I have no existential crisis.

You can deny but as I had argued, all humans are "programmed" with an inherent unavoidable 'existential crisis'.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jan 31, 2020 8:15 am I am confident you will not be able to show my premises are false.
Well, they may be true to you. But they are not true to me, so that much is false. You cannot simply SAY they are true for everyone, using your own rationalization, and then claim that's your proof.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jan 31, 2020 8:15 am Thus my inference is based on justified premises, not made up ones.
According to who? How did your premises come to exist if not for you making them up?

My premises are based on empirical evidences.
For example, 'all humans are "programmed" to survive till the inevitable' is supported by the common knowledge, i.e. no human will volunteer to be killed except the mental cases of the suicidal.
Would you agree to be killed, shot, executed now? Do you think your relatives, friends and any 'normal' person would agree to be killed?
As you can see I am not making it up but what I have presented is empirically based and very rational.

I suggest you present your respective counters to my points 2-6 in my arguments above.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jan 31, 2020 8:15 am Note the real evidence is >80% of humans are driven by the existential crisis into various theistic religions.
The central focus of all theistic religion is driven by the existential crisis, i.e. clinging onto to a God for salvation to eternal life and escape from eternal death and hellfire. Show me I am wrong on this?
I can see three examples right off that differ from your conclusion...

1) Adults may seek out religion for all kinds of reasons that have nothing to do with an existential crisis. Simply, they are going through a hard phase in their life, or they seek fellowship, or their friends/family urge them to join.

2) Children are indoctrinated into it before they can know any better or choose for themselves.

3) Religion actively seeks out people to join.

Then, the patterns and programming keep people involved in it, and they enjoy its benefits too.

These situations probably explain the majority of people in religion, and none of them are due to existential crisis.

True there are other reasons how people ended up with a religion.
But the main core reason why the majority people stick to a religion is due to the inherent existential crisis.

Note the core of Christianity is this;

John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

It is so obvious John 3:16 is related to the inherent existential crisis.
It is the same with Islam.
Note Christianity and Islam comprised 60-70% of all religious people.

It is this promise of 'eternal life' that will soothe the terrible subliminal pains exuded from the existential crisis.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jan 31, 2020 8:15 amAs stated, all my premises are supported by justified premises.
As you see it. There are more ways to see it.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jan 31, 2020 8:15 amYes, I have an ultimate cause of some sort, i.e. to rid the world of theistic religions some day in the future [not now nor present] so there will be no more theistic related evil acts inspired by a non-existent God.
I can appreciate that to some degree. Although, I don't want to tell other people what to believe, I just don't want them telling me what to believe. And, I don't want them praying to some imaginary god on the U.S. Senate floor or when taking a government office. To me, that seems absurd.

Yes, it seems that theistic-related evil is some of the worst. Ancient theists are the creators of Hell and Satan and Demons and eternal damnation... and many theists still preach about it and threaten people with it. Seems sick and foolish and primitive. Seems like such people could use some theism-detox. Maybe that's what you can focus on: a detox program, rather than coming up with a more clever belief to replace theism. People will just turn that into a religion, don't you know? Maybe that's what you actually want -- to be yet another religious founder who bases beliefs on his own personal/limited conclusions? Why are there so many people who fancy themselves and their thoughts this way?

It is only your imagination. I did not propose another religion to replace existing religions.
As I had argued the existential crisis is inherent and unavoidable.
At present religions [pros and cons] are the most effective methods to deal with it.
Since the cons of theism at present is very terrible, we have to come up with 'fool proof'* methods to replace theism and religions to deal with the inherent and unavoidable existential crisis.
*'Fool proof' means they are highly net-pros with none or very minimal cons [negative].

Posted: **Sat Feb 01, 2020 4:50 am**

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2020 4:19 am You can deny but as I had argued, all humans are "programmed" with an inherent unavoidable 'existential crisis'.

I'm not denying... I'm disagreeing.

You can argue and insist all you want. You can think and claim you know all kinds of things. You can think you know better about me than I do, regardless of anything I tell you. That simply shows that you're not worth talking to because it's all about what you think. It's not a two-way exchange -- so that's just pointless and stupid to participate in.

There are too many people who want to tell everyone how it is for everyone. It's absurd. Good luck to you.

Posted: **Sat Feb 01, 2020 5:06 am**

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2020 4:50 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2020 4:19 am You can deny but as I had argued, all humans are "programmed" with an inherent unavoidable 'existential crisis'.
I'm not denying... I'm disagreeing.

You can argue and insist all you want. You can think and claim you know all kinds of things. You can think you know better about me than I do, regardless of anything I tell you. That simply shows that you're not worth talking to because it's all about what you think. It's not a two-way exchange -- so that's just pointless and stupid to participate in.

There are too many people who want to tell everyone how it is for everyone. It's absurd. Good luck to you.

Not a "two-way-exchange."???
Note I am presenting my views [strongly] and is inviting you to counter with rational justifications. This is what this Philosophy Forum is about.

Posted: **Sat Feb 01, 2020 5:07 am**

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2020 4:19 am

John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

yes, Saul and John won out in the Christian Dogma wars 1700 yrs ago, this is the core of Christology today.

Posted: **Sat Feb 01, 2020 5:10 am**

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2020 4:19 am
Yes, it seems that theistic-related evil is some of the worst. Ancient theists are the creators of Hell and Satan and Demons and eternal damnation... and many theists still preach about it and threaten people with it. Seems sick and foolish and primitive. Seems like such people could use some theism-detox. Maybe that's what you can focus on: a detox program, rather than coming up with a more clever belief to replace theism. People will just turn that into a religion, don't you know? Maybe that's what you actually want -- to be yet another religious founder who bases beliefs on his own personal/limited conclusions? Why are there so many people who fancy themselves and their thoughts this way?

too bad the Apocalypse of Peter never mad the canon.

Posted: **Sat Feb 01, 2020 3:22 pm**

Hi gaffo. Let me answer your last request first. I used the window below because it allows me to display the actual code. The window will scroll down, so make sure you see it all.

Code: Select all

"[quote]" is an "open quote" symbol.
"[/quote]" is a "close quote" symbol.
Everything between and open quote symbol and  close quote symbol will
appear with a yellowish background. To elminate that background you must
use a "close quote" symbol ([/quote]) for every "open quote symbol ([quote])

Most "open quote" symbols will look like these:

[quote=gaffo post_id=439972 time=1580526509 user_id=15438]
[quote=RCSaunders post_id=439967 time=1580524980 user_id=16196]
[quote=gaffo post_id=439946 time=1580521537 user_id=15438]

Just make sure you use a "close quote symbol" ([/quote]) at the end
of your response for every open quote that has been used. Such as the
example following:
________________________________________________________________
[quote=gaffo post_id=439972 time=1580526509 user_id=15438]
Something you wrote quoted .......
[quote=RCSaunders post_id=439967 time=1580524980 user_id=16196]
Something I wrote quoted .....[/quote]
Something else you wrote quoted .....[/quote]
Your comment .................
________________________________________________________________

I've pasted the above example in my response so you can see how it looks.

After you have made your response be sure to use, "Preview," to see how
it looks. If you still have yellowish shaded areas you'll need additional close
quote symbols.

Here's the example from above:
_____________________________________________________________________________

gaffo wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2020 4:08 am Something you wrote quoted .......
RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2020 3:43 am Something I wrote quoted .....
Something else you wrote quoted .....

Your comment .................
_____________________________________________________________________________

If you have any questions, please let me know.

gaffo wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2020 4:08 am I understand, just have a hard time with "i not an atheist nor a theist" mindset.
maybe you are an Agnostic?

Definitely not. I'm absolutely certain their are no deities or any other supernatural existences.

gaffo wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2020 4:08 am lets discuss and debate and agree or dissagree about our views - that is why this forum is here yes? - to allow you to understand me and vise versa,

I'd be delighted to discuss anything of substance, and will if you have any other questions or points to make. Thanks for the response.

RC

Posted: **Sat Feb 01, 2020 4:04 pm**

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2020 3:22 pm Definitely not. I'm absolutely certain their are no deities or any other supernatural existences.

Interesting. How did you get "absolutely certain" of that?

Posted: **Sat Feb 01, 2020 5:54 pm**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2020 4:04 pm
RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2020 3:22 pm Definitely not. I'm absolutely certain their are no deities or any other supernatural existences.
Interesting. How did you get "absolutely certain" of that?

Well not the way you got to believe that everything is only statistically likely, and we certainly aren't going to agree on this, but here goes.

Like Topsy, when asked:

"'Have you ever heard anything about God, Topsy?' The child looked bewildered, but grinned as usual. 'Do you know who made you?' 'Nobody, as I knows on,' said the child, with a short laugh. The idea appeared to amuse her considerably; for her eyes twinkled, and she added, 'I spect I grow'd. Don't think nobody never made me.'" [Chapter 20, Uncle Tom's Cabin]

Topsy was right. It's wrong to believe anything is true when there is absolutely no reason to believe it. There was no reason whatsoever for Topsy to believe, "nobody never made," her. [The double negative there is actually correct.]

All my life I've heard people talk about and have read what people write about these fantastic supernatural things, and I have spent my life looking to see even a hint of such a phenomena, or even to hear one, I'd even settle for feeling one, or smelling one (though I'd stop short at tasting one)--but it's never happened. It is wrong to believe anything is true, when there is no reason to believe it except what other people believe or claim or teach. If anything exists, there must be something about it that has some affect on what I can see, hear, feel, smell, or taste. If a thing exists it must have some affect on the reality I am actually conscious of. That's what the word, "exists," means to me. So, à la Kant, I know God does not exist, "by definition." Since, "God is that which cannot be directly perceived (seen, heard, felt, smelled, or tasted) or deduced from how it affects what can be perceived, God does not exist."

You asked me how I was certain. That's how. You cannot be certain of it that way, which is fine with me.

Posted: **Sat Feb 01, 2020 6:10 pm**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2020 3:02 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2020 2:48 am The enemy assumes what the "victim" projects and responds, positively or negatively, accordingly. The response is in accords to the action, thus a loop does occur.
Nothing in the GR instructs the enemy as to what he is to do. There is no reciprocation, no bottom-side of the cycle, if you will, in the GR. So no "loop." And the actions of the victim are not made in any way contingent on what the perp does or does not do.

The reaction of the "enemy" in the Golden rule necessitates a loop.

Posted: **Sat Feb 01, 2020 6:22 pm**

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2020 5:54 pm You asked me how I was certain. That's how. You cannot be certain of it that way, which is fine with me.

That's why I asked. It's not the kind of thing one can say one is "absolutely certain" about, because proving the non-existence of God would literally take all the knowledge in the universe, at all times and places, to know.

In other words, if you could do it, you would be wrong about there not being a God...there would be, and he would be YOU.

On the other hand, the Theist has a much, much easier burden of proof. All he/she has to do is to show that at some time, at some place, just one genuine act of God happened. It could have been one creation, one miracle, one prayer answered, one intervention, one epiphany, one incarnation, one anything at all...and if that happened, then Atheism would be proved wrong conclusively.

So one CAN prove Atheism wrong. The only remaining question is, "Has it been done?" But one can never prove Atheism right, so one can't even possibly be "absolutely certain" there's no God.

One can only wish or prefer that that would one day turn out to be the case.

Philosophy Now Forum

Silly Religion

Re: Silly Religion

Re: Silly Religion

Re: Silly Religion

Re: Silly Religion

Re: Silly Religion

Re: Silly Religion

Re: Silly Religion

Re: Silly Religion

Re: Silly Religion

Re: Silly Religion

Re: Silly Religion

Re: Silly Religion

Re: Silly Religion

Re: Silly Religion

Re: Silly Religion