fresco wrote:Rosborne,
The nondualistic position holds neither observer nor observed to be a priori. Questions like "did the universe exist before observers" are meaningless because "time" is a psychological construct projected onto "his/her reality" by a "conscious observer". This is a simple, yet profound point.
Unless Time is not just a psychological construct.
Is your basic position that life is but a dream (the Row Row Row your Boat stance?), and everything is a personal psychological construct?
Wolf_ODonnell wrote:Setanta wrote:It is as witless to assert that all atheists "believe" (or rather disbelieve) the same things as it is to assert that all theists believe the same things. The subject of god never enters my head except when i am posting here. I never discuss it "in real life."
Frankly, I think you should keep your sex life to yourself...
You are a very bad man . . . i've talked this over with god, and she will visit upon you a noisome and vile pox for that remark . . .
Rosborne,
You persist in looking for dualistic answers.
The dualistic separation of "we" the "water" OR "we" the "banks" from each other involves the general position of not being able to rise above "the river" to ever know what a river "is"......but then the word "know" becomes the the focal point....epistemology (know) and ontology (is) are inextricable.
I'm an atheist. But somewhere on one of the multitude of threads someone (Edgar, Frank Apisa, Set?) said that really truly even if you do or don't believe in God you are an agnostic - because you don't KNOW. It's true the faithful and the atheist are agnostic to to outside observer.
I like the apatheist idea though.
And to the original thought about atheists thinking about god: well I do, and every time I do I'm conflicted between what a ridiculous concept it is and what tosser he must be if he does exist.
couldn't agree with you more.
Phoenix32890 wrote:Then I realized that humankind, with all our knowledge, knows relatively little about the workings of the universe.
False!
In fact there is no way to quantify / qualify the whole body of available knowledge, thus there is no way to know how much on a percentile basis man does or does not know of the supposed total; let alone how much on a percentile basis man has the present / future functionality to know.
hingehead wrote:I'm an atheist. But somewhere on one of the multitude of threads someone (Edgar, Frank Apisa, Set?) said that really truly even if you do or don't believe in God you are an agnostic - because you don't KNOW.
False! Only in as much as one can claim that pigs do fly (or equally extraordinary wholly unsubstantiated claim) can you successfully argue that "you don't KNOW".
