Atheism

@Frank Apisa,

Hi Frank, love your stuff.

How's your belief that you have no beliefs coming along?

Quote:

and have avoided "beliefs" like the plague. There is no way you are going to come here and tell me that you have decided that I do have beliefs.

Cliches are like a red rag to a bull to me , believe me when I say I believe they are like the plague.

0 Replies

Crummy morning in New Jersey...wet and cold. Golf is out of the question, but I've got the Internet for entertainment...until this afternoon when the Masters comes on.

Neo…not sure what you were saying in that last post…but, thank you (I think).

Izzy…that’s the way I feel whenever I see a movie about Titanic or Jesus. The ending never seems in doubt. But instead of actually dealing with what I am saying, you seem to be manufacturing something easier to deal with…and then arguing against that.

Here is essentially is what I have said about the words believe and belief:

In the context of a discussion about the true nature of the REALITY of existence…the word “belief” is used mostly to disguise the fact that a guess is being offered. (For the purposes of the next comment, I am going to eliminate consideration of comments of people who claim GOD has given them a personal visit to reveal ITSELF, because of the [possible, almost certain] delusion factor.)

“I believe there is a GOD”…IS a guess being disguised. The person saying it (often using, “I believe in GOD”) simply does not want to say, “It is my guess that a GOD exists.”

“I believe no gods exist”…IS a guess being disguised. The person saying it simply prefers it to saying, “My guess is that no gods exist.”

The use of the word “believe” in both those cases is essentially a manufactured one. Use of the word “guess” would be more accurate.

In my own case, I will not use “believe” in situations like this because I want to be more accurate.

Why does that annoy you, Izzy (or anyone else here) as much as it does?

What is wrong with what is being said there?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I have dealt with what you said, more than once. I do not accept your definitions, and it really doesn't interest me.

We're having a bit of a heat wave right now, so much so that today there are pollution warnings, little wind to remove emissions, plus a load of dust from the Sahara expected later on today.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

I have dealt with what you said, more than once. I do not accept your definitions, and it really doesn't interest me.

What definitions? Deal with what I actually wrote there...that's something you've never done!

Quote:

We're having a bit of a heat wave right now, so much so that today there are pollution warnings, little wind to remove emissions, plus a load of dust from the Sahara expected later on today.

Where the heck are you Izzy. I thought you lived in England.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I don't accept your definitions of belief and reality and will not be drawn in.

I do live in England, in the beautiful South.

Quote:

Parts of the UK could reach the highest level of air pollution on Friday, prompting health warnings.

Warm, still conditions are expected to combine with traffic fumes, pollution from the continent and Saharan dust from the south as it rises to level 10.

Much of the South East and eastern England will see high levels of pollution, although the problem is expected to be short-lived.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32246307

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

I'd give a lot for a bit of Sahara dust right now. Damp and cold...and I want warm and sunny.

Amazing that dust from the Sahara can reach you guys. I never thought about that at all.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Neither did I until last year, when I came out one morning to find my car covered in the stuff. Dirty rain.

We've had a very mild winter overall. Now it's fine walking about outside with no coat or jumper on.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

I'm sorry.
My post was not written to be understood.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I'll get back to you in the morning.

Great Frank, because I'm still trying to understand what you're saying here. Or, more accurately, I guess I'm trying to understand your basis for saying it--what the underlying "logic" (or emotion, or whatever) is. I think I understand your words, but how those words explains the deal is not clear to me.

I've asked you a couple of questions, including the following:

Quote:

I had specifically asked you if you were angry because our constitution guaranteed the free exercise of religion. Can I take this response as a "yes" to that question?...You're starting to sound as if, like Uncle Joe Stalin and Mao, you favor outlawing certain beliefs, eh, Frank? Do you?

Any response to those come to mind, Frank?

1 Reply

@layman,

Hey, Lay. Be glad to help you understand anything I've said...although almost all of it is pretty clear.

Quote:

I had specifically asked you if you were angry because our constitution guaranteed the free exercise of religion. Can I take this response as a "yes" to that question?

Not sure what I could possibly have said you could interpret as a "YES", Lay...but my answer would be an unqualified "NO."

What do I care if people are guaranteed free exercise of religion...as long as their religion does not infringe on others who think differently. Obviously some restrictions have to be in place...or one person's "religious exercise" might be to kill everyone who thinks differently.

So whatever I said that caused you to think I was responding "YES"...please disregard or question me further on it. I definitely did not mean to imply a "YES."

Quote:

You're starting to sound as if, like Uncle Joe Stalin and Mao, you favor outlawing certain beliefs, eh, Frank? Do you?

I hope we can continue this discussion without that kind of cheap patter. In any case, I certainly do not favor outlawing certain "beliefs"...although I do favor outlawing acting on some "beliefs"...such as the one that suggests that the only good black person is a dead black person.

I don't think wanting that kind of activity to be outlawed is unreasonable...even if it does remind people like you of Joe Stalin or Mao.

So...here we are ready for another day of friendly discussion and exchange of ideas. I'm looking forward to it.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Not sure what I could possibly have said you could interpret as a "YES", Lay...

Here's what you said:

Quote:

I've never heard anyone demand respect for what someone else is "convinced" of...but I have heard MANY demands for respect for someone's beliefs... they blindly guess the GOD wants gays stoned to death for engaging in homosexual activity...and they are able to call it a "belief"...and have laws passed protecting their blind guesses because of that.

It seems clear that you were saying you did not think the BELIEFS should be protected by law, and that they were wrong for accepting that legal protection. Obviously, no laws have been, or will be, passed which allows gays to be stoned to death, so it seems quite obvious that you were NOT complaining about the protection of actions, but only about the protection of beliefs.

2 Replies

@layman,

Your bitch seems to involve the notion of "respect" in some way, Frank. What is the connection between "respect" and "beliefs" (as opposed to "convictions," for example)?

Also, you say:

Quote:

...and they are able to call it a "belief"...and have laws passed protecting their blind guesses because of that.

Do you actually think that it is the use of the WORD "belief" that affords them legal protection? Like, they would never be entitled to, or receive, any legal protections if only the word "conviction" had been used instead?

Remember, this all started with your response that it makes a huge difference if "believe" is the chosen word, rather than "convinced."

0 Replies

@layman,

Layman...if you can read that comment of mine and not see the sarcasm pouring out of it...then no conversation between us is ever going to make sense.

IF you truly thought I intended that to mean that I am angry because our constitution guaranteed the free exercise of religion…and that I "clearly" would prefer an outlook more like the one Stalin and Mao favored…

...we are just not communicating.

My guess, however, is that you see that I was being sarcastic...but you've decided that you are going to stay on the low road.

Get back onto the high road...or ride alone, Kemosabe .

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

My guess, however, is that you see that I was being sarcastic...but you've decided that you are going to stay on the low road

And you're not even kidding when you say that either, are you?

Sheeit.

Now you're starting to sound like Arg, who claimed everyone was lying, and deliberately misstating his views. It's only other people's dishonesty that could possibly raise a (completely illegitimate) question, eh?

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

Quote:
My guess, however, is that you see that I was being sarcastic...but you've decided that you are going to stay on the low road

And you're not even kidding when you say that either, are you?

Sheeit.

Now you're starting to sound like Arg, who claimed everyone was lying, and deliberately misstating his views. It's only other people's dishonesty that could possibly raise a legitimate question, eh?

The alternative would have been, "Then you have your head up your ass"...and I wanted to stay away from that.

If you think I am the kind of guy who wants to outlaw "beliefs"...go for it. But be careful when you sit down.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

If you think I am the kind of guy who wants to outlaw "beliefs"...

What the **** do you believe, Frank?

When you write words that are plain on their face, and then claim that anyone who didn't read them as "dripping with sarcasm" when any such putative "sarcasm" was not the least bit apparent, has their head up their ass, then you're right. We will NEVER be able to communicate.

Your response purported to be an earnest response to the question of why you have been "at war" with the word belief (but not convinced) for 20 years. I took it as such. Stupid me.

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

What the **** do you believe, Frank?

I do not do any believing at all.

Didn't I mention that?

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I do not do any believing at all.

Care to guess at an answer to the question(s) I asked about "respect" and word usage, just before this, Frank? I know you won't believe any answer you may happen to hazard, but still....

Got any kinda BLIND GUESS?

1 Reply

@layman,

One of my guesses (not necessarily a blind one) is that you have a very closed mind, Lay...and have decided to stonewall here by moving the discussion all over the place.

It is not going to work with me…so just give it up…and we can have a reasonable, respectful conversation on an issue we apparently both have interest.

Why not get back on track by dealing with the matter than started us down this road.

It is my contention that when a person says, “I believe there is a GOD”**…the person is sharing a guess…and is disguising the fact that it is a guess by using the word “believe.”

Further, when a person says, “I believe there are no gods”…the person is sharing a guess…and is disguising the fact that it is a guess by using the word “believe.”

What problem do you have with that?

Let’s discuss your problem with that for a bit.

**For the sake of expediency, I am eliminating people who claim a direct revelation from a god from this point on. There are people (right here in A2K) who make that claim, but it diverts from the essence of what we are discussing here.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I knew a guy once who didn't like some behaviors in others, which he called "sins." So, the vowed never to sin again, himself (kinda like you and "beliefs", Frank, except his big fetish was sin).

Whenever I point out his "sins" to him, he just says: "You don't get it, do you, Layman? Only OTHER people sin, not me. My transgressions are "mistakes," not sins."

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know