timur
 
  2  
Tue 12 May, 2015 07:33 pm
Frank wrote:
My limited vocabulary has gotten me published many times...in may national newspapers and magazines.

How about you?
I'm not here to boast about my achievements, though they seem to rank well above your own.

Ever got a national trophy for technology innovation?

How many books did you write?
FBM
 
  1  
Tue 12 May, 2015 07:58 pm
http://spp.sagepub.com/content/early/2015/04/27/1948550615584200.abstract

Quote:
What If They’re Right About the Afterlife? Evidence of the Role of Existential Threat on Anti-Atheist Prejudice
Corey L. Cook1⇑
Florette Cohen2
Sheldon Solomon3
1Interdisciplinary Arts & Sciences, University of Washington Tacoma, Tacoma, WA, USA
2College of Staten Island CUNY, New York, NY, USA
3Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs, NY, USA
Corey L. Cook, Interdisciplinary Arts & Sciences, University of Washington Tacoma, 1900 Commerce Street, Tacoma, WA 98402, USA. Email: [email protected]
Abstract
Terror management theory posits that the uniquely human awareness of death gives rise to potentially paralyzing terror that is assuaged by embracing cultural worldviews that provide a sense that one is a valuable participant in a meaningful universe. We propose that pervasive and pronounced anti-atheist prejudices stem, in part, from the existential threat posed by conflicting worldview beliefs. Two studies were conducted to establish that existential concerns contribute to anti-atheist sentiments. Experiment 1 found that a subtle reminder of death increased disparagement, social distancing, and distrust of atheists. Experiment 2 found that asking people to think about atheism increased the accessibility of implicit death thoughts. These studies provide the first empirical link between existential concerns and anti-atheist prejudices.
terror management theory mortality salience prejudice atheists

layman
 
  -1  
Tue 12 May, 2015 08:17 pm
@FBM,
I aint payin no $30 to read that.


Quote:
Terror management theory posits that the uniquely human awareness of death gives rise to potentially paralyzing terror


So, this "theory" posits that awareness of death gives rise to "terror," eh? What does that mean? That people don't want to die? Must be more than that, because it is PARALYZING TERROR.

I never seen that, except perhaps with people who thought they were in imminent danger of immediate death. I wonder where these authors ran across this theoretical phenomenon.
0 Replies
 
Herald
 
  -2  
Tue 12 May, 2015 09:26 pm
@timur,
timur wrote:
One thing I have to say is that you are quite ignorant about what atheism is.
     ... and what is that we are all ignorant of? Perhaps that the Infinite Temperature can exist without a heat carrier, that the Infinite Gravitation can exist without force carrier, or perhaps that the Singularity can appear 'out of nowhere and out of nothing' ... and in reverse? Why don't you explain what exactly we all, who don't believe in that the Universe can operate on auto-pilot just so, and cannot create structures out of nothing and without the source of information, are ignorant of?
0 Replies
 
timur
 
  1  
Tue 12 May, 2015 09:45 pm
Herald wrote:
and what is that we are all ignorant of?
You seem to ignore that I was talking to Frank.

I'm not interested in your babble.
Herald
 
  -1  
Tue 12 May, 2015 10:09 pm
@timur,
timur wrote:
You seem to ignore that I was talking to Frank.
     You are not talking to Frank on a private communication line - you are talking to Frank on an open forum, and you are actually talking on the forum ... but as you are not interested in justifying your babble.
timur
 
  2  
Tue 12 May, 2015 10:27 pm
@Herald,
I'm like in a bar, where everybody can hear what I'm saying.

However, my conversation with Frank is none of your business nor do I feel compelled to explain what I'm telling Frank.

Given the crap you have been posting, I'm really not interested in discussing stuff with you..
Herald
 
  -1  
Tue 12 May, 2015 10:40 pm
@timur,
timur wrote:
However, my conversation with Frank is none of your business ...
     It is all of my business, for the people presenting themselves as atheists are actually fans of the scientism and are continuously suggesting that just because they believe in scientism they become somehow and out of nowhere people of a higher level. Can you explain how exactly believing in the Infinite Temperature without a heat carrier (of the Big Bang 'theory') will make you a personality of a higher level ... in the understanding the world?
FBM
 
  2  
Tue 12 May, 2015 10:50 pm
@Herald,
Can you explain how filling up the thread with straw men and ad ignornatiam fallacies will mak you a personality of a higher level...in your understanding of the world?
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  2  
Tue 12 May, 2015 11:42 pm
Regarding the latest flood of amateur speculations about my position on "perception" and "existence", a good deal of reading may be required on the following:

1. Heidegger's concepts of Dasein, Dastellung and Existenz (Being and Time)
2. Maturana's concept of languaging and his assertion that all human perception involves verbalization.
3. Wittgenstein's concept of language games.
4. Merleau-Ponty's gestaltist Heideggerian view of perception and the concepts of contextual figure and ground.
5. Derrida's adage that "there is nothing beyond (con)text".

When you've done some of the above reading you might be qualified to give an opinion on what I have said, bearing in mind that my actual experience of perceptual research may be deemed to give me a certain advantage in some areas.

Those too indolent to do the reading or without the ability to understand it need not apply.
Frank Apisa
 
  -3  
Wed 13 May, 2015 03:18 am
@timur,
timur wrote:

Frank wrote:
My limited vocabulary has gotten me published many times...in may national newspapers and magazines.

How about you?
I'm not here to boast about my achievements, though they seem to rank well above your own.

Ever got a national trophy for technology innovation?

How many books did you write?


Oh, the irony!


http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/laughing/crying-with-laughter.gif
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Wed 13 May, 2015 03:22 am
@fresco,
At: http://able2know.org/topic/141106-650#post-5952059

fresco wrote:


Quote:
I just read Frank's pretentious nonsense about "God detection" on the other thread. Since he would be first to brag that he "did not know the true nature of the reality of God's existence" (since he asserts that about all "existence") then he eliminates all possibility of "God detection" byhim out of his own mouth. But has he got the brains to see he has shot himself in the foot ?


I responded:


Quote:
What on Earth are you babbling about, Fresco?

I see no link and quote.

Any reason for that?

Put it here...so we can examine what you are saying...and see if I have "shot myself in the foot"...or if you have.


Still no answer from Fresco.
fresco
 
  3  
Wed 13 May, 2015 06:48 am
@Frank Apisa,
I refer to your first supercilious posting in which you suggested correcting "no God" to "no God detected ". There was no need to read any further than such nonsense.
layman
 
  0  
Wed 13 May, 2015 07:49 am
@fresco,
Heh, Fresky! You're so predictable and transparent. When challenged on your stupid-ass bullshit, you think that dropping some names will answer all the questions you can't.

Quote:
When you've done some of the above reading you might be qualified to give an opinion on what I have said,


If your claim is that nobody can understand what you're saying, then WHY do you say it? You purport to KNOW it won't be understood. So WHY? So, you can then say:
Quote:
"You can't understand, but I can!! I'm an expert, I'm a genius, and I'm here to announce my superiority day-in, day-out, for decades.


That's ALL you are attempting to do. That's the ONLY "message" you have to convey (you own purported brilliance). The concluding words of your last post are:
Quote:

my actual experience of perceptual research may be deemed to give me a certain advantage in some areas.


Nice try, chump.

0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  0  
Wed 13 May, 2015 08:05 am
@fresco,
Lol. Which of these guys have you actually read other than indolently, fresco? Not talking of readers diggest here, but of real reading and studying... Eg, how many pages by Heidegger did you ACTUALLY read? I bet zero.
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Wed 13 May, 2015 08:24 am
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

I refer to your first supercilious posting in which you suggested correcting "no God" to "no God detected ". There was no need to read any further than such nonsense.


There is absolutely nothing supercilious about the suggestions I made in my remarks in the Edgar's thread title, "Another day when there is no god." My comments are not nonsense...and make complete sense.

Here they are again:


Quote:
As a fun thread…this is fine, Edgar…clever and humorous.

But there is a serious aspect to it…and I suspect there is a serious subtext intended. I’d like to discuss it a bit in a friendly way…without anger or insults, if possible.

If your title here were, “Another day…no gods detected” it would be completely logical…as would all the follow up posts. But with the title it has…something is awry.

Not too many decades ago, one could have created a similar thread entitled, “Another day…and there are no germs… none, zilch, nada, null, zero.” That also would become completely logical with a similar minor alternation "Another day…no germs detected.”

The fact that we were not able to detect germs...did not mean there were no germs...just that we were not able to detect them. There was (is) no reason for germs...no need...and Occam's razor would suggest we not even consider it.

But germs exist.

Your thread got me to thinking: Another day…we still do not know the true nature of the REALITY of existence…and we do not know if there are gods involved or not.


So...you are the one shooting yourself in the foot.
layman
 
  1  
Wed 13 May, 2015 08:29 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
So...you are the one shooting yourself in the foot


Indeed he is, Frank, clearly and indubitably.

Moral: Don't EVER trust what Fresky says someone says. He wouldn't know. He has immense difficulty comprehending anything he purports to read, and would readily misstate it to suit his own purposes, even if he does have some vague understanding.

Of course, he really didn't say what you said, he just characterized it. This is the same thing he does with all his "authorities" (whose claims are themselves hotly contested by responsible philsophers to begin with). His "summary" of what you "said":

Quote:
I refer to your first supercilious posting in which you suggested correcting "no God" to "no God detected ". There was no need to read any further than such nonsense.


No need to even read it, see? It's "supercilious." Nice try, Fresky, ya chump.

0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Wed 13 May, 2015 08:34 am
@Olivier5,
I have read extracts of Being and Time as suggested and analysed session by session of the 45 hours lectures by Dreyfus on the Berkeley website. What have you read ?
fresco
 
  2  
Wed 13 May, 2015 08:46 am
@Frank Apisa,
Thank you for providing such a clear answer to the question "does he have the brains ...?"

fresco
 
  1  
Wed 13 May, 2015 08:51 am
@Olivier5,
UPDATED
Dreyfus reference...
https://archive.org/details/Philosophy_185_Fall_2007_UC_Berkeley

0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

The tolerant atheist - Discussion by Tuna
Another day when there is no God - Discussion by edgarblythe
church of atheism - Discussion by daredevil
Can An Atheist Have A Soul? - Discussion by spiritual anrkst
THE MAGIC BUS COMES TO CANADA - Discussion by Setanta
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Atheism
  3. » Page 651
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.14 seconds on 11/27/2024 at 06:34:21