Reality from the view point of theists

@reasoning logic,

Quote:

You do seem to be correct in what you are saying frank. Do you think that it would be practical for someone with this knowledge to be praying to a God?

Insofar as “praying” is a form of hoping, RL, I guess you could say it is practical. If there is no GOD; if the god is not a personal god; or a god that will not answer prayers…then praying and hoping would have about the same results.

Occasionally I hope for things...and I certainly do not consider that impractical.

It is only fair that I consider people who "pray" for things not to be impractical either.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

By the way, Aiden…

…the something that is missing…that mysterious question you cannot answer and want to fill in using by supposing a GOD…that unknown thing that seems to elude us all…

…we agnostics refer to that as: The unknown.

Apparently, the respect you give someone by spelling their name correctly- or even simply copying the letters that are at the top of every post correctly - is another 'unknown' to you.
Ha, ha...
You refer to it however you want - maybe I should call it an 'unnown' in honor of you anostiks.

Have a good day in Piscataway Freink.
(and grow up- or is that too much to ask of a 70 something year old adult man)?
Get this - this is not an unknown- I don't think you're funny or have anything to tell or teach me.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Then stop calling it a "creation"...which is something you do simply to require a creator...

...and the problem ceases to exist.

Right?

No - you're not right. I don't have a problem. I'm happy with what I believe.

2 Replies

@aidan,

Well done Aidan. You seem to be one of the few on this thread to understand that "reality" is contextual, and even personal. All this nonsense about dichotomies (either this or that) is resolved by transcending lay (binary) logic with its law of the excluded middle. For those with the ability to understand it, such transcendence is supported by contemporary physics with its paradigms of complementarity and multiverses.

3 Replies

@fresco,

This was in response to rosborne's post, although I clicked on the last post which was fresco's:

aidan wrote:

Quote:

Call it whatever you want.

rosborne responded:

Quote:

Nature?

I think that's a fine word for it. And calling it that doesn't lessen my sense of wonder, awe, worship, delight or whatever you'd call my appreciation of all of its miraculous (to me) manifestations.

0 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

Well done Aidan. You seem to be one of the few on this thread to understand that "reality" is contextual, and even personal. All this nonsense about dichotomies (either this or that) is resolved by transcending lay (binary) logic with its law of the excluded middle. For those with the ability to understand it, such transcendence is supported by contemporary physics with its paradigms of complementarity and multiverses.

Thank you fresco - I reciprocate in my feeling that you seem to be one of the few atheists on this forum who can keep his mind open enough to at least try to understand that people with another viewpoint are not necessarily delusional idiots who are revelling in ancient superstitions.
I DO always think and learn from what you write and I appreciate that.

1 Reply

@aidan,

aidan wrote:

Thank you fresco - I reciprocate in my feeling that you seem to be one of the few atheists on this forum who can keep his mind open enough to at least try to understand that people with another viewpoint are not necessarily delusional idiots who are revelling in ancient superstitions.

This whole thread is a bait thread. RL has a real problem with anybody thinking other than him, me constantly belittles anyone who thinks there may be a purpose to existence.

He repeats worn out phrases like flying teapot and spaghetti monster, thinking that adds extra gravitas to what he says, but it's because he has no depth of understanding. His world view is extremely simplistic, take a Sunday School class designed for pre-schoolers, substitute Psychopathic behaviour for the Devil and that's it. He doesn't even learn anything, his thread on anti-Semitism contained lots of detailed information, with people going out of their way to explain things, but at the end he still doesn't understand why people get upset by crude stereotyping.

Don't let his comments get to you, he's the delusional idiot revelling in the illusion that he's another Bertrand Russell.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Whether RL considers himself to be following in the steps of Russell or not is something of a side issue. However, since you raise the matter, it is interesting that Russell clashed with (the later) Wittgenstein (a pro-religionist) over the status of logical positivism, the current consensus being that W came out on top. Atheists (like me) would be unwise to discount such significant philosophical developments in their consideration of the word "reality".

1 Reply

@fresco,

I don't think this comes down to atheism/theism so much as between those who are convinced they know what's right, and by extension what's best for the rest of us, and those who are willing to accept they don't have all the answers.

RL is very preachy, this whole thread is his attempt to convert the rest of us to his simplistic brand of atheism. Where most people would think that harmony between people of all faiths, and none, is probably the best we could wish for, RL feels that a world where everyone shared his viewpoint would be best. If you disagree with him then you're either drunk, ermotional, or suffering from some sort of mental health disorder.

My problem with him isn't down to disagreeing about things, I disagree with a lot of people, but in his failing to understand why someone would ever disagree with him. He could not possibly be wrong, any dissent is motivated by delusion, psychopathic/sociopathic personality traits, drunkeness or emotions. I've never known him to accept he may be mistaken on anything. If you want to see a good example of this, read his anti-Semitism thread. Despite many posters spending a good deal of time explaining what is so particular about anti-Semitism, his preconceptions remain unaltered. He goes through the motions of debating, but there's no real thought process going on, none that I can see anyway.

0 Replies

@aidan,

Sorry I misspelled your name, Aidan.

I am grown up...and I am 75 now.

I understand you do not think I have anything to tell you or to teach you.

0 Replies

@aidan,

quote] I'm happy with what I believe.[/quote]

Yeah, I'd guess you are.

Perhaps you have something to teach me.

Can you tell me why you gratuitously refer to what exists as "the CREATION"...and then suggest that because it is a "creation" it requires a "creator?"

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Why is Aidan's terminology so important? You know what she means, you may not agree with it, but it's hardly gratuitous.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Quote:

Why is Aidan's terminology so important? You know what she means, you may not agree with it, but it's hardly gratuitous.

Do you honestly think it is not important to call a thing a creation...and then, on the basis of that characterization, argue that because it is a "creation" it requires a "creator?"

C'mon, Izzy...of course that is important.

It would be like someone else saying, "How can you possibly suggest this non-creation has a creator?"

It is a gratuitous characterization from its core.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank, you are correct. A"creation" does imply "a creator" in modern parlance. But aiden is perfectly entitled to dissent or otherwise from such parlance in her view of "reality", just like you dissent from the older meaning of "fact" as being "a construction" in your view of reality. (That point went over your head when you accused me of changing the subject Smile

)

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Does creation have to have a creator? Why not a creative process? The Universe was created by the big bang. She seems determined to use her own terminology, so why get hung up on it?

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Quote:

Does creation have to have a creator?

It does, as Fresco pointed out, seem to imply that.

In any case, Aidan did seem to be implying that when she wrote:

"I'm not saying the creator does not need to come from something. I'm saying the CREATION needs to have come from something."

My response called attention to the fact that she is implying "existence" (or whatever is) needs a creator, because it is a creation. But calling it a "creation" is gratuitous. It may not be a creation...and it may not have a creator.

I'm not hung up on it, Izzy...any more than you are hung up on the point you are trying to make. It simply was an observation...which in turn got a response...and now I am responding to the response.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Oh alright Frank, I think that argument's been successfully knocked on the head now.

0 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

All this nonsense about dichotomies (either this or that) is resolved by transcending lay (binary) logic with its law of the excluded middle. For those with the ability to understand it, such transcendence is supported by contemporary physics with its paradigms of complementarity and multiverses.

Is there any way you can explain this reality or theory in layman's terms so that I will not have to spend a great deal of time researching it?

3 Replies

@reasoning logic,

He just did.

0 Replies

@reasoning logic,

Quote:

Is there any way you can explain this reality or theory in layman's terms so that I will not have to spend a great deal of time researching it?

It would be like trying to "explain" why the Earth is the center of our Solar System, RL.

There is an objective REALITY...and that "REALITY" is what actually IS.

1 Reply

Reality from the view point of theists

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know