7
   

Atheism spreads religious awareness and biases our thinking...

 
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jun, 2012 02:38 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
...yes...always from the "I" to the "other", always from the "I" to the "world", always from the "I" to "God"...but you know what ?...
The "other" the "world" and "God" are all the same...
...having a mind, imply s enquiry and thus incompleteness...my"god" is not like yours..."god" does not have a mind rather he is the reason of minds...


The question that comes up for me when reading something like that, Fil, is:

Is that something you KNOW...or is it just a guess you are making?
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jun, 2012 02:54 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Give over Frank. We've been through all that before a few times. What's the difference between knowing and working with a guess as if you know. Working with a guess keeping in mind it is a guess reduces diligence and determination.

Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jun, 2012 02:59 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
Give over Frank. We've been through all that before a few times. What's the difference between knowing and working with a guess as if you know. Working with a guess keeping in mind it is a guess reduces diligence and determination.


Give over yourself, Spendius.

Sometimes people bet on who is going to win a prize fight...and make a GUESS. (educated guess or not).

But at times, there are other people who KNOW one of the fighters is going to take a dive.

You tell me if the difference between KNOW and GUESS is important or not.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jun, 2012 03:08 pm
@Frank Apisa,
That example is perverted. There's no diving in evolution.

Get on a lifeboat in the middle of the ocean and nobody knows which way to row. The captain doesn't know either. So he tosses up but he doesn't tell the rest of them. He says he's seen a sign. They believe him. They row better than if they knew he had tossed up.

Only a New Yorker would build an argument on a fighter taking a dive. Societies don't take dives.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jun, 2012 03:41 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
That example is perverted. There's no diving in evolution.


That example shoots down what you were saying...and that is why you are finding fault with it.

Quote:
Get on a lifeboat in the middle of the ocean and nobody knows which way to row. The captain doesn't know either. So he tosses up but he doesn't tell the rest of them. He says he's seen a sign. They believe him. They row better than if they knew he had tossed up.


I am assuming you have been on a lifeboat in the middle of the ocean with no idea of which way to go...and with a captain who is tossing up.

If not, this is nothing more than a bizarre guess.

It was entertaining, though. I will give you that, Spendius.

Quote:
Only a New Yorker would build an argument on a fighter taking a dive. Societies don't take dives.


I am not a New Yorker...I am a New Jerseyer. And many arguments have been built on the notion of a fighter taking a dive. You must not get around.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jun, 2012 06:26 pm
@spendius,
I don't see the reason for that analogy, you were perhaps mislead...I meant the distinction between singular and plural, the transit from one thing to another...and from there the idea of the world...and where there is a world there must be union, so the idea of God follows naturally...that which binds the world as one...but I see now that you were far and away from what I meant...never mind...

...there is no evolution in Being...and yet evolution is a perfectly acceptable phenomena within time and space...I imagine the Universe or if you prefer Multiverse very much like a 4 dimensional deterministic circular self enclosed reality where all the time and space coexist in different "frequency's" sort to speak...both ideas are actually compatible...I just dismiss the term "Creator" because there never was a real start for anything...but again I suspect my thoughts are very distant from your own cosmogony...I respect your intellect and sense of humour, in fact I love to read your brit comments specially when you get stressed with someone, very entertaining...better leave it at just that.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jun, 2012 06:44 pm
@Frank Apisa,
...I like to think my guess is reasonable, or if you prefer rational, although I concede with a very wide scope...it is what you might call a far connection, a reduction to the essential in those words...
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Jun, 2012 04:03 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
...I like to think my guess is reasonable, or if you prefer rational, although I concede with a very wide scope...it is what you might call a far connection, a reduction to the essential in those words...


I like to think the same thing about my guesses, Fil. But a guess is just a guess...and when you state a guess the way you stated yours, it looses the flavor of being a guess.

I notice that you (and several others here) do that often.

That really was my point.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Jun, 2012 06:36 am
@Frank Apisa,
With a cornpone bound Frank was free. The habit must be of long standing for it to be so stamped in.

You simply want to justify yourself. Debate is outside your scope I'm afraid. Your answer to the psychosomatic point that believing in a guess gives it more power. Like the American Dream for example.

And you don't know the fighter is going to dive either. You only think you know. It flatters you that you are on the inside track in the fight game. The rumour might be put about among the saps to get the betting odds up. You didn't know the fighter was going to dive. Only he knows that. For you it's a guess.

You have this picture in your head of the fight-game where everybody in it behaves according to what you think you know like with toy soldiers in a toy fort re-enacting The Alamo. Men were at the Alamo--not writers and historians. It was serious **** despite what people like Setanta, or even those higher up the history hierarchy, a considerable number, can conjure out of it in the quiet of their study after perusing a succession of the works of other conjurers who were all seeking to present themselves in the best possible light so that they might get a position teaching history to students in the college where the road maps of the soul are kept.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Jun, 2012 07:02 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
I don't see the reason for that analogy, you were perhaps mislead


Lookeear Fil--my post stands as it is. On reading it again to see what you were referring to, I'm quite impressed with it. I could tart it up if I had more time.

It makes no difference to it that you don't see the reason for that analogy, and that I was perhaps mislead. I wasn't conscious of the analogy. Or in any way, shape or form, mislead.

I'm glad it inspired you to engage in a ride on the sophistical roundabout. It was quite funny. "Multiverse" to me means a method of suggesting that one is a serious philosopher at the cocktail parties of the chattering class. Such a use of the great unknown in a calm, offhand manner can, I admit, have a purpose and, if deployed with other associated paraphernalia of the genre, such as black holes where new worlds are created, expertly, a satisfying outcome so to speak.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Jun, 2012 07:05 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
...I like to think my guess is reasonable, or if you prefer rational, although I concede with a very wide scope...it is what you might call a far connection, a reduction to the essential in those words...


My first impression of that was that it is meaningless.

So also my second impression.

And my third. I gave it the benefit of the doubt twice and have given up.
IRFRANK
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Jun, 2012 08:55 am
@Foofie,
Quote:
Rubbish.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Jun, 2012 11:44 am
@spendius,
...sorted...
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Jun, 2012 11:51 am
@IRFRANK,
He said "most atheists". I think he is right. They are not all in everybody's face being militant.
IRFRANK
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jun, 2012 06:18 am
@spendius,
Quote:
In my opinion, most atheists are in the proverbial closet. How can one not be without tearing asunder the peace and calm in one's family/job/friendships, etc.

Like how can an atheist roll his or her eyes, so to speak, at a child returning from Sunday school? Or, roll his or her eyes at the company Christmas party? Or, roll his or her eyes at the person telling about this or that social gathering at a church function?

Most atheist, in my opinion, live their lives (at least in the US), like Victorian gays did.


This is the quote I was referring to. Several days later, I realize. When you read these threads the first time, it's difficult to remember the original timing. It's a habit of responding as if in a real time conversation.

I don't know any militant, outspoken atheists, so maybe I am unaware of that aspect. It is possible to have different beliefs and still respect others. If by keeping quiet and not arguing with everyone who is proselytizing their faith means 'in the closet' then he may be right. I see it as an act of showing some respect to other's views and an understanding that I don't have to convert everyone I meet.

Think about the comment 'like Victorian Gay's did' and imagine the kind of suffering being spread by the overzealous religious community.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Jul, 2012 06:26 am
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/10/2020 at 10:36:56