The tolerant atheist

@Olivier5,

Dear Olie, I see you are now into what I call stubborn evasiveness, with your text:

Quote:

From Olie:
Quote:
From Susmariosep: "all that is in existence, it is put there by some entity."
Or several entities, more often. Like in the case of the elephant I was talking about.

You know, dear Olie, I am thinking all the time about a thread on Autopsy of Impasses, right now I have you and Brian for protagonists, with me one side and you two on the other side.

The purpose of the proposed thread is to examine how impasse occurs, by examining the cognitive psychology of the protagonists.

Right now I have the idea that impasse occurs when humans use words with their insistence that the words they use are understood by them in their own way, and they have the natural right to understand words in their own meanings of the words in concern.

What do you say about that?

Nevermind, let us you and me talk about the elephant you mention above, namely: "...several entities, more often. Like in the case of the elephant I was talking about."

Tell me where previously you brought in elephant, so that I will know what for you is the definition of the word, elephant.

Dear readers here, let us all sit back and await with bated breath to witness what other words Olie will bring in, to replace my phrase in bold: "all that is in existence, it is put there by some entity".

That phrase, some entity, is chosen by me precisely for all protagonists to specify what they want to mean with the phrase from me, some entity.

You see readers, if my opponent protagonists want to refer to the creator cause of everything with a beginning, then it is all right with me, except that I have to explain to readers that by elephant Olie means also what I mean with the phrase, some entity, namely, the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

That is typical of atheists' speech, because they have this taboo and phobia of the thought/concept of creator cause of everything with a beginning.

Take notice that they also use words like: flying spaghetti monster, invisible pink unicorn, tooth fairy, Santa, etc., all of them of course with people who do read and think on the cognitive psychology of atheists, they refer to what theists understand, like one theist Susmariosep, the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

So, dear Olie, what are you referring to with your elephant, in place of my some entity.

For your notice, Dear Olie, by some entity I am talking about God in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

No more, please, of evasiveness, and also please don't dwell in flippancies, because you will lapse into profanities, and that is the end of civility with you in a web forum.

2 Replies

@Susmariosep,

And I am talking of the possibility of several gods. In my experience it always take a group of entities to create something. Like a mother AND a father would create a child, right?

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

If he had the education, or were interested in anything but a platform for cutting and pasting his own slogans, he might counter with examples of asexual reproduction.,
The trolling will continue as long as he can goad posters into any form of response.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Asexual reproduction is the exception, while sex is the rule. So if we are to answer metaphysical questions based on the "practical experience of mankind", it follows that the universe exists because there once was a daddy universe who loved a mommy universe soooo much that they made a baby universe. Or perhaps that there once was a daddy God who loved a certain mommy Goddess sooooo much that they had sex and engendered the world.

This is not totally a joke: the Greek creation myth features Gaia and Uranus as the parents of the world; in Maori mythology, the primal couple is called Rangi and Papa, the sky father and the earth mother. These mythologies were arrived at by doing exactly what Sus is doing: basing metaphysics on the day-to-day experience of mankind... And they make a lot more sense than the idea of a unique creator, if you ask me.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Well its a good side issue, even though sexual reproduction did actually evolve later rather than earlier ! And I quite like the more general 'Gaia hypothesis' as a holistic take on Earth's ability to maintain itself.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Dear Olie, you tell me:
"And I am talking of the possibility of several gods. In my experience it always take a group of entities to create something. Like a mother AND a father would create a child, right?"

Several gods must have brought it about, namely, the something rather than nothing, aside from themselves.

That is pretty good.

Now, think further, don't the several gods have to work together at all to bring about something so that something is present than nothing aside from themselves?

Isn't one god the better thought of mankind from since the dawn of man's conscious intelligence?

Think on Occam's razor.

That is the big trouble with your brain, you are always into evasiveness, instead of doing what comes spontaneously with your brain, as your brain and everyman's brain has been wired to think logically, otherwise man would not have survived up to today.

Read this post from my favorite poster here, and reply to it with your nature-endowed logical brain:

Quote:

• Post: # 6,494,483 | Susmariosep | Wed 30 Aug, 2017 11:04 am

Dear Barmpot, I like very much to exchange thoughts with you, let us try this question:

"Think and tell me what is the first rule of logical explanation, for example, explain why there is something rather than nothing."

Okay, everyone, let us all sit back and await with bated breath to witness how Barm think, as to tell mankind what is the first rule of logical explanation, like to the question, why is there something instead of nothing.

Dear Barm, if you want me to be first to tell mankind what is the first rule from me, on how to give a logical explanation to the question, why is there something rather than nothing, please tell me so when you reply to this post, but please, no profanities, okay?

0 Replies

[ Disclosure: I see you guys are again into your favorite brain stopper, namely, evasiveness, inspired by frear and false pride. ]

Postscript, read the text below in bigger font.

@Barmpot, Olivier5, Brianjakup, and all posters here with good will and desire for knowledge of reality:

Please react to this post from my favorite poster, and no profanities and also no flippancies, but genuine thinking and civil writing, and abstain also from smug and but disingenuous self-hubris, okay?:

Quote:

• Post: # 6,494,493 | Susmariosep | Wed 30 Aug, 2017 11:22 am

@Olivier5,
Dear Olie, you tell me:
"And I am talking of the possibility of several gods. In my experience it always take a group of entities to create something. Like a mother AND a father would create a child, right?"

Several gods must have brought it about, namely, the something rather than nothing, aside from themselves.

That is pretty good.

Now, think further, don't the several gods have to work together at all to bring about something so that something is present than nothing aside from themselves?

Isn't one god the better thought of mankind from since the dawn of man's conscious intelligence?

Think on Occam's razor.

That is the big trouble with your brain, you are always into evasiveness, instead of doing what comes spontaneously with your brain, as your brain and everyman's brain has been wired to think logically, otherwise man would not have survived up to today.

Read this post from my favorite poster here, and reply to it with your nature-endowed logical brain:
Quote:
• Post: # 6,494,483 | Susmariosep | Wed 30 Aug, 2017 11:04 am

Dear Barmpot, I like very much to exchange thoughts with you, let us try this question:

"Think and tell me what is the first rule of logical explanation, for example, explain why there is something rather than nothing."

Okay, everyone, let us all sit back and await with bated breath to witness how Barm think, as to tell mankind what is the first rule of logical explanation, like to the question, why is there something instead of nothing.

Dear Barm, if you want me to be first to tell mankind what is the first rule from me, on how to give a logical explanation to the question, why is there something rather than nothing, please tell me so when you reply to this post, but please, no profanities, okay?

1 Reply

@Susmariosep,

Not at all. Since the dawn of man's conscious intelligence, the better thought of mankind has been SEVERAL GODS. Of all the different religions in existence, only the Muslims can be described in truth as monotheist. And even they invented legions of other supernatural beings beside Allah: angels, demons etc.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Dear Olie, please, we are in the question of why is there something instead of nothing, so stick to that.

Now in regard to best thought of mankind since the dawn of man's conscious intelligence, have you taken into account that the three most adhered to religion since year 1 of common era, namely: Christianism, Islamism, and Judaism, it is one God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

Many gods is not the best thought of the best minds in the whole history of man's conscious intelligence.

I am most disappointed with you.

Now, tell me what is the first rule in regard to logical explanation for the existence of something instead of nothing.

Dear readers here, as usual Olie will seek refuge with evasiveness, instead of telling mankind what to him is the first rule in logical explanation of something exists rather than nothing - because the man has no moral fibers as to stick to truths, facts, logic, and the best thoughts of mankind from since the dawn of man's conscious intelligence.

What a waste of brain matter inside his skull.

0 Replies

Dear all readers here, I like to invite you to think on what I call the first rule in the logical explanation of something instead of no something, namely, it is to ask the question to ourselves and to anyone else like ourselves with a brain that is endowed by nature to think on causation, namely, when you see something rather than no something, you ask:

"Who or what put this here or brought this about?"

There, dear readers here, sit down and do your best thinking on the first rule in the logical explanation of something to be in existence which previously was not.

And compare your first rule to my first rule, but don't neglect to ask everyone what they do when they get home and see something to be present when previously there was no that something.

Here again, I am waxing eloquent in terms of repetition:
1. The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence.
2. Existence is from either oneself or from another.
3. Existence is in the mind and/or outside the mind and independent of the mind.

Dear readers, when you have a question about the three dicta from yours truly, don't be shy, bring it up with me.

Have a good day!

0 Replies

Why settle for just one god when you can have a dozen?

http://weblatinus.free.fr/manuel/5/chaos/dii/4c6f676769615f64655f5073796368c3a95f5261706861c3ab6c2c5f76696c6c615f6661726ec3a8735f313531375f62.jpg

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

[ Postscript: dear Olie, concentrate on the text at the bottom. ]

Dear Olie, I want us to now work together to come to what is the most simple explanation of something that puzzles us.

The present issue here is about the question or puzzle why there is something instead of nothing.

It is puzzling to you, but it is not puzzling to me, because I know why there is something instead of nothing, for I have come to the most simple explanation, namely, because some entity put it there or brought it about.

Now, I want to tell you that you are in the state of wanting to play the mischievous kid in class who insists on playing the idiot, in order to not have to work as to learn anything at all, but attract attention to yourself, in the present context notoriety, by bringing disturbance to the whole class.

And you have already assigned to yourself your special deficiency which humans describe as that of in earlier psychology, an idiot.

You see, from my stock reading, earlier psychologists divide educability of humans into four classes of descending deficiency of intelligence or IQ, namely:
Fool
Moron
Imbecile
Idiot

I don't see you to be a fool much less the worst, an idiot.

You just want to play the idiot in order to engage in rebellion against the purpose of this a2k forum, which is the following [texts in bold]:

Quote:

About able2know

able2know's mission is to help connect people, knowledge and resources.

able2know is committed to providing these services free of charge. We believe the costs of developing and providing these services should be defrayed primarily with ethical advertising -- that is, an avoidance of pop-ups, spam, or other unreasonably obtrusive forms of advertising.

We seek to maximize the opportunities for people with similar interests and goals to connect, gather information, and network through the able2know service.

https://able2know.org/about/

The other thread I am now engaged in regularly is on
Who is your favorite physicist, which is about explanation of why there is something instead of nothing on the purely material plane of consideration.

The issue here at present I am engaged in regularly ison the non-material plane of consideration, in re the puzzle why there is something instead of nothing.

So, dear Olie, please cease and desist from playing the idiot, like one Glennn whom I have determined to no longer bother with, for he is into his dismal drama of playing the idiot in a2k forum.

It is to keep myself safe from his idiocy, that I have determined to take him as non-existing here in a2k forum.

Okay, dear Olie, please cease and desist from making your parents the biological cause of an idiot, put forth your best explanation on why there is something instead of nothing, on the non-material plane of consideration.

In the process we all members of this a2k forum will profit in the way of better and more in depth knowledge of reality.

What do you say?

0 Replies

@Tuna,

A lot of today's speeches are just Hollywood. Looking too deep into smoke and mirrors causes deflection from the main issue.

1 Reply

@MethSaferThanTHC,

[ Postscript and Disclosure: I am here in a2k because I enjoy what the founders and owners and operators want to achieve in this their a2k forum, what about you, dear colleagues here?

I just hope that you dear colleagues here are not in this a2k forum in order to hate folks like myself.
See * below. ]

Dear Meth, I am now in this thread which is not mine, talking about the most simple explanation of anything at all.

For example, when I ask you what is the explanation of your being here at all in this a2k forum, I like to read from you your explanation, will you accommodate to my request?

Now, suppose you ask me what is the most simple explanation of my presence in this a2k forum?

My most simple explanation is because I enjoy doing what the founders and owners and operators of this a2k want to achieve with their production of this a2k forum, which explanation is found in their about this forum declaration.
See below as follows:*

Quote:

About able2know

able2know's mission is to help connect people, knowledge and resources.

able2know is committed to providing these services free of charge. We believe the costs of developing and providing these services should be defrayed primarily with ethical advertising -- that is, an avoidance of pop-ups, spam, or other unreasonably obtrusive forms of advertising.

We seek to maximize the opportunities for people with similar interests and goals to connect, gather information, and network through the able2know service.

Connect to able2know

*This is a test for me to know whether you can and do think, instead of engage yourself here with regurgitation of what you read from others who are equally empty-headed nonsense talkers, having nothing in their brain but hatred for folks who do think instead of hating people who do think instead of hating others who do think, instead of hating others who do think...

The test consists in you telling me where is the link of this about statement of a2k.

When you will not tell me even though you fear that you could be wrong, then I know that you have nothing of thinking in your brain except hating folks who do think.

Now, what is the most simple explanation of folks here who are full of hatred for folks like me who do think instead of hating people who do think - even though they know they could be mistaken with the fruit of their thinking, at least they have the desire to think and to expound on what they do think about.

1 Reply

@Susmariosep,

Fresh meat !

1 Reply

@fresco,

Dear Olie, please, no more acting the idiot!

When if ever are you going to do some genuine thinking and writing?

You are overcome by your fear of committing some mistakes with thinking on your very own brain, instead of blindly following your stupid empty idiotic masters of deceit.

I challenge you, let us work together on this topic, "The complete philosophy best for mankind."

0 Replies

[ Disclosure: This post came out as an OP in a new thread with the tag Philosophy, but I can't find it anymore among My Posts.

So, I guess the powers that be here disapproved of it a topic for discussion in itself.

Now I will just post it as a message in The Tolerant Atheist and also in the Who is your favorite physicist.

And sit back to observe what will happen now.

On the other hand, I will just tell the powers that be here in a2k, I submit to your decision; thanks just the same for me still not getting banned without ceremony at all - hhehehehehehe. ]

@Olie, Brian, Fresco, Izzy, Glennn, etc., familiar colleagues here but opponents to my thinking.

The complete philosophy best for mankind

As the likes of Olie and Fresco and Izzy and their kinds of company have not yet reacted to my last posts earlier, I will now start my new thread on The complete philosophy best for mankind.

Okay, dear readers here, the first criterion in judging the complete philosophy best for mankind, is the philosophy that does not at all come forth with the stench of starting from nothingness.

Because these guys who always want to dwell on nothingness, you will not lose anything with completely dismissing them from your attention altogether, like the ilks of Lawrence Krauss, because they are a lie-saturated [lie as in dishonesty in thoughts and in words intended to lead you astray, to deceive you] rabble, no need to invest your precious time with them like the ilks of Lawrence Krauss.

First rule then in its positive formulation is the following statement from yours truly, nth times advanced by yours truly:

"The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence."

What do you say, dear readers here; but first and foremost, do your very own thinking with your nature-endowed brain, don't start trying to look up what the masters of deceits, liars like the ilks of Lawrence Krauss, he of the notoriety of something like the universe from nothing, tell you - even though there are all kinds of idiots buying their best selling book, best selling because idiots lap them up as like they love to swallow swine food scraps shill i.e. slop.

Okay, dear readers here, let us all work together to think up and systematize what we will call The complete philosophy best for mankind.

And no fear at all to contradict me with my statement, "The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence."

Have you considered the idiocy of one Olivier5, he asks me what about How is there something rather than noting?

And he says that he does not know the answer, and I tell him that when he does not himself know some answer at all, how is he ever going to make an intelligent comment to my explanation at all?

The fact is the man has no balls to think for himself, he seeks the idiotic safety of claiming that he is brainless.

I told him the most simple explanation is because some entity puts it in our presence or brought it about into existence.

And you know what, he now goes into more and more odiocies, in defiant rebellion against the purpose of this a2k forum: he does not want to know at all, while a2k is all about how we can all work together to come to genuine knowledge.

0 Replies

Dear everyone here, I must apologize for all the hatred I have been causing some posters here.

So, I will try to not cause anymore hatred by not writing as to inflame them.

My special interest is with atheists, so I will just continue to busy myself here with atheists.

Dear readers here, the way I observe with atheists, it is that they don't really have a cognitive basis for denying God to exist, in concept as the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

Now, this attitude from their part is evidenced by their in effect refusal to connect to the issue itself, whether God exists or not, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

Dear atheists here, can we just have a talk here, so that we will get to know each other, in regard to at least our attitude if not how we think.

There, so I will now sit back and await with bated breath for atheists here to react to my message here.

Again, to all posters here whom I have inflamed with my way of writing, please accept my apologies, I will now no longer write as to inflame your hatred toward me.

Let us all exchange thoughts as to learn from each other, at least in regard to attitudes, if not our respective way of thinking, okay?

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Of all the different religions in existence, only the Muslims can be described in truth as monotheist.

Both Judaism and Islam recognize only one G-d. Both of those religions consider the recognition of other gods to be blasphemy. Christianity, of course, is based on idolatry.

2 Replies

@kk4mds,

Dear kk4mds, I concur with you wholeheartedly, because Christianism cannot be totally cleared of any flaw of many gods and even one human god or one god made man.

I am a diy Christian, and my attitude is that as I am human and love to have and practice a religion, and since I was born and brought up Christian and now live in a Christian society, and Christianism is the most prevalent and most intellectual of all religions to date, and it is the mother of a lot almost infinite numbers of offshoots, I choose to continue being identified as Christian, but with people who ask me straight into my eye, I tell them I am a diy Christian.

What do I mean by a diy Christian?

Simple, I decide what to take seriously and what not, but what I don't take seriously I still observe because it is beautiful.

There, and I hope you understand what is beauty.

Now in regard to morality, I uphold and observe what I know to be morally correct in my personal life and also in my social life.

I will say something about Islamism, the adherents of the religion founded by one Mohammad, they regrettably have since maybe 1000 years ago, they have ceased to develop in their thinking about God, to them God is still like a robot, and to date they seem to be the only religion where their adherents believe in suicide bombing, for they love to die for God: so when they see that there be humans who are living a most wicked and unholy life, they are fired up with zeal to kill them, to clean the earth from these filth.

I think that is ALL WRONG, period.

1 Reply

The tolerant atheist

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know