92
   

Atheists... Your life is pointless

 
 
Frank Apisa
 
  3  
Thu 7 Mar, 2013 07:01 pm
@XXSpadeMasterXX,
Quote:
Quote:
Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5272077)
Quote:
As you are probably guessing by now, I am not particularly interested in the considerations of philosophers on questions like this. I prefer hearing what you think…or Spade thinks…or Setanta, Izzy, igm…or any of the others.

Was this an honest comment...or is it something you thought is necessary in order to keep credibility in this discussion?

What credibility do you think I may be trying to keep? And what credibility do you think I may have lost?


We've done this before, Spade. You ask a question...I answer it. Then I ask a question...and instead of answering it, you ask another two questions. I answer them...and ask a question...and instead of answering it, you ask three more questions.

First answer my question.

Were you being honest when you indicated some doubt?
MattDavis
 
  1  
Thu 7 Mar, 2013 07:30 pm
@reasoning logic,
Great post RL,
Regarding John 1:1

There is much debate about this verse and it is one of the first I ever studied in translation.
The word translated as "Word" is the Greek 'Lógos' or visually in Koane Greek Λόγος. Biblical fragments all indicate it's use as a proper noun. So there is obvious intent as a personal label.
The concept of 'logos' predates Christianity and when used non-personally it meant something like "reason" and "logical grounding".
The proper noun status may indicate, however, that the author "John the Evangelist" was using 'Logos' as a recruitment tactic.
John prosthelytized to the gentiles who were primarily Greek pagans. A large portion of the elite Greek pagans practiced Mystery Religions which involve revelation of secret deep truths (logos) to their adherents.
By equating Theos (God) with Logos, John may have been claiming that Christianity was compatible with the existing mystery religions of the Greek literates.
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Thu 7 Mar, 2013 07:35 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
Were you being honest when you indicated some doubt?


If you knew for a fact that God was talking to you would you have any doubts?
Reality seems subjective to the one who is observing it. If you were a schizophrenia atheist and did not take your meds would you think that if God was talking to you he was not real? what if you were not schizo but God still talked to you would you still not believe it was not he?
0 Replies
 
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Thu 7 Mar, 2013 07:40 pm
@MattDavis,
Quote:
The concept of 'logos' predates Christianity and when used non-personally it meant something like "reason" and "logical grounding"


I was thinking something similar myself. It was not words but Logic that gave us this ability to formulate words. It was because we found logical consistencies that we have a creation. Very Happy
izzythepush
 
  1  
Thu 7 Mar, 2013 07:45 pm
@reasoning logic,
reasoning logic wrote:
It was not words but Logic that gave us this ability to formulate words. It was because we found logical consistencies that we have a creation. Very Happy


Language is a virus from outer space. William Burroughs.
XXSpadeMasterXX
 
  0  
Thu 7 Mar, 2013 09:17 pm
@Frank Apisa,
I respectfully disagree with you...I do not think you understand my questions/answers as well as many others...I honesty try to break it down smaller and smaller to help you do the thinking on your own...To lead you to the river, and help formulate your own mind as to why you actually think what you do...but in the past when we have done this...It got to a point where it seemed that you were uncomfortable, and abruptly asked me to explain what I was trying to teach you...and I do not want to make anyone feel uncomfortable...especially if they are happy...even if they don't know...but ask as if they want too...

But anyways, since you are indicating you would like to discuss topics that you have often said you are unsure of...I will give it a shot...but I just hope this does not turn into an I don't know...because then there is no where to go but trying to show you what you may think you know, and why...or why you think you do not know...and why...and it seemed you did not want to do this before...and did not enjoy this...

I do not think that anyone would post something they did not think was truthful, or had truth to...

Can you think of a single thing as to why someone would post something that they did not think had any truth to what they were saying, or had posted?

There is always doubt with faith, and that is why faith is faith...

Do you agree or disagree?

What is your question/comment Frank?
MattDavis
 
  1  
Thu 7 Mar, 2013 09:18 pm
@reasoning logic,
Reasoning Logic wrote:
I was thinking something similar myself. It was not words but Logic that gave us this ability to formulate words. It was because we found logical consistencies that we have a creation. Very Happy

I think the roots of both logic and language originate from distinction.
The ability to 'notice' difference. Distinction is necessary and fundamental to 'information'. Sort of along the lines of distinguishing signal from noise.
As for creation, there are some information theoretic components to many proposed quantum mechanical models.
MattDavis
 
  1  
Thu 7 Mar, 2013 09:29 pm
@izzythepush,
Quote:
Language is a virus from outer space. -- William Burroughs.

I don't know about that, viruses may be languages (information carriers) from outer space, though. Wink
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2837877/
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  4  
Fri 8 Mar, 2013 05:54 am
@XXSpadeMasterXX,
Quote:
Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5272660)
I respectfully disagree with you...I do not think you understand my questions/answers as well as many others...I honesty try to break it down smaller and smaller to help you do the thinking on your own...To lead you to the river, and help formulate your own mind as to why you actually think what you do...but in the past when we have done this...It got to a point where it seemed that you were uncomfortable, and abruptly asked me to explain what I was trying to teach you...and I do not want to make anyone feel uncomfortable...especially if they are happy...even if they don't know...but ask as if they want too...

But anyways, since you are indicating you would like to discuss topics that you have often said you are unsure of...I will give it a shot...but I just hope this does not turn into an I don't know...because then there is no where to go but trying to show you what you may think you know, and why...or why you think you do not know...and why...and it seemed you did not want to do this before...and did not enjoy this...

I do not think that anyone would post something they did not think was truthful, or had truth to...

Can you think of a single thing as to why someone would post something that they did not think had any truth to what they were saying, or had posted?

There is always doubt with faith, and that is why faith is faith...

Do you agree or disagree?

What is your question/comment Frank?

I am not looking for you to "teach" me anything, Spade...nor to "lead me to the river."

It is presumptuous (albeit a bit humorous) of you to suppose that.

Once again you are asking me questions rather than answering the one I asked you.

Let me try it again:

You wrote:
Quote:
I have to be honest, that if a God exists like I think one does...


The "IF" and the "like I think" indicate some doubt…which is at odds with the certainty of other posts of yours.

So my question is: Were you being honest when you indicated some doubt?

Either you were being honest that you have doubt...or you were not.

A simple "yes" or "no" will answer the question.
spendius
 
  1  
Fri 8 Mar, 2013 06:00 am
@MattDavis,
Quote:
The ability to 'notice' difference. Distinction is necessary and fundamental to 'information'. Sort of along the lines of distinguishing signal from noise.


If you browse Roget you will see that it is laid out in relation to distinctions. Opposites. Synonyms and Antonyms. Even matter has an opposite.

Quote:
As for creation, there are some information theoretic components to many proposed quantum mechanical models.


That goes over my head Matt. It sounds pretty good though.
reasoning logic
 
  0  
Fri 8 Mar, 2013 06:03 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
I am not looking for you to "teach" me anything, Spade...nor to "lead me to the river."


Then how will you every find out if there is or is not a God if you do not go to the river and be baptized with holy water? Laughing

Quote:
The "IF" and the "like I think" indicate some doubt…which is at odds with the certainty of other posts of yours.

Cant you just leave him alone on his journey to agnosticism?
0 Replies
 
XXSpadeMasterXX
 
  1  
Fri 8 Mar, 2013 01:07 pm
@Frank Apisa,
I gave you an answer to your question Frank...whether you realize it or not...just like I said I think you do not understand individuals...I want to see if you can figure it out on you own...since you claim you are not looking, but ask other people all time how they think they could know things that you do not, (as in you would either like to know what they do...Or you are trying to directly show them that you think they can not know things that you think you do not, and no one could)...(while claiming it is humorous of me to assert this proposition, and not realizing this)

Go back and reread my last post...(the bottom)



XXSpadeMasterXX
 
  1  
Fri 8 Mar, 2013 01:12 pm
Thanks a lot to all the haters out there!...I guess it is easier (to them) to just claim that someone does not understand something and not help them try to see why you think they do not understand...then it is to just post empty words because someone does not necessarily agree with you...forgive me for actually trying to help someone understand something from my positions...when they ask me outright how I could know them... Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes

I guess I should try to be more concerned about preserving my own thinking, than actually answering theirs, and helping them understand mine, since they asked me to explain mine for them... Idea 2 Cents Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
XXSpadeMasterXX
 
  2  
Fri 8 Mar, 2013 01:40 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
I am not looking for you to "teach" me anything, Spade...nor to "lead me to the river."

It is presumptuous (albeit a bit humorous) of you to suppose that.

Once again you are asking me questions rather than answering the one I asked you.

You asked me a question to explain what I said 2 days ago...I wanted to show you, that you can figure it out on your own...and show you the tools on how to do it...since you asked me...Now you are saying that you want a direct answer to the question, to make a point...and are not interested in the actual answer to my question, because the way you see it may be different than the way I view things...and you just wanted to make a point? and the answer was not important...That is exactly why I wanted to show you that you can figure it out and do not need me...and asked you to post your comment if you honestly wanted to...and asked you what credibility would I be trying to keep/risk loosing, if you thought I have some in saying you like to hear my explanations...but you claimed it is humorous for me to try to explain all of this, while (I guess) a lot of others are more concerned in saying you do not understand, but do not wish to take the time to explain why...

I am going to drop it, because it seems that you, and many others think that what I am doing is wrong...
MattDavis
 
  1  
Fri 8 Mar, 2013 01:42 pm
@spendius,
Spendius wrote:
If you browse Roget you will see that it is laid out in relation to distinctions. Opposites. Synonyms and Antonyms. Even matter has an opposite.
Thanks Spendius, I was meaning to refer to 'distinction' on a more basic level than even that of "words" or even "phonemes" in the spoken/written language sense. Looking at it from a development of language in animals on and through to our human use.
Quote:
That goes over my head Matt. It sounds pretty good though.
Sorry, I didn't want to delve too much off topic.
One example of the growing importance in 'information' as it pertains to the workings in physics, is the assumption in some models that a conservation of information is fundamental (on the very smallest levels). Such theories are having some success in reconciling the quantum vs. relativistic effects surrounding a "black hole".
MattDavis
 
  1  
Fri 8 Mar, 2013 01:47 pm
@XXSpadeMasterXX,
Spade I would hate to see you leave the discussion.
Some people view this thread as a competitive debate. Or a game in which points can be scored. That there are victors and victims. You don't have to accept the terms of that game.
I am here to learn and to share ideas.
I think that is your intent as well.

If other people don't want to play the conversation game....
... then there are plenty of other places for them to play intellectual blood sports.
XXSpadeMasterXX
 
  1  
Fri 8 Mar, 2013 01:55 pm
@MattDavis,
Thanks for the sympathetic words mate...Wink...it seems that many know the vote thing is like a slap in the face to me...and they seem to do it to dig at me...enjoy your day...I may be back later...I'd rather watch golf right now to be honest...no disrespect to you...but being honest as to how I feel about being around some others...I am not leaving this discussion or website or anything mate...Wink...I will be back...
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Fri 8 Mar, 2013 01:57 pm
@MattDavis,
Quote:
Such theories are having some success in reconciling the quantum vs. relativistic effects surrounding a "black hole".


I have suspected that is the case for a long while .

As everything resolves into physics at the fundamental level I assume information can neither be created nor destroyed. Is that what you mean?
MattDavis
 
  1  
Fri 8 Mar, 2013 02:07 pm
@spendius,
That is exactly what I mean regarding conservation of information.

The everything resolving on a physical fundamental level concept, is a view I currently have a strong suspicion of, as well (my current belief).

There are competing and somewhat (to me) convincing arguments that reality may just be a construct of our (mental/conscious/language), that nothing is real without context. Context in a broad sense, not context in only the literary sense. That everything depends on everything else.

The position I hold is a form of realism.
The second position is my understanding of constructivism.

Almost like two different religions Wink
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Fri 8 Mar, 2013 02:27 pm
@XXSpadeMasterXX,
Quote:
I am going to drop it, because it seems that you, and many others think that what I am doing is wrong...


How do atheists conceive of "wrong" Spade?

Writing about the popular American writer F. Marion Crawford Prof. Lazer Ziff wrote--

Quote:
In a Crawford novel socialism, divorce and atheism are interchangeable. "What we call honour," Crawford maintained, "comes to us from chivalry and knighthood, which grew out of Christian doings when men believed; and though non-Christian people have their standards of right and wrong, they have not our sort of honour, nor anything like it, and cannot in the least understand it."


I suppose I should have to say that the knighthood was of the type Cervantes wrote about, with a degree of nostalgia I thought, rather than that of Sir Elton John.

You can't be doing wrong from an atheistic point of view because your posts are not illegal.

From a Christian point of view you are doing wrong if you depart from the teachings of the Catholic Church and withhold your obedience to it.
 

Related Topics

Atheism - Discussion by littlek
American Atheists Barred from holding Office - Discussion by edgarblythe
Richard Dawkins doesn't exist! - Question by Jay2know
The New State Religion: Atheism - Question by Expert2
Is Atheism the New Age Religion? - Question by Expert2
Critical thinking on the existence of God - Discussion by Susmariosep
Are evolution and the big bang true? - Discussion by Johnjohnjohn
To the people .. - Question by Johnjohnjohn
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 11/26/2024 at 01:14:37