Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Dec, 2005 06:33 pm
Thanx Infrablue. I read that. I was just checking to see if Doktor S was serious or not.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Dec, 2005 07:01 pm
neologist wrote:
So you have free will, then?
What about it Dok?
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Dec, 2005 07:18 pm
The door between you and the rest of us.

Yes, I believe in Altruism.

Example of selfless act: I take a piss and I piss on the seat. Nobody is around but I clean it anyway.

What is your purpose here?

why are you asking me questions?
0 Replies
 
Doktor S
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Dec, 2005 07:51 pm
neologist wrote:
neologist wrote:
So you have free will, then?
What about it Dok?

Nope.
I am what I am and have arived at the conclusions that I have based on genetic disposition and environment.
0 Replies
 
Doktor S
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Dec, 2005 07:55 pm
Amigo wrote:
The door between you and the rest of us.

Who exactly are 'us' anyway? There is no 'us' just a large group of 'I' s
Quote:

Yes, I believe in Altruism.

Example of selfless act: I take a piss and I piss on the seat. Nobody is around but I clean it anyway.

And if you hadn't cleaned it, it wouldn't have bothered you? Cleaning it didn't alleviate future anguish when the first female after you shits down your throat about it?
No, there is no such thing as a completely selfless act. Everything everyone does is motivated by selfishness on some level. Only the level of hippocracy varies from person to person.
Quote:


What is your purpose here?

why are you asking me questions?

Answer to both: to entertain myself.
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Dec, 2005 08:15 pm
That large group of I's is us. You are part of us.

It would bother me if I sat on a toilet seat with piss on it. Thats why I cleaned the seat hoping all people would act as I do.

Would you clean the seat?
0 Replies
 
Doktor S
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Dec, 2005 08:17 pm
Yes, but I wouldn't pretend it was a 'selfless' act, because it wouldn't be.

And how does being an egoist make you any more or less a part of 'us'? (I assume you mean humanity, but you are being rather ambiguous)
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Dec, 2005 08:26 pm
F**k everybody else. Nobody was there but you. Your wasting your time cleaning the seat. It changes nothing for you. It does nothing for the I to clean the seat. You neglect the I when you clean the seat. The person before you is a fool that served you when he cleaned the seat and the person after that sits on your piss is also a fool for not checking. F**k him.
0 Replies
 
Doktor S
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Dec, 2005 08:29 pm
You assume having a clean seat is not itself a reward for the cleaning it. Still not selfless.
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Dec, 2005 08:33 pm
Me cleaning the seat is an award for the next person who may or may not be worthy of an award.
0 Replies
 
Doktor S
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Dec, 2005 08:39 pm
I think you are looking for the word 'reward'
And it isn't really any kind of reward to have the seat un-peed on. However, the one that peed on it will certainly recieve concequences for doing so.
Cleaning it is an act of self-preservation in this context.
Who knew there were so many motivators to toilet-seat cleaning huh?
And none of them selfless.

Seriously, honestly introspect on this. Short of throwing yourself on a grenade (the closest thing to pure altruism I can think of) altruism doesn't exist. And even throwing yourself on a grenade can be argued to have selfish motivators. Martyr anyone? Everyone loves a martyr...right?
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Dec, 2005 09:00 pm
I submit that autotheism or autodeification are simply recondite words for free will. Nobody said that in order for you to have free will, you would not be limited by natural laws.

It's like someone saying he has no need for sex because he's autoerotic.
0 Replies
 
Doktor S
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Dec, 2005 09:08 pm
I submit the two subjects are wholey unrelated.

Freewill says you can make choices based on your 'will' free of cause but not of influence, which our will can overcome.

MY determinism says that you make what appear to be choices based on your will, which itself is itself a result of causality. All choices are a result of prior events.

Autotheism is revering your ego as deity, and putting none higher. How is this incompatible with EITHER stance?
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Dec, 2005 09:10 pm
That you correct me is part of your purpose here. Cleaning the seats serves 'us' not 'I'. You do it in good faith. Inless you go around cleanig toilet seats because it's rewarding.
0 Replies
 
Doktor S
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Dec, 2005 09:15 pm
Amigo wrote:
That you correct me is part of your purpose here. Cleaning the seats serves 'us' not 'I'. You do it in good faith. Inless you go around cleanig toilet seats because it's rewarding.

Missed the point eh?
Let me put it in simpler terms.
Piss on the seat, people will get bitchy with you.
Clean it, and you avoid that.
"I served"
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Dec, 2005 09:24 pm
Nobody saw what you did. Cleaning it does nothing for you. The answer for you if you truly serve 'I' to the fullest extent is not to clean the seat. Nobody can bitch.

I made a mistake I said your purpose. I meant to say part of your reason here is to correct me.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Dec, 2005 09:39 pm
Doktor S wrote:
real life wrote:
echi wrote:
real life wrote:
echi wrote:
He could be omnipresent if his entire world consisted only of wherever he is at any moment. (Right?)
Or, he could be omnipresent if he considered himself to be part of everything that exists.


He could consider himself such. But if we want to talk to anyone other than ourselves and be understood, it is usually best to use a commonly understood definition.

If you wanna make it up as you go along, my toddler does the same. Perhaps we can arrange a play day. Um, no never mind.
Laughing

He wouldn't be making up his own definition. The word "omnipresent" would just apply differently to him if he really had such a world view.But the proper definition of the word, I think, would still hold.


Well, Echi , turns out you are correct. Our friend with the swastika does also have a unique definition of "universe" to accompany his unique definition of "omnipresent".

Of course, he still can't claim (and to be fair, he doesn't claim) to be omniscient or omnipotent even in his own little universe.

So his unique definition of God, even if applied only to his little universe must (surprise!) also be different from the normal definition of God as One who is all powerful, all knowing, etc.

So if you accept his unusual definition of universe, his unusual definition of omnipresent and his unusual definition of God, well hey.........I guess we don't disagree at all.

Just don't get into a business deal with him or anyone like him. He probably has an unusual definition of "partnership", "agreement", "contract", "money", "performance", "profit", "responsibility", "liability", etc.


Not at all, I'm actually quite adept at buisness and financial matters. But that isn't really relevant......


Yeah, it's relevant.

I didn't say that your business dealings didn't work out well for you......Since you seem to like to make up new definitions for words as you go along, I think a prudent person would be wise to look after their own interests by dealing with someone who uses the same definition of common terms as everyone else.

I wouldn't want to sink money into a deal and end up in an argument over what the definition of "is" is. And since you think you are God, I don't have a lot of confidence that following rules other than your own means anything to you.

I think most folks can see why it's very relevant. If we had a society with hundreds of millions of people defining themselves as God, you basically are looking at anarchy.
0 Replies
 
Doktor S
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Dec, 2005 09:39 pm
Quote:

Nobody saw what you did. Cleaning it does nothing for you. The answer for you if you truly serve 'I' to the fullest extent is not to clean the seat. Nobody can bitch.

This depends on whose 'seat' it is. I submit even if it was a public seat, and nobody could ever link you to the 'peeing', cleaning it would have selfish motivation. A couple of reasons I can think of casually imagine would be 1 - A sense of having 'done the right thing', based on prior conditioning
2 - a sense of 'superiority', believing yourself to be better or more 'civilized' than one that wouldn't clean it.
I'm sure I could come up with more, if I needed to. that was the result of as much thought as the time taken to type it.
Nothing is altruistic.
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Dec, 2005 09:45 pm
I only really want to know why you, A satanist, would clean a toilet seat he pissed on when nobody seen him do it. Would you do it to fell Superior or to be civilized?
0 Replies
 
Doktor S
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Dec, 2005 09:50 pm
Who said I would?
If it were my own, or a friends, or if I were a guest in someones lair..sure.
If I were out in public, I'd probably just leave it. Someone is making minimum wage to clean that..far be it from me to steal money out of their pockets! Razz
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Autotheism.
  3. » Page 3
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/31/2024 at 06:18:47