|
|
Post by them1ghtyhumph on Jun 4, 2018 5:20:42 GMT
My path is one I choose to walk down due to my observations of life on Earth. I am not looking for converts, because genuinely, it doesn't matter. I hope the Earth continues to be as good to you in the future as it has been in the past. I can't say I'm surprised about the converts though. This ain't a religion, it's an observation. I'm not promoting it, I'm stating my observation. Shit, you can't even try to post, speaking normally |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 4, 2018 5:36:08 GMT
Knock me over with a feather. |
|
|
|
Post by them1ghtyhumph on Jun 4, 2018 6:01:02 GMT
Knock me over with a feather. What the fuck is your point, Ginga? |
|
|
|
Post by progressiveelement on Jun 4, 2018 7:14:26 GMT
I worship myself. 🙌
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 4, 2018 8:03:21 GMT
Sorry for the delay, I was just booking some tickets to Europe for my 10th trip out of Australia. Going to England Scotland and Italy this time. 'Agnostic atheism is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold, a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact.' That pretty much sums me up. I do not hold a belief in any gods or deities. I also consider myself a humanist, liberal, progressive, spiritual and socialist butt none of those things define me. My interests and views are diverse and I love learning and knowledge of all kinds, especially if mixed with experience as you find in travel. I also think that most people may have too much focus in their lives on any of those 'false gods' you mentioned, butt again it would be rare indeed for it to define them. I believe in lots of things. They are pretty esoteric like love empathy hope natural beauty, animals and wildlife, music and art, caring reaching out to others and sticking up for what you DO believe in, whilst being mindful of the needs of others. Remind you of anyone?. Aha, you're trying that old trick that you "do not hold" any belief. I'm still not buying. Your recent comments on the benefits of prayer compared to the benefits of OTC pain relievers show that you do hold a strong bias (belief) against anything you deem religious to the point that you fail to interpret evidence correctly or evenly. That of course is in addition to relativity which you also hold a bias for because you "believe" in science. The concept of "god" entered the realm of the abstract about three thousand years ago. "Knowledge" of such abstract concepts is necessarily problematic. Most intelligent and educated people today are "agnostic" at least in that sense of the word. There are today therefore no "gnostics" recognized outside rather small communities. Gods are no longer bricks of concrete to be "known" like bricks of concrete can be. Suppose however that "Alfred" does meet a god and discusses with that god over baklava the economy of Afghanistan. To you, to me, to anyone who does not also meet with that god, Alfred only believes he met god. Your use of the term to describe any "knowledge" present or not is without any application. More importantly, and highlighting the bias I mentioned earlier, you have no term for people who believe there is no god as though such a thing cannot exist. Yet you rather obviously are one and trying to disguise the fact. Not everyone is aware that they worship various "gods." Most of the people who worship science are not aware of their failing. You obviously fail much science yet remain unaware that you do. I can assure you that I don't hold any religious belief. I interpret evidence correctly and evenly, according to established scientific laws of evidence. I don't worship science, it is a tool to understand the world where the belief in God fails. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 4, 2018 11:09:13 GMT
I can assure you that I don't hold any religious belief. I interpret evidence correctly and evenly, according to established scientific laws of evidence. I don't worship science, it is a tool to understand the world where the belief in God fails. Okay, that's your story and you're sticking to it obviously. Good luck, it's still not very convincing. A lot of Trump supporters claim they do believe in a god. I suspect they're just tampering with the definitions to achieve what they think is some advantage. I suspect you also are just tampering with the definitions, but in a different way obviously. Have you never before noticed how many "Christians" are indistinguishable from atheists? Have you never before noticed how many atheists call themselves "Christian" atheists? That is a person who follows the teachings of Jesus as they interpret them, but will not call Jesus (or the father or the Holy Spirit) a "god." From your short exchanges here I would guess (pardon me) you're a Christian atheist, as are many atheists here. Some admit it. Some do not. It can be obvious whatever they admit. Meanwhile many Trump supporters really are military atheists whatever they claim to be. That is a person who, as described in the OP, worships military prowess. It's funny how you have such sharp differences in your own minds, but to the rest of the world are indistinguishable. I'm not trying to put an end to self identification. I respect your use of language as you see fit. I'm just saying other people are going to also use language according to their definitions to describe you. I'm sorry, that's just how it works. Many would describe you as a Christian Atheist. You refuse to call me scientific, but have never actually employed any science to establish that. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 4, 2018 12:02:24 GMT
Some people worship money. They base almost every decision on getting and holding onto the most money. Some people worship physical attractiveness..nbsp; Some people "worship" military prowess... Some people worship science. Those are the four main "false" gods.
Is this above really a defining of 'gods' we see by Arlon? The one who has previously assured us all here that he does not 'do' definitions? I think it is!
Of course, anything can be a 'god' ("false" or not) if one weakens or works the concept sufficiently to accommodate the claim. Just as any woman could be a 'girlfriend' (fickle or not) if one removes, say, the need for her to be aware of the fact. And when an atheist says he or she 'lacks a belief in God' it is a particularly distinct metaphysical position and, it can be reasonably argued, not at all like all the other things one could make out as being a 'god'. I have never heard any one, except our beloved Arlon, talk of the 'god of military prowess'. There is also a difference between denying a god exists and worshiping a "false one". In fact, given that no deliberate supernatural deity has ever been proved outside of credulity, it can be argued that all gods are likely non-existent at least until evidenced and, if a "true" god is not ever forthcoming, then the idea distinguishing "false ones" is moot anyway...
You mean like the soft sciences of psychiatry and psychology? This point has been made to you before. But anyway. quite why all sciences should be judged by this one yardstick is uncertain. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 4, 2018 12:07:13 GMT
I never "outgrow" stuff I used to like. Sounds economical and maybe just a bit bizarre. For me further investigation can sometimes come up short. Although it's not as if that's all I like. I keep adding to the stuff I like. It's just that I never stop liking the stuff I used to like. And yeah, most people seem to outgrow stuff, although with music, especially, I can't empathetically relate to the idea of outgrowing something. It's difficult for me to imagine why sounds that used to resonate with me would stop resonating with me at some point. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 4, 2018 12:25:53 GMT
recent comments on the benefits of prayer compared to the benefits of OTC pain relievers show that you do hold a strong bias (belief) against anything you deem religious to the point that you fail to interpret evidence correctly or evenly. This is pretty rich, especially from someone who gave no evidence at all recently to show that prayer, or pastoral care, achieved more in hospitals - even the institutions he specifically highlighted - other than perhaps give a higher level of patient satisfaction, lol. The true is the same with asprin and the standard over-the-counter pain relievers. If prayer alone worked then we'd expect that it would not just be the most fervent Jehovahs Witnesses and Christian Scientists avoiding modern medicine, while outcomes would be measureably different in such groups. As for clear, substantiating, evidence from Arlon for this or any other of his usual claims, I don't think we will see any here, now, either. That would just be a 'hard' atheist, Arlon as you really ought to know by now. For instance typical hard atheist arguments, at the most technical level, can focus on the obvious, various internal contradictions and illogicalities posed by the traditional (Christian) deist position, which can be judged enough to assert that a deliberate supernatural cannot exist (a soft atheist of course can also have such arguments in mind, and the weaknesses of the theistic position, as reasons to simply lack belief) - the most popular ones being discussed here: www.philosophyofreligion.info/arguments-for-atheism/ I hope that helps. |
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jun 4, 2018 14:46:42 GMT
I try not to worship anything (it tends to lead to addictive behavior). Anyway, one difference between television and God is that one is known to exist.
|
|
|
|
Post by progressiveelement on Jun 4, 2018 19:28:36 GMT
I can assure you that I don't hold any religious belief. I interpret evidence correctly and evenly, according to established scientific laws of evidence. I don't worship science, it is a tool to understand the world where the belief in God fails. Okay, that's your story and you're sticking to it obviously. Good luck, it's still not very convincing. A lot of Trump supporters claim they do believe in a god. I suspect they're just tampering with the definitions to achieve what they think is some advantage. I suspect you also are just tampering with the definitions, but in a different way obviously. Have you never before noticed how many "Christians" are indistinguishable from atheists? Have you never before noticed how many atheists call themselves "Christian" atheists? That is a person who follows the teachings of Jesus as they interpret them, but will not call Jesus (or the father or the Holy Spirit) a "god." From your short exchanges here I would guess (pardon me) you're a Christian atheist, as are many atheists here. Some admit it. Some do not. It can be obvious whatever they admit. Meanwhile many Trump supporters really are military atheists whatever they claim to be. That is a person who, as described in the OP, worships military prowess. It's funny how you have such sharp differences in your own minds, but to the rest of the world are indistinguishable. I'm not trying to put an end to self identification. I respect your use of language as you see fit. I'm just saying other people are going to also use language according to their definitions to describe you. I'm sorry, that's just how it works. Many would describe you as a Christian Atheist. You refuse to call me scientific, but have never actually employed any science to establish that. Vlad the Impaler was a military Christian. 😲 |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 4, 2018 21:25:42 GMT
Okay, that's your story and you're sticking to it obviously. Good luck, it's still not very convincing. A lot of Trump supporters claim they do believe in a god. I suspect they're just tampering with the definitions to achieve what they think is some advantage. I suspect you also are just tampering with the definitions, but in a different way obviously. Have you never before noticed how many "Christians" are indistinguishable from atheists? Have you never before noticed how many atheists call themselves "Christian" atheists? That is a person who follows the teachings of Jesus as they interpret them, but will not call Jesus (or the father or the Holy Spirit) a "god." From your short exchanges here I would guess (pardon me) you're a Christian atheist, as are many atheists here. Some admit it. Some do not. It can be obvious whatever they admit. Meanwhile many Trump supporters really are military atheists whatever they claim to be. That is a person who, as described in the OP, worships military prowess. It's funny how you have such sharp differences in your own minds, but to the rest of the world are indistinguishable. I'm not trying to put an end to self identification. I respect your use of language as you see fit. I'm just saying other people are going to also use language according to their definitions to describe you. I'm sorry, that's just how it works. Many would describe you as a Christian Atheist. You refuse to call me scientific, but have never actually employed any science to establish that. Vlad the Impaler was a military Christian. 😲 How'd that work out? |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 4, 2018 21:36:38 GMT
I try not to worship anything (it tends to lead to addictive behavior). Anyway, one difference between television and God is that one is known to exist. Worship doesn't have to mean being obsequious. It means a bit more than "follow" but it doesn't have to go to "obsequious." It also can mean simply the "center" of your life, perhaps much like your "trade" or whatever sign would be on your shop door. I'm surprised no one has said that their spouse is their god. A typical order is spouse, god, country where the interests of the spouse come first, then the interests of god, then the interests of country. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 4, 2018 21:57:58 GMT
I can assure you that I don't hold any religious belief. I interpret evidence correctly and evenly, according to established scientific laws of evidence. I don't worship science, it is a tool to understand the world where the belief in God fails. Okay, that's your story and you're sticking to it obviously. Good luck, it's still not very convincing. A lot of Trump supporters claim they do believe in a god. I suspect they're just tampering with the definitions to achieve what they think is some advantage. I suspect you also are just tampering with the definitions, but in a different way obviously. Have you never before noticed how many "Christians" are indistinguishable from atheists? Have you never before noticed how many atheists call themselves "Christian" atheists? That is a person who follows the teachings of Jesus as they interpret them, but will not call Jesus (or the father or the Holy Spirit) a "god." From your short exchanges here I would guess (pardon me) you're a Christian atheist, as are many atheists here. Some admit it. Some do not. It can be obvious whatever they admit. Meanwhile many Trump supporters really are military atheists whatever they claim to be. That is a person who, as described in the OP, worships military prowess. It's funny how you have such sharp differences in your own minds, but to the rest of the world are indistinguishable. I'm not trying to put an end to self identification. I respect your use of language as you see fit. I'm just saying other people are going to also use language according to their definitions to describe you. I'm sorry, that's just how it works. Many would describe you as a Christian Atheist. You refuse to call me scientific, but have never actually employed any science to establish that. Do you know what irks me even more than fundamentalist Christians trying to convert me? It is fundamentalist Christians telling me what I think. BTW I am even less interested in Trump and his followers than Jesus. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2018 22:08:56 GMT
Some people worship money. They base almost every decision on getting and holding onto the most money. Some people worship physical attractiveness. They base almost every decision on what the beautiful people do. If the beautiful people eat polenta, they'll eat polenta. Some people "worship" military prowess. Right is whatever the people with the most might say it is. They believe that if you had any sense you would use the threat of violence to establish not only property, but truth. Truth is whatever the people with the most might say it is. Some people worship science. At least they think something like that. Quite often such people are more fond of science than capable of it though. Things that are not science at all successfully parade as science because of the people who are not capable of science but believe in what they think is science. Another problem with worshiping science is that most issues in society become issues because no one agrees what the problem is. If no one agrees what the problem is, then science cannot solve it. Those are the four main "false" gods. What about television though? Do you base your important life decisions on what the television says? Or television and that part of the internet backed by television? Do you believe what the television says without question? How many hours per day do you spend watching television? If you depend on television, why? Is it because you assume the work has all been done and there is no more scrutiny required? What work? By whom? The amazing thing about the people who claim "there is no god" is that there are very obviously several. I just named five of them. There are more like those. One poster here recently said that you can see how people "created" the gods step by step in the Mahabharata. So what? Why shouldn't austerity or serenity be god? Is it not true that Hindus in general place a higher value on austerity and or serenity? How do you know austerity and or serenity didn't create anything special before history? That process by the way happens to be very scientific. It is however a very introspective science. Western science is not introspective. Some of you, not the best or most scientific, forbid science to be introspective. What good is a "science" that has no idea who we are inside?  |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 4, 2018 22:17:00 GMT
Some people worship money. They base almost every decision on getting and holding onto the most money. Some people worship physical attractiveness. They base almost every decision on what the beautiful people do. If the beautiful people eat polenta, they'll eat polenta. Some people "worship" military prowess. Right is whatever the people with the most might say it is. They believe that if you had any sense you would use the threat of violence to establish not only property, but truth. Truth is whatever the people with the most might say it is. Some people worship science. At least they think something like that. Quite often such people are more fond of science than capable of it though. Things that are not science at all successfully parade as science because of the people who are not capable of science but believe in what they think is science. Another problem with worshiping science is that most issues in society become issues because no one agrees what the problem is. If no one agrees what the problem is, then science cannot solve it. Those are the four main "false" gods. What about television though? Do you base your important life decisions on what the television says? Or television and that part of the internet backed by television? Do you believe what the television says without question? How many hours per day do you spend watching television? If you depend on television, why? Is it because you assume the work has all been done and there is no more scrutiny required? What work? By whom? The amazing thing about the people who claim "there is no god" is that there are very obviously several. I just named five of them. There are more like those. One poster here recently said that you can see how people "created" the gods step by step in the Mahabharata. So what? Why shouldn't austerity or serenity be god? Is it not true that Hindus in general place a higher value on austerity and or serenity? How do you know austerity and or serenity didn't create anything special before history? That process by the way happens to be very scientific. It is however a very introspective science. Western science is not introspective. Some of you, not the best or most scientific, forbid science to be introspective. What good is a "science" that has no idea who we are inside? Planet Arlon at least has a talent for something, and he is amazingly consistent at being wrong! |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 4, 2018 22:48:02 GMT
Okay, that's your story and you're sticking to it obviously. Good luck, it's still not very convincing. A lot of Trump supporters claim they do believe in a god. I suspect they're just tampering with the definitions to achieve what they think is some advantage. I suspect you also are just tampering with the definitions, but in a different way obviously. Have you never before noticed how many "Christians" are indistinguishable from atheists? Have you never before noticed how many atheists call themselves "Christian" atheists? That is a person who follows the teachings of Jesus as they interpret them, but will not call Jesus (or the father or the Holy Spirit) a "god." From your short exchanges here I would guess (pardon me) you're a Christian atheist, as are many atheists here. Some admit it. Some do not. It can be obvious whatever they admit. Meanwhile many Trump supporters really are military atheists whatever they claim to be. That is a person who, as described in the OP, worships military prowess. It's funny how you have such sharp differences in your own minds, but to the rest of the world are indistinguishable. I'm not trying to put an end to self identification. I respect your use of language as you see fit. I'm just saying other people are going to also use language according to their definitions to describe you. I'm sorry, that's just how it works. Many would describe you as a Christian Atheist. You refuse to call me scientific, but have never actually employed any science to establish that. Do you know what irks me even more than fundamentalist Christians trying to convert me? It is fundamentalist Christians telling me what I think. BTW I am even less interested in Trump and his followers than Jesus. Here's the deal. Yes, I respect your definitions. Yes, I understand your need and indeed right to use them. There are lots of people like I am, so your definitions are safe. Here's the problem. We can't work with six billion different definitions. We can't work with five hundred different definitions. We have to narrow down the categories to a manageable number, in fact as few as serve some useful, immediate purpose. If you ever decide to do the type of work I do you will understand this. You are free to be an "agnostic atheist" or whatever. I can't work with that though. If you are ever asked to participate in a survey you might be asked to pick one group from four or five or so groups and "agnostic atheist" might not be an available choice. You might have to redefine yourself in order to address some immediate concern in the news. Your attitude about definitions is wrong as I have explained to you many times. You continue to believe that your definitions "exist" outside you. They do not. All definitions are arbitrary and yours are no more or less arbitrary. No definitions are "right" or "wrong." Some definitions serve a useful purpose in communication others are less useful or not useful at all. In my work if I say an "atheist" is a person that believes there is no god, then that is exactly what an atheist is. I have narrowed the choices to three, however much that irks you. Those who believe there is a god, those who believe there is no god, and those who fit neither of the first two categories. Having more than those three categories is not useful. I cannot depend on you to put people in them in a consistent manner. My categories are realistic and less difficult to identify. The term "hard atheist" serves no useful, immediate purpose unless it means exactly what I mean by the simpler term "atheist." The only purpose I can see for "hard atheist" is to confuse people about the scientific evidence for objects of worship and agencies apparently outside nature. Although you do not consider Jesus a god, and perhaps neither care for Jesus the man, I believe you have argued for your version of the philosophy of life in the New Testament. Yes or no? If yes, that would make a "Christian Atheist." That's life. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 4, 2018 22:59:50 GMT
I disagree with every word you said. I'm sorry you have nothing better to do. I would think you have. On the bright side, there is plenty. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2018 23:01:59 GMT
I disagree with every word you said. I apologise for saying so many clearly wrong things. It was bad of me. That's okay, I'm used to it. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 4, 2018 23:09:22 GMT
I I'm sorry you have nothing better to do. I would think you have. On the bright side, there is plenty. That's okay, I'm used to it. What would it take to get you to change your avatar? |
|
