Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Aug 2, 2018 11:02:00 GMT
Yeah I you can have a Spinozist view of God and not believe in that stuff. What would you say are the necessary criteria for a Spinozist view of God? 1.God is all of existence. 2.God has no mind
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Aug 2, 2018 11:08:24 GMT
You don't know what this string of bullshit even means. Sorry to break it to you, but as much as you think you are being deep and profound, you are being neither. It's a big trend in modern philosophy. You just take a statement that sounds obvious, and then turn it around in hopes that it will sound profound. "You think you are watching the television, but it is the television that is watching you." "Do we eat meat because it is tasty, or is meat tasty because we eat it?" "The atheist may not believe in god, but god believes in the atheist." See? It's really easy. Totally meaningless, but really easy. It's basic Buddhism or Vedanta philosophy, it's not like I made it up. Here;s an article you might find interesting. "In Buddhism for instance, consciousness is the only thing that exists." I learned a new word from it, ' Panpsychism'.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Aug 2, 2018 11:37:29 GMT
What would you say are the necessary criteria for a Spinozist view of God? 1.God is all of existence. 2.God has no mind Isn't thought an attribute of God in Spinozism?
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Aug 2, 2018 12:13:27 GMT
1.God is all of existence. 2.God has no mind Isn't thought an attribute of God in Spinozism? It's been a while but if I remember correctly thought is an atribute of god because thought exists and god is existence.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Aug 2, 2018 12:25:08 GMT
Isn't thought an attribute of God in Spinozism? It's been a while but if I remember correctly thought is an atribute of god because thought exists and god is existence. So then god would have a mind.
|
|
|
Post by Rodney Farber on Aug 2, 2018 12:54:47 GMT
I stumbled across this YouTube video. It's a weekly, internet only, call-in talk show called The Atheist Experience. It is run by a group in Austin, Texas. In this photo from yesterday's show, they are talking to a man named King. What kind of a name is King? Does anyone else see anything wrong with this screen-scrape? O.P. Here. I only heard about this show a week ago as I was browsing around YouTube. I only watched about 20 minutes of the show on Sunday. Even though this is a religious forum, the primary reason I posted this was to see how long it took anyone to notice that Juneau, Alaska, was misspelled, about 28 hours and 210 views. My question now is ... What is that white, twisted thing sitting on the desk between the two hosts? It looks like a small intestine.
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Aug 2, 2018 12:56:07 GMT
It's been a while but if I remember correctly thought is an atribute of god because thought exists and god is existence. So then god would have a mind. God wouldn't have a mind no. Anyway I think you know what I meant by that.
|
|
|
Post by 🌵 on Aug 2, 2018 12:59:41 GMT
You don't know what this string of bullshit even means. Sorry to break it to you, but as much as you think you are being deep and profound, you are being neither. It's a big trend in modern philosophy. You just take a statement that sounds obvious, and then turn it around in hopes that it will sound profound. "You think you are watching the television, but it is the television that is watching you." "Do we eat meat because it is tasty, or is meat tasty because we eat it?" "The atheist may not believe in god, but god believes in the atheist." See? It's really easy. Totally meaningless, but really easy. It sounds like you haven't actually read much modern philosophy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2018 14:03:37 GMT
It's a big trend in modern philosophy. You just take a statement that sounds obvious, and then turn it around in hopes that it will sound profound. "You think you are watching the television, but it is the television that is watching you." "Do we eat meat because it is tasty, or is meat tasty because we eat it?" "The atheist may not believe in god, but god believes in the atheist." See? It's really easy. Totally meaningless, but really easy. It sounds like you haven't actually read much modern philosophy. Or does it sound like modern philosophy hasn't read much of me?
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Aug 2, 2018 14:31:46 GMT
It sounds like you haven't actually read much modern philosophy. Or does it sound like modern philosophy hasn't read much of me? Excellent reply. To be honest, in Philosophy, anything more recent than Adorno is mostly unknown to me. And I strongly dislike Adorno. So modern philosophy and me are not exactly best friends. But the position of panpsychism isn't particularly new; nor does it sound too different from solipsism. In fact, panpsychism would be true if every entity in existance was solipsistic. But that's just my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by 🌵 on Aug 2, 2018 15:37:46 GMT
It sounds like you haven't actually read much modern philosophy. Or does it sound like modern philosophy hasn't read much of me? As any modern philosopher would tell you, "modern philosophy hasn't read much of me" contains two category errors. Well, more precisely, it's technically true but implicates two category errors, since under normal circumstances you'd only utter " x hasn't read much of y" if x is the kind of thing that is capable of reading and y is a text that can be read. So the first one. (This comment is more what modern philosophy actually looks like, by the way.)
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Aug 2, 2018 15:41:11 GMT
So then god would have a mind. God wouldn't have a mind no. Anyway I think you know what I meant by that. If there is thought, there is a mind. Thought is a mental phenomenon.
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Aug 2, 2018 15:50:51 GMT
I stumbled across this YouTube video. It's a weekly, internet only, call-in talk show called The Atheist Experience. It is run by a group in Austin, Texas. In this photo from yesterday's show, they are talking to a man named King. What kind of a name is King? Does anyone else see anything wrong with this screen-scrape? O.P. Here. I only heard about this show a week ago as I was browsing around YouTube. I only watched about 20 minutes of the show on Sunday. Even though this is a religious forum, the primary reason I posted this was to see how long it took anyone to notice that Juneau, Alaska, was misspelled, about 28 hours and 210 views. My question now is ... What is that white, twisted thing sitting on the desk between the two hosts? It looks like a small intestine. That is a Flying Spaghetti Monster; I can't believe no one else has yet to answer your question! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_MonsterThe Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) is the deity of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Pastafarianism. Pastafarianism (a portmanteau of pasta and Rastafarianism) is a social movement that promotes a light-hearted view of religion and opposes the teaching of intelligent design and creationism in public schools. According to adherents, Pastafarianism is a "real, legitimate religion, as much as any other".[3] It is legally recognized as a religion in the Netherlands.[4] In New Zealand, Pastafarian representatives are authorized to officiate weddings.[5][6][7] However, in the United States, a federal judge has ruled that the "Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster" is not a real religion.[8]
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Aug 2, 2018 16:55:23 GMT
God wouldn't have a mind no. Anyway I think you know what I meant by that. If there is thought, there is a mind. Thought is a mental phenomenon. There is a reason I put "a mind" in bold. God has minds, not a mind.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Aug 2, 2018 17:11:33 GMT
If there is thought, there is a mind. Thought is a mental phenomenon. There is a reason I put "a mind" in bold. God has minds, not a mind. You said that God has no mind under Spinozism.
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Aug 2, 2018 17:13:20 GMT
There is a reason I put "a mind" in bold. God has minds, not a mind. You said that God has no mind under Spinozism. Denotatively I was wrong but you clearly know what I meant.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Aug 2, 2018 17:16:59 GMT
You said that God has no mind under Spinozism. Denotatively I was wrong but you clearly know what I meant.
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Aug 2, 2018 17:51:58 GMT
Denotatively I was wrong but you clearly know what I meant. I have no idea what that's supposed to mean
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2018 19:39:14 GMT
Or does it sound like modern philosophy hasn't read much of me? As any modern philosopher would tell you, "modern philosophy hasn't read much of me" contains two category errors. So?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 3, 2018 12:09:56 GMT
They are not useful because you have no standard to determine who is or is not "gnostic." Even if you did have a standard you don't accept any evidence it was met. Also you have people who "lack" belief joining debates against the existence of a god and not just to see what people are wearing. I really do not care who has the burden of proof for my own purposes, I accept the burden of proof myself, whose ever it is. I merely tell you who would have the burden of proof according to standards (there's that word again). I've shown far more lenience than you in considering claims of spiritual experiences. I do however have standards (there's that word again) that determine who has them or not. That means there are specific criteria they should meet at some point. You can whine and moan how wrong you think I am all day like faustus5 , but you need to list some standards for the decisions you make or it will be only whining and moaning.
|
|