|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Oct 9, 2017 11:28:22 GMT
Reminds me of a line of dialogue from a movie I saw once. "You're more advanced than a cockroach. Did you ever try making yourself 'clear' to one of them?" I wouldn't compare Terrapin to an insect, far from it. He is just not flexible or open to what exists beyond his notion of what is perceived as the physical realm. He is working from what he would consider a logical pov, within his own limitations and belief thinking that he is an atheist. No matter which way he looks at it, the thought still contains a notion of God, which has an understanding about a belief in God, in order to refute God. Again, my comments in the conversation we've been having have nothing to do with, and in no way hinge on, any specific ontology, any specific religious views, etc. In fact, re religious views, thoughts about that couldn't have been further from my mind for tens of posts. I'm asking you about your views from under the umbrella of your views. You won't even answer a question such as whether you're using the "un" prefix in the standard way, so that it denotes negation. Either yes, you are using that prefix that way, or no, you are not. (Or if you'd need clarification about what I'm asking, you'd simply, straightforwardly ask for clarification.) If you won't or can't answer that, there's something going seriously wrong with respect to the most fundamental conversational interaction. In another recent thread, it was getting to a similar point with another user. So I asked the person I was supposedly having a conversation with if their username was what their usename appeared to be--for example, if I were to ask you, "Yes or no, is your username on this board 'Toasted Cheese'?" They wouldn't even answer that simple question. When a "conversation" gets to that point, something is seriously wrong--more than likely the other person doesn't want to agree or cooperate with anything on principle, and a reason why might be that they're worried that they're falling into a "trap" of sorts. It's completely futile to attempt any interaction whatsoever when things get to that point. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Oct 9, 2017 11:41:44 GMT
I wouldn't compare Terrapin to an insect, far from it. He is just not flexible or open to what exists beyond his notion of what is perceived as the physical realm. He is working from what he would consider a logical pov, within his own limitations and belief thinking that he is an atheist. No matter which way he looks at it, the thought still contains a notion of God, which has an understanding about a belief in God, in order to refute God. That's the choice he made. It isn't as if the ability were denied to him. It's just that existence beyond the material is too big a lump to go down his prideful throat. "Are you using the prefix 'un' in standard way, to denote negation" couldn't be further afield from questions about ontology re materialism or religious philosophy or anything like that. Maybe the problem is that folks are insisting on reading way more into a question like that than there is? I'm literally, simply, ONLY asking if he's using the prefix "un" in the standard way when I ask that. It has nothing at all to do with what the thread topic is. I could ask in any arbitrary thread (in fact, for a long time now, I've had no idea what this thread was even originally about--I simply check notifications and look at the response I received. I don't care what thread it was in. That's irrelevant to questions about what "illusion" is supposed to refer to if there is no non-illusion, or whether he's using the prefix "un" in a standard way). Conversations shouldn't be that difficult, so that we can't straightforwardly answer the most simple of questions. But over and over they get to a point where I could ask someone (I'll use you for an example), "Yes or no, did you just type the sentence, 'That's the choice he made'," and the person I ask will refuse to answer in a straightforward, simple way. That's not a "score" for their side. It's a loss for the ability to have a conversation. And the reason I'd ask that is to check if things have gotten to that point--where the most simple, cooperative, conversational interaction is no longer possible. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Oct 9, 2017 11:53:08 GMT
I wouldn't compare Terrapin to an insect, far from it. He is just not flexible or open to what exists beyond his notion of what is perceived as the physical realm. He is working from what he would consider a logical pov, within his own limitations and belief thinking that he is an atheist. No matter which way he looks at it, the thought still contains a notion of God, which has an understanding about a belief in God, in order to refute God. Again, my comments in the conversation we've been having have nothing to do with, and in no way hinge on, any specific ontology, any specific religious views, etc. I'm asking you about your views from under the umbrella of your views. You won't even answer a question such as whether you're using the "un" prefix in the standard way, so that it denotes negation. Either yes, you are using that prefix that way, or no, you are not. If you won't or can't answer that, there's something going seriously wrong with respect to the most fundamental conversational interaction. In another recent thread, it was getting to a similar point with another user. So I asked the person I was supposedly having a conversation with if their username was what their usename appeared to be--for example, if I were to ask you, "Yes or no, is your username on this board 'Toasted Cheese'?" They wouldn't even answer that simple question. When a "conversation" gets to that point, something is seriously wrong--more than likely the other person doesn't want to agree or cooperate with anything on principle, and a reason why might be that they're worried that they're falling into a "trap" of sorts. It's completely futile to attempt any interaction whatsoever when things get to that point. My view is open and connected and this has been explained to you umpteenth times. All you want to hear is a black and white yes or no, because it makes the challenge so much easier for you to negate not only myself, but ironically your own pov. The pre-fix question, is just you playing devil's advocate and wanting to win some headway. I meant "un-real", as in awesome "unreal", and I already commented on that earlier. It has nothing to do with any contradiction that you are looking for, or feeble attempt to intellectualize the grammar, just so you can give yourself a pat on the back for thinking your point is clever by looking at it this way. Don't you believe your life and awareness is awesome?
I'm not the one holding an umbrella over me, that is you doing that, along with your own umbrella. You are digressing on things, to avoid acknowledging your own limited outlook. You are being a stubborn mule and appear to be talking arrogant, vague and conceited rhetoric to justify your own belief system. Perhaps your belief as an atheist might not be serving you as well as you believe it does, it's certainly not serving you well here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Oct 9, 2017 12:13:50 GMT
Again, my comments in the conversation we've been having have nothing to do with, and in no way hinge on, any specific ontology, any specific religious views, etc. I'm asking you about your views from under the umbrella of your views. You won't even answer a question such as whether you're using the "un" prefix in the standard way, so that it denotes negation. Either yes, you are using that prefix that way, or no, you are not. If you won't or can't answer that, there's something going seriously wrong with respect to the most fundamental conversational interaction. In another recent thread, it was getting to a similar point with another user. So I asked the person I was supposedly having a conversation with if their username was what their usename appeared to be--for example, if I were to ask you, "Yes or no, is your username on this board 'Toasted Cheese'?" They wouldn't even answer that simple question. When a "conversation" gets to that point, something is seriously wrong--more than likely the other person doesn't want to agree or cooperate with anything on principle, and a reason why might be that they're worried that they're falling into a "trap" of sorts. It's completely futile to attempt any interaction whatsoever when things get to that point. My view is open and connected and this has been explained to you umpteenth times. All you want to hear is a black and white yes or no, because it makes the challenge so much easier for you to negate not only myself, but ironically your own pov. The pre-fix question, is just you playing devil's advocate and wanting to win some headway. I meant "un-real", as in awesome "unreal", and I already commented on that earlier. It has nothing to do with any contradiction that you are looking for, or feeble attempt to intellectualize the grammar, just so you can give yourself a pat on the back for thinking your point is clever by looking at it this way. Don't you believe your life and awareness is awesome?
I'm not the one holding an umbrella over me, that is you doing that, along with your own umbrella. You are digressing on things, to avoid acknowledging your own limited outlook. You are being a stubborn mule and appear to be talking arrogant, vague and conceited rhetoric to justify your own belief system. Perhaps your belief as an atheist might not be serving you as well as you believe it does, it's certainly not serving you well here.
See, you're reading a whole bunch of shit into this, so that it's making it impossible to have a conversation. The question about the prefix "un" was transparently, literally asked in a good-faith attempt to make some sense out of what you were saying (for myself--I'm not saying it doesn't make sense to you, but I can't understand it at all). I asked you what "real" would be referring to in your view. You answered, "What is unreal." To me, that answer makes no sense. So in a good-faith attempt to understand your comment, I asked if you're using the prefix "un" in the standard way, to denote negation. Because I'm assuming that you're not, because if I assume that you are using it in the standard way, that's when the response makes no sense to me. For example, if I were to ask someone they're using the term "dog" to refer to (which I'd ask because their usage isn't clear to me), and they were to answer, "what's not a dog," so that it would amount to, "When I say 'dog,' I'm referring to what's not a dog," I wouldn't be able to understand that very well. For one, it's basically defining the term by using the term itself, only it's negating it. "When I say boof, I'm referring to not boof." That not only doesn't give me any insight into how they're using "boof," it adds confusion in that they're apparently using the term to refer to the negation of that same term. I'm not playing "devil's advocate" in any of that or "wanting to 'win' some headway" or anything. I don't see it at all as a competition. I'm simply trying to understand what in the world the person is saying, from the context of their views, as much as that's possible, NOT from the context of my views (that's what the "umbrella" term refers to--"under the umbrella of Joe's views" means Joe's views, per Joe's views, as he defines terms and so on, not per someone else's views, as they define terms and so on). That's why I can't go by what I'd be using the term "real" to refer to, because the way you're using the term doesn't fit with the way I use it. So I have to try to understand how you're using it differently. So there's no ulterior motive. It's not a competition. I'm just trying to understand what you're saying. "I'm using 'real' to refer to 'what is unreal'" makes no sense to me. It provides no insight into how you're using the term "real," and it just adds a layer of confusion. Hence trying to figure out if you're using "un" for negation in the standard way. I'm just trying to gain some smidgen of understanding into your views, as your views. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Oct 9, 2017 12:35:20 GMT
My view is open and connected and this has been explained to you umpteenth times. All you want to hear is a black and white yes or no, because it makes the challenge so much easier for you to negate not only myself, but ironically your own pov. The pre-fix question, is just you playing devil's advocate and wanting to win some headway. I meant "un-real", as in awesome "unreal", and I already commented on that earlier. It has nothing to do with any contradiction that you are looking for, or feeble attempt to intellectualize the grammar, just so you can give yourself a pat on the back for thinking your point is clever by looking at it this way. Don't you believe your life and awareness is awesome?
I'm not the one holding an umbrella over me, that is you doing that, along with your own umbrella. You are digressing on things, to avoid acknowledging your own limited outlook. You are being a stubborn mule and appear to be talking arrogant, vague and conceited rhetoric to justify your own belief system. Perhaps your belief as an atheist might not be serving you as well as you believe it does, it's certainly not serving you well here.
See, you're reading a whole bunch of shit into this, so that it's making it impossible to have a conversation. The question about the prefix "un" was transparently, literally asked in a good-faith attempt to make some sense out of what you were saying (for myself--I'm not saying it doesn't make sense to you, but I can't understand it at all). I asked you what "real" would be referring to in your view. You answered, "What is unreal." To me, that answer makes no sense. So in a good-faith attempt to understand your comment, I asked if you're using the prefix "un" in the standard way, to denote negation. Because I'm assuming that you're not, because if I assume that you are using it in the standard way, that's when the response makes no sense to me. For example, if I were to ask someone they're using the term "dog" to refer to (which I'd ask because their usage isn't clear to me), and they were to answer, "what's not a dog," so that it would amount to, "When I say 'dog,' I'm referring to what's not a dog," I wouldn't be able to understand that very well. For one, it's basically defining the term by using the term itself, only it's negating it. "When I say boof, I'm referring to not boof." That not only doesn't give me any insight into how they're using "boof," it adds confusion in that they're apparently using the term to refer to the negation of that same term. I'm not playing "devil's advocate" in any of that or "wanting to 'win' some headway" or anything. I don't see it at all as a competition. I'm simply trying to understand what in the world the person is saying, from the context of their views, as much as that's possible, NOT from the context of my views (that's what the "umbrella" term refers to--"under the umbrella of Joe's views" means Joe's views, per Joe's views, as he defines terms and so on, not per someone else's views, as they define terms and so on). That's why I can't go by what I'd be using the term "real" to refer to, because the way you're using the term doesn't fit with the way I use it. So I have to try to understand how you're using it differently. So there's no ulterior motive. It's not a competition. I'm just trying to understand what you're saying. "I'm using 'real' to refer to 'what is unreal'" makes no sense to me. It provides no insight into how you're using the term "real," and it just adds a layer of confusion. Hence trying to figure out if you're using "un" for negation in the standard way. I'm just trying to gain some smidgen of understanding into your views, as your views. I'll get back to you later, you're boring me right now. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Oct 9, 2017 12:40:03 GMT
See, you're reading a whole bunch of shit into this, so that it's making it impossible to have a conversation. The question about the prefix "un" was transparently, literally asked in a good-faith attempt to make some sense out of what you were saying (for myself--I'm not saying it doesn't make sense to you, but I can't understand it at all). I asked you what "real" would be referring to in your view. You answered, "What is unreal." To me, that answer makes no sense. So in a good-faith attempt to understand your comment, I asked if you're using the prefix "un" in the standard way, to denote negation. Because I'm assuming that you're not, because if I assume that you are using it in the standard way, that's when the response makes no sense to me. For example, if I were to ask someone they're using the term "dog" to refer to (which I'd ask because their usage isn't clear to me), and they were to answer, "what's not a dog," so that it would amount to, "When I say 'dog,' I'm referring to what's not a dog," I wouldn't be able to understand that very well. For one, it's basically defining the term by using the term itself, only it's negating it. "When I say boof, I'm referring to not boof." That not only doesn't give me any insight into how they're using "boof," it adds confusion in that they're apparently using the term to refer to the negation of that same term. I'm not playing "devil's advocate" in any of that or "wanting to 'win' some headway" or anything. I don't see it at all as a competition. I'm simply trying to understand what in the world the person is saying, from the context of their views, as much as that's possible, NOT from the context of my views (that's what the "umbrella" term refers to--"under the umbrella of Joe's views" means Joe's views, per Joe's views, as he defines terms and so on, not per someone else's views, as they define terms and so on). That's why I can't go by what I'd be using the term "real" to refer to, because the way you're using the term doesn't fit with the way I use it. So I have to try to understand how you're using it differently. So there's no ulterior motive. It's not a competition. I'm just trying to understand what you're saying. "I'm using 'real' to refer to 'what is unreal'" makes no sense to me. It provides no insight into how you're using the term "real," and it just adds a layer of confusion. Hence trying to figure out if you're using "un" for negation in the standard way. I'm just trying to gain some smidgen of understanding into your views, as your views. I'll get back to you later, you're boring me right now. Haha, okay. I actually see that reaction as an improvement, because it suggests that you might finally be reading my comments with the tone in which I intend them. My comments are made much more in the spirit of, say, WVO Quine's Word and Object, which many people find boring, than they're made in the spirit of someone like youtube's "Angry Atheist," which is how I think you've been reading them. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Oct 9, 2017 13:53:03 GMT
tpfkar But guidance is the driver of power, liger. It is in holistic condensing, that we are reborn. That is the clincher.
Birthday BoyAnd your guidance from the dark side, is appropriate? What is your clincher?  The dark side of which you thoughtfully implore is also for countless as you the, conjointment-enervating illusion. Alike, your cultivated beacon of life as illusion, is itself illusory and the very semblance that holds you fixed, to the cherished but paralyzing ego mindset yet disconnected from holistic oneness.
Old Man Thunder |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Oct 10, 2017 22:00:19 GMT
tpfkar Your simple questions can't be answered in a straight forward way and no matter what I answer, you will refute what is said. And the Nile is a river in Egypt. Get connected!  Reminds me of a line of dialogue from a movie I saw once. "You're more advanced than a cockroach. Did you ever try making yourself 'clear' to one of them?" You and your Internet-pretend old ᵒˡᵈlady and your cockroach fascinations. Get you some bait + chemspray or better yet just vacuum around your computer table / case stack occasionally.
They are not people. They are vermin, like yourself. |
|
|
|
Post by johnblutarsky on Oct 10, 2017 22:43:01 GMT
Reminds me of a line of dialogue from a movie I saw once. "You're more advanced than a cockroach. Did you ever try making yourself 'clear' to one of them?" I'm sure cockroaches are well aware of humans (and other creatures). That's why they scatter when you turn the light on. |
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Oct 10, 2017 23:19:26 GMT
Reminds me of a line of dialogue from a movie I saw once. "You're more advanced than a cockroach. Did you ever try making yourself 'clear' to one of them?" I'm sure cockroaches are well aware of humans (and other creatures). That's why they scatter when you turn the light on. That reminds me of a priceless quote from an older movie, the first "Men in Black", when 'Eggar' an intergalactic cockroach disguised in a human body, answers the pest control person's question about noticing an infestation. "Yes, I've noticed an infestation here, everywhere I look in fact, undeveloped, unevolved, barely-conscious pond scum, totally convinced of their own superiority as they scurry about their short, pointless lives." He was referring to humans...  |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Oct 12, 2017 19:25:31 GMT
tpfkar Reminds me of a line of dialogue from a movie I saw once. "You're more advanced than a cockroach. Did you ever try making yourself 'clear' to one of them?" No matter which way he looks at it, the thought still contains a notion of God, which has an understanding about a belief in God, in order to refute God. Doesn't make it any less fanciful than Santy or a talking butt-pimple, both of which we have notions of (at least upon reading this line).
Angie baby |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Oct 12, 2017 23:22:02 GMT
tpfkar No matter which way he looks at it, the thought still contains a notion of God, which has an understanding about a belief in God, in order to refute God. Doesn't make it any less fanciful than Santy or a talking butt-pimple, both of which we have notions of (at least upon reading this line).
Angie babyIs that your issue, ass acne? |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Oct 12, 2017 23:39:38 GMT
tpfkar Doesn't make it any less fanciful than Santy or a talking butt-pimple, both of which we have notions of (at least upon reading this line).
Is that your issue, ass acne? Interacting with them on message boards, sure, sunshine. In any case, you can have "notions" of any freaky thing you like.
Can't Go back to Savory Now |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Oct 12, 2017 23:43:53 GMT
tpfkar Is that your issue, ass acne? Interacting with them on message boards, sure, sunshine. In any case, you can have "notions" of any freaky thing you like.
Can't Go back to Savory NowOf course one can, but this thread is about the notion of God, not the pussy zits, festering on your ass. Do you like it to be all about you? |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Oct 12, 2017 23:49:58 GMT
tpfkar Interacting with them on message boards, sure, sunshine. In any case, you can have "notions" of any freaky thing you like.
Of course one can, but this thread is about the notion of God, not the pussy zits, festering on your ass. Do you like it to be all about you? Do you do nothing but babble stupidities and your pustulant fantasies about people's asses? Having a "notion" of gods says nothing about believing "in" them nor of course whether they exist.
Hand in Glove |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Oct 12, 2017 23:55:36 GMT
tpfkar Of course one can, but this thread is about the notion of God, not the pussy zits, festering on your ass. Do you like it to be all about you? Do you do nothing but babble stupidities and your pustulant fantasies about people's asses? Having a "notion" of gods says nothing about believing "in" them nor of course whether they exist.
Hand in GloveErrrrrr! The atheist's notion of the existence of God, or whatever they think it is or isn't. It's still a notion that comes down to a belief, and in this case, the belief has to start with the notion of God to begin with. Belief\notion, it is all one and the same. Is that too difficult for you to grasp?  |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Oct 13, 2017 0:02:25 GMT
tpfkar Do you do nothing but babble stupidities and your pustulant fantasies about people's asses? Having a "notion" of gods says nothing about believing "in" them nor of course whether they exist. Errrrrr! The atheist's notion of the existence of God, or whatever they think it is or isn't. It's still a notion that comes down to a belief, and in this case, the belief has to start with the notion of God to begin with. Belief\notion, it is all one and the same. Is that too difficult for you to grasp? "Belief in" and "notion" are decidedly not the same. As in Santy or your own freaked-up notions of "pussy zits, festering on your ass". Or are there events in your experiences for you to believe in these?
pussy zits, festering on your ass |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Oct 13, 2017 0:13:51 GMT
tpfkar Errrrrr! The atheist's notion of the existence of God, or whatever they think it is or isn't. It's still a notion that comes down to a belief, and in this case, the belief has to start with the notion of God to begin with. Belief\notion, it is all one and the same. Is that too difficult for you to grasp? "Belief in" and "notion" are decidedly not the same. As in Santy or your own freaked-up notions of "pussy zits, festering on your ass". Or are there events in your experiences for you to believe in these?
pussy zits, festering on your assWhat is the point you are attempting to make? All thought is content and it is all born of the ego mindset, be it a belief\notion— semantics—but where are they, where do they exist? Don't answer that, because you can't, and God isn't a separate entity or being anyway, so any notion or belief about God existing or not existing is futile. We are our own God's, so to speak. A holistic representation of the collective whole of the universe. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Oct 13, 2017 0:31:47 GMT
tpfkar "Belief in" and "notion" are decidedly not the same. As in Santy or your own freaked-up notions of "pussy zits, festering on your ass". Or are there events in your experiences for you to believe in these? What is the point you are attempting to make? All thought is content and it is all born of the ego mindset, be it a belief\notion— semantics—but where are they, where do they exist? Don't answer that, because you can't, and God isn't a separate entity or being anyway, so any notion or belief about God existing or not existing is futile. We are our own God's, so to speak. A holistic representation of the collective whole of the universe. The notion "God" is wholly made up, but what's silly semantics is trying to conflate "belief in" and "notion of". As in having the "notion of" doesn't suggest somebody must believe that there is an actual Santy or god out there or even the fetching thought of your "pussy zits" on somebody's ass. "We are our own gods" is pure meaningless semantics and doesn't even attempt to address what people mean by theism/atheism.
pussy zits, festering on your ass |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Oct 13, 2017 0:36:16 GMT
tpfkar What is the point you are attempting to make? All thought is content and it is all born of the ego mindset, be it a belief\notion— semantics—but where are they, where do they exist? Don't answer that, because you can't, and God isn't a separate entity or being anyway, so any notion or belief about God existing or not existing is futile. We are our own God's, so to speak. A holistic representation of the collective whole of the universe. The notion "God" is wholly made up, but what's silly semantics is trying to conflate "belief in" and "notion of". As in having the "notion of" doesn't suggest somebody must believe that there is an actual Santy or god out there or even the fetching thought of your "pussy zits" on somebody's ass. "We are our own gods" is pure meaningless semantics and doesn't even attempt to address what people mean by theism/atheism.
pussy zits, festering on your assAll you are doing, is bringing it back down to meaning, and who's meaning is it? It all ultimately means nothing, even the festering pussy zits, on your lard ass. |
|
