Debate between theists and atheists is futile
- Thread starter coolsoldier
- Start date
wayne_92587
Registered Senior Member
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Disarming God
The Burning bush is relevant.
Fire, which is symbolic of what?
The bush is transformed, transfigured, changed from a Material Reality to a Non-material Reality, a Spiritual Reality.
The Jews were forbidden to speak of, Give a Name to whatever, for what reason?
A Word, that was not a Name, was created in order to talk about
Whatever.
Those that Know do not say, speak of, give a Name to whatever.
Those that say, speak of, give a Name to whatever do not know.
The Tao that is spoken of is not Tao.
There are Realities that exist beyond the Material World of Reality.
The Reality of Fist Cause, The Unborn, the Uncreated, First motion, the Motion of a singularity alone in the Emptiness is without meaning, without effect, without Cause, a Cloud of uncertainty.
The Single True Nature of the Universe, the boundlessness, the Infinite Freedom of Singularity.
Singularity, One, the undifferentiated, the reality
of Everything, the Whole of a Single Reality = Mass Energy--->O=ME.
Freedom of Motion, Mass in Motion, ME=O, Singularity, the Reality of First Cause is without cause, the unborn, the uncreated.
Singularity is a Duality, the Two that are one, the same Reality,
The Reality of First Cause, spontaneity.
The Reality of First Cause made manifest, Free Will.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
Man is to be set Free, Free from the Chaos of the Material World of Reality, the Chaos of Evolution, kill or be killed, the survival of the Fittest.------>
The Burning bush is relevant.
Fire, which is symbolic of what?
The bush is transformed, transfigured, changed from a Material Reality to a Non-material Reality, a Spiritual Reality.
The Jews were forbidden to speak of, Give a Name to whatever, for what reason?
A Word, that was not a Name, was created in order to talk about
Whatever.
Those that Know do not say, speak of, give a Name to whatever.
Those that say, speak of, give a Name to whatever do not know.
The Tao that is spoken of is not Tao.
There are Realities that exist beyond the Material World of Reality.
The Reality of Fist Cause, The Unborn, the Uncreated, First motion, the Motion of a singularity alone in the Emptiness is without meaning, without effect, without Cause, a Cloud of uncertainty.
The Single True Nature of the Universe, the boundlessness, the Infinite Freedom of Singularity.
Singularity, One, the undifferentiated, the reality
of Everything, the Whole of a Single Reality = Mass Energy--->O=ME.
Freedom of Motion, Mass in Motion, ME=O, Singularity, the Reality of First Cause is without cause, the unborn, the uncreated.
Singularity is a Duality, the Two that are one, the same Reality,
The Reality of First Cause, spontaneity.
The Reality of First Cause made manifest, Free Will.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
Man is to be set Free, Free from the Chaos of the Material World of Reality, the Chaos of Evolution, kill or be killed, the survival of the Fittest.------>
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Disarming God
/The Burning bush is relevant.
Fire, which is symbolic of what?
Whatever I want it to symbolize.
/The bush is transformed, transfigured, changed from a Material Reality to a Non-material Reality, a Spiritual Reality.
What bush? The one in the scripture? So I bitch about the relevance of the content and you quote the content for relevance? That doesn't work as presented.
/The Jews were forbidden to speak of, Give a Name to whatever, for what reason?
And again the same.
/A Word, that was not a Name, was created in order to talk about
Whatever.
More of the same.
/Those that Know do not say, speak of, give a Name to whatever.
Those that say, speak of, give a Name to whatever do not know.
More of the same.
/The Tao that is spoken of is not Tao.
Now you break into attempts to reason. That is good I'm Tao'n (which I want 50% of the profits if you go making t-shirts that say that, it's MY idea damnit "get tao'n". hehe, anyway)
/There are Realities that exist beyond the Material World of Reality.
Bah, substantiate your claim? You sound like you're regurgitating rather that reasoning.
/The Reality of Fist Cause, The Unborn, the Uncreated, First motion, the Motion of a singularity alone in the Emptiness is without meaning, without effect, without Cause, a Cloud of uncertainty.
Same here.
/The Single True Nature of the Universe, the boundlessness, the Infinite Freedom of Singularity.
And here. Wow, you sound mystical. Do chicks buy this bullshit or something?
/Singularity, One, the undifferentiated, the reality
of Everything, the Whole of a Single Reality = Mass Energy--->O=ME.
You've done an extremely poor job of creating a context in which that makes sense. What is ME? You me like me? Explain yourself damnit if you're going to talk crazy like that.
/Freedom of Motion, Mass in Motion, ME=O, Singularity, the Reality of First Cause is without cause, the unborn, the uncreated.
More mystical mumbo jumbo. It seems as if you might have some sort of reasoning underneath your shitty attempt to communicate, but it's not shining through. You sound like you're half unconscious just spewing mystical sounding free association.
/Singularity is a Duality, the Two that are one, the same Reality,
The Reality of First Cause, spontaneity.
Whitch two? Blah blah, more bullshit. Stop it for chrissake.
/The Reality of First Cause made manifest, Free Will.
/Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
Says who?
/Man is to be set Free, Free from the Chaos of the Material World of Reality, the Chaos of Evolution, kill or be killed, the survival of the Fittest.------>
Man has the capability for freedom right between his ears. If he chooses to ignore it, only man is to blame.
/The Burning bush is relevant.
Fire, which is symbolic of what?
Whatever I want it to symbolize.
/The bush is transformed, transfigured, changed from a Material Reality to a Non-material Reality, a Spiritual Reality.
What bush? The one in the scripture? So I bitch about the relevance of the content and you quote the content for relevance? That doesn't work as presented.
/The Jews were forbidden to speak of, Give a Name to whatever, for what reason?
And again the same.
/A Word, that was not a Name, was created in order to talk about
Whatever.
More of the same.
/Those that Know do not say, speak of, give a Name to whatever.
Those that say, speak of, give a Name to whatever do not know.
More of the same.
/The Tao that is spoken of is not Tao.
Now you break into attempts to reason. That is good I'm Tao'n (which I want 50% of the profits if you go making t-shirts that say that, it's MY idea damnit "get tao'n". hehe, anyway)
/There are Realities that exist beyond the Material World of Reality.
Bah, substantiate your claim? You sound like you're regurgitating rather that reasoning.
/The Reality of Fist Cause, The Unborn, the Uncreated, First motion, the Motion of a singularity alone in the Emptiness is without meaning, without effect, without Cause, a Cloud of uncertainty.
Same here.
/The Single True Nature of the Universe, the boundlessness, the Infinite Freedom of Singularity.
And here. Wow, you sound mystical.
Do chicks buy this bullshit or something?/Singularity, One, the undifferentiated, the reality
of Everything, the Whole of a Single Reality = Mass Energy--->O=ME.
You've done an extremely poor job of creating a context in which that makes sense. What is ME? You me like me? Explain yourself damnit if you're going to talk crazy like that.
/Freedom of Motion, Mass in Motion, ME=O, Singularity, the Reality of First Cause is without cause, the unborn, the uncreated.
More mystical mumbo jumbo. It seems as if you might have some sort of reasoning underneath your shitty attempt to communicate, but it's not shining through. You sound like you're half unconscious just spewing mystical sounding free association.
/Singularity is a Duality, the Two that are one, the same Reality,
The Reality of First Cause, spontaneity.
Whitch two? Blah blah, more bullshit. Stop it for chrissake.
/The Reality of First Cause made manifest, Free Will.
/Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
Says who?
/Man is to be set Free, Free from the Chaos of the Material World of Reality, the Chaos of Evolution, kill or be killed, the survival of the Fittest.------>
Man has the capability for freedom right between his ears. If he chooses to ignore it, only man is to blame.
wayne_92587
Registered Senior Member
Re: Wayne ... practical ramifications
Wayne:
That is because Arrogant people are Demigods, Manic Depressive, they imagine that to do as you will means to act as one wants, needs, is required to do, that they are Free act out, to fulfill their desires, compulsive needs.
Free Will, the Freedom of Mind, the Creative Imagination.
Do as you Will is the Whole of the Law but be careful you may get what you wish for, you may be compelled to act our your willful, wilful thoughts, Fantasies.
Free Will, the Creative imagination is Wilful, Wily; watch out Evil may raise it’s Ugly Head, Graven images of Reality may come to life, be made manifest.
The Imagination of Man's Heart causes he and she to do Evil from their very Youth.
Wayne:
That is because Arrogant people are Demigods, Manic Depressive, they imagine that to do as you will means to act as one wants, needs, is required to do, that they are Free act out, to fulfill their desires, compulsive needs.
Free Will, the Freedom of Mind, the Creative Imagination.
Do as you Will is the Whole of the Law but be careful you may get what you wish for, you may be compelled to act our your willful, wilful thoughts, Fantasies.
Free Will, the Creative imagination is Wilful, Wily; watch out Evil may raise it’s Ugly Head, Graven images of Reality may come to life, be made manifest.
The Imagination of Man's Heart causes he and she to do Evil from their very Youth.
wayne_92587
Registered Senior Member
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Disarming God
The symbolic meaning of Fire has a history.
Fire has no meaning as you want, seem to have a need, to
make it symbolize which has no meaning to anyone other than yourself.
Your symbolic meaning of Fire is a singularity alone in the emptiness without meaning, a cloud of uncertainty.
The symbolic meaning of Fire has a history.
Fire has no meaning as you want, seem to have a need, to
make it symbolize which has no meaning to anyone other than yourself.
Your symbolic meaning of Fire is a singularity alone in the emptiness without meaning, a cloud of uncertainty.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Disarming God
/The symbolic meaning of Fire has a history.
I simply don't care. No offense, it's just that I think traditionalism must cease almost completely. I cannot stand it further when people consider symbolism some sort of language since each thing can be taken a gazillion ways. Hell language is difficult enough as a means of communication - always having to re-iterate and clarify. Symbolism? You can have it, I see it as potentially artistic, but completely lacking utility in any other context.
/Fire has no meaning as you want, seem to have a need, to
make it symbolize which has no meaning to anyone other than yourself.
Fucking DUH! How is it that you think you know what I mean when I use fire to symbolize something? Because you think you know the history of symbolism? BAH! We have language for a reason. Say what you mean, I reject symbolism in all but the artistic context.
/Your symbolic meaning of Fire is a singularity alone in the emptiness without meaning, a cloud of uncertainty.
Hehe.. and yours isn't? Shennanigans! What a crock of shit. You're trying to think of it as a language - I think that's bullshit, that's why they call it symbolism and not a damn language.
/The symbolic meaning of Fire has a history.
I simply don't care. No offense, it's just that I think traditionalism must cease almost completely. I cannot stand it further when people consider symbolism some sort of language since each thing can be taken a gazillion ways. Hell language is difficult enough as a means of communication - always having to re-iterate and clarify. Symbolism? You can have it, I see it as potentially artistic, but completely lacking utility in any other context.
/Fire has no meaning as you want, seem to have a need, to
make it symbolize which has no meaning to anyone other than yourself.
Fucking DUH! How is it that you think you know what I mean when I use fire to symbolize something? Because you think you know the history of symbolism? BAH! We have language for a reason. Say what you mean, I reject symbolism in all but the artistic context.
/Your symbolic meaning of Fire is a singularity alone in the emptiness without meaning, a cloud of uncertainty.
Hehe.. and yours isn't? Shennanigans! What a crock of shit. You're trying to think of it as a language - I think that's bullshit, that's why they call it symbolism and not a damn language.
Do you realize how far that extends?
Sure, to some, the loss of psychoanalysis as a cultural tool may seem no tragedy. But so also will go music, cinema, literature, and other arts which rely heavily on common symbolisms to express aspects of the ineffable. No, I'm not a fan of ballet, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have its meaning.
People choose their dialect. As an artist I try to remain in contact with a number of symbologies which aid expression and communication.
And language itself is traditional, symbolic, and diversely dependent on the gazillions of minds that perceive, accommodate, and assimilate itself.
Be careful what you wish for.
Do you realize how far that idea extends, Wesmorris?
Sure, to some, the loss of psychoanalysis as a cultural tool may seem no tragedy. But so also will go music, cinema, literature, and other arts which rely heavily on common symbolisms to express aspects of the ineffable. No, I'm not a fan of ballet, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have its meaning.
People choose their dialect. As an artist I try to remain in contact with a number of symbologies which aid expression and communication.
And language itself is traditional, symbolic, and diversely dependent on the gazillions of minds that perceive, accommodate, and assimilate itself.
Be careful what you wish for.
Re: Do you realize how far that extends?
/Do you realize how far that idea extends, Wesmorris?
Sure, to some, the loss of psychoanalysis as a cultural tool may seem no tragedy.
That should merely be completely revamped. I think I could work with it but I'm afraid I'd try to fuck my patients if I were to go into the field, plus familial type obligations have my priorities split. Blah.
/But so also will go music, cinema, literature, and other arts which rely heavily on common symbolisms to express aspects of the ineffable. No, I'm not a fan of ballet, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have its meaning.
LOL, hey man I claused that out! I demand a recount! (further note the "almost" clause. CYASMF)
/And language itself is traditional, symbolic, and diversely dependent on the gazillions of minds that perceive, accommodate, and assimilate itself.'
Bah! Language is foremost utilitarian. Tradition doesn't enter into the picture unless you want it to I don't think. Regardless I'm speaking of "traditionalism" in which "that's the way it's always been done" is the only valid reason people keep doing it. Question everything damnit. Language has irrefutable value outside of traditionalism.
/Be careful what you wish for.
I usually am. I don't always cover all the bases though so your intent is appreciated.
EDIT: Note that the basis for my rejection of traditionalism in general is based on the fact that traditionalism generally clashes with acceptance of change. Change is the only constant, so I think "we must accept change". Nostalgia? Sure, but only in the context of acceptance.
/Do you realize how far that idea extends, Wesmorris?
Sure, to some, the loss of psychoanalysis as a cultural tool may seem no tragedy.
That should merely be completely revamped. I think I could work with it but I'm afraid I'd try to fuck my patients if I were to go into the field, plus familial type obligations have my priorities split. Blah.
/But so also will go music, cinema, literature, and other arts which rely heavily on common symbolisms to express aspects of the ineffable. No, I'm not a fan of ballet, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have its meaning.
LOL, hey man I claused that out! I demand a recount! (further note the "almost" clause. CYASMF)
/And language itself is traditional, symbolic, and diversely dependent on the gazillions of minds that perceive, accommodate, and assimilate itself.'
Bah! Language is foremost utilitarian. Tradition doesn't enter into the picture unless you want it to I don't think. Regardless I'm speaking of "traditionalism" in which "that's the way it's always been done" is the only valid reason people keep doing it. Question everything damnit. Language has irrefutable value outside of traditionalism.
/Be careful what you wish for.
I usually am. I don't always cover all the bases though so your intent is appreciated.
EDIT: Note that the basis for my rejection of traditionalism in general is based on the fact that traditionalism generally clashes with acceptance of change. Change is the only constant, so I think "we must accept change". Nostalgia? Sure, but only in the context of acceptance.
Last edited:
wayne_92587
Registered Senior Member
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Disarming God
I apologize for using a confused mixture of sounds and symbols.
I should use a language that is more precise in meaning.
I just do not speak the same language as someone that would rather be out Fucking Duh than someone of his or her own species.
------->
I apologize for using a confused mixture of sounds and symbols.
I should use a language that is more precise in meaning.
I just do not speak the same language as someone that would rather be out Fucking Duh than someone of his or her own species.
------->
Nihilism masquerading in denial
Frankly, there are no axioms to identify. The word 'atheism' is a misnomer in that it indicates a doctrine or set of principles that really does not exist.
What's left, for me, is more along the lines of a set of methods for working things out on the fly although I don't know if I can identify it even that concisely. It certainly does not entail a wholesale rejection of theistic philosophy. The prospect seems to me absurd. At the very least it should be viewed by the atheist as a human expression and worthy of study. "Truth is where you find it." is a favorite saying of mine and the task then becomes one of distilling the truth out of any endeavor.
In the end I am willing to work on a practical level and here I am more concerned with pulling the teeth out of the beast than slaying it. The problem here is one of scope. On an individual basis I can work pretty much within whatever paradigm is prevalent. I can speak Christianity to Christians and pseudo-scientific mysticism to Wayne if need be. But when we discuss matters of efficiency the larger the group I am speaking to the broader strokes I need to use to cover the discussion. And here is where I think the broad-scale atheistic rejection comes from.
Meanwhile, al-Ghazzali illustrates my point precisely. What exactly would constitute knowledge of the ineffable? The inexpressible isn't knowledge it's experience. The mystic seeks to transmit this experience which is beyond words or knowing. But reading al-Ghazzali's quotation one would think that not only does this knowledge exist but that is obtainable by only a select few. Elitist is exactly correct. As such it becomes irrelevant to the rest of us, purely a basis for more authoritarian doctrine. How much difference really is there between this quotation and R.C.C. intercessory doctrine?
In the end I wonder whether mysticism has any value as a method. It seems to me that it's more a manner of thought that is peculiar to certain individuals. More experience with mystically oriented cultures would behoove me in this analysis but I just don't see that the mystical experience translates very well. Perhaps it can be judiciously trained but it cannot just be handed over. Principles, such as unity, seem to me to be better expressed in more precise terms.
As to knowing what that truth is, well shit if I knew that I would be the next messiah. And that's the shift I'd like to see in both atheists and theists; the realization that their grasp on absolutes is illusory. Maybe if we all realized that we're all just trying to paint the best picture that we can, that what we're painting isn't reality itself but an abstraction, a model. Maybe then we could just help each other paint better pictures, build better models.
~Raithere
This is why I try to keep atheism small and force the positive identification. "Atheist" really should be a response to a very specific question not an identification and certainly not a standard to rally the troops into battle.
Frankly, there are no axioms to identify. The word 'atheism' is a misnomer in that it indicates a doctrine or set of principles that really does not exist.
What's left, for me, is more along the lines of a set of methods for working things out on the fly although I don't know if I can identify it even that concisely. It certainly does not entail a wholesale rejection of theistic philosophy. The prospect seems to me absurd. At the very least it should be viewed by the atheist as a human expression and worthy of study. "Truth is where you find it." is a favorite saying of mine and the task then becomes one of distilling the truth out of any endeavor.
In the end I am willing to work on a practical level and here I am more concerned with pulling the teeth out of the beast than slaying it. The problem here is one of scope. On an individual basis I can work pretty much within whatever paradigm is prevalent. I can speak Christianity to Christians and pseudo-scientific mysticism to Wayne if need be. But when we discuss matters of efficiency the larger the group I am speaking to the broader strokes I need to use to cover the discussion. And here is where I think the broad-scale atheistic rejection comes from.
Agreed, but is this simply nihilism masquerading itself in denial? Because lurking at the end of most of these tethers, theistic or atheistic, that's what I find. Are we really just this unhealthy as a species? Do we stumble headlong into death because we're running blindly from it? There has got to be a better way. How about we try to work out a way of living better?
That's the problem though, isn't it? What other way is there? I've learned to avoid the pointy parts but I'm still just banging away. For all of that I imagine your noggin is rather sore too. Sometimes I want to quit and sometimes I want to bring out the sledgehammer but in the end certain realizations force us to sympathy and compassion.
Not to mention economics, politics, technological developments, as well as cultural influences. Religion does not and has never existed in a vacuum; it's disingenuous to select it as a singular factor in any historical setting.
The problem is indeed human level but I disagree that the responsibility lies entirely in the hands of the seeker. Mystical symbolism is loaded with meaning that is not entirely within the control of the mystic. Therein it becomes a linguistic problem, the proper context, symbology, references, interpretation, are all needed for a proper conveyance or the intent is lost. I might refer here to Wayne, who has mystified quantum mechanics into utter meaninglessness.
Meanwhile, al-Ghazzali illustrates my point precisely. What exactly would constitute knowledge of the ineffable? The inexpressible isn't knowledge it's experience. The mystic seeks to transmit this experience which is beyond words or knowing. But reading al-Ghazzali's quotation one would think that not only does this knowledge exist but that is obtainable by only a select few. Elitist is exactly correct. As such it becomes irrelevant to the rest of us, purely a basis for more authoritarian doctrine. How much difference really is there between this quotation and R.C.C. intercessory doctrine?
In the end I wonder whether mysticism has any value as a method. It seems to me that it's more a manner of thought that is peculiar to certain individuals. More experience with mystically oriented cultures would behoove me in this analysis but I just don't see that the mystical experience translates very well. Perhaps it can be judiciously trained but it cannot just be handed over. Principles, such as unity, seem to me to be better expressed in more precise terms.
Are you certain? I've seen you aim for a massive reorientation in your posts, is that any less of a shock? Is there anyway to initiate a paradigm shift that won't be a shock? The only difference I see is that you aim for a particular goal while a flat refutation merely stresses the initial paradigm and does not suggest an alternative; it leaves it to the individual. One is goal oriented and perhaps kinder in offering an alternative but it's no less presumptuous or a shock.
I agree, the in your face method does not work. I didn't mean it quite that way. You sneak it up on them. It's like telling a joke, you lead them along and then force a reevaluation.
I'd like to see it healed if possible.
And that's always been a critical question for me. Shouldn't divine truth be rather obvious or at least irrefutable? As I put it to one Christian, "If I could prove that Jesus did not exist or that he was not the Son of God, would you believe what you do? If not, is it really the truth?"
As to knowing what that truth is, well shit if I knew that I would be the next messiah. And that's the shift I'd like to see in both atheists and theists; the realization that their grasp on absolutes is illusory. Maybe if we all realized that we're all just trying to paint the best picture that we can, that what we're painting isn't reality itself but an abstraction, a model. Maybe then we could just help each other paint better pictures, build better models.
It's always going to be that way. At some point expediency wins out and we must simply work with what is practical because the absolute and the infinite are always going to be beyond our reach. And while I agree that measured against the infinite the difference is negligible, I am again forced to consider which is more practical. Again, I would emphasize that this should not include a wholesale rejection of the theistic paradigm; merely a reinterpretation of its meaning.
It's more a matter of critical thinking skills IMO. What is knowledge, what constitutes a sound argument, what is evidence, how does one weigh and measure such things? I work with someone who is an extreme example of the lack of such an education. He's fallen into a downward spiral of conspirational thought. Any evidence that suggests conspiracy is indeed evidence of a conspiracy. Any evidence that suggests there isn't a conspiracy is evidence of a cover up. It's a sad and frightening thing to watch as his grasp on reality becomes more and more tenuous. I wouldn't be surprised if he is institutionalized someday.
Indeed. And it's not just a matter of using the vernacular or cultural forms. The ability of the population in general to effectively communicate either in speech or written form seems to be rapidly decreasing. It's not even a matter of spelling or grammar it's a basic inability to articulate one's thoughts coherently. Or even scarier it's a direct indication of the status of their thoughts.
We've rounded it off to the lowest common denominator. If the children cannot pass the test we'll just change the test (re: Bush's "No child gets left behind" Act). Never mind it's a disservice to the children and forget hiring more teachers or developing improved methods, we've got to get those numbers up. Let's face it, intellectualism and standards are equated with elitism and oppression in our society. And heaven forbid we oppress the masses by insisting on proper English, teaching scientific facts that contradict religious fantasies, or even worse teaching them how to think for themselves.
I didn't think I needed to draw one, I thought it made a nice little circle all on its own. But it's a good example. How does one go about disrupting the self-reinforcing loop? I mean honestly, he's all but undecipherable and almost oblivious to any interjection at all.
~Raithere
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Disarming God
/I apologize for using a confused mixture of sounds and symbols.
Eh, you can do as you wish obviously. It will all be picked apart.
/I should use a language that is more precise in meaning.
Well, it would help convey more than confusion.
/I just do not speak the same language as someone that would rather be out Fucking Duh than someone of his or her own species.
LOL
/I apologize for using a confused mixture of sounds and symbols.
Eh, you can do as you wish obviously. It will all be picked apart.
/I should use a language that is more precise in meaning.
Well, it would help convey more than confusion.
/I just do not speak the same language as someone that would rather be out Fucking Duh than someone of his or her own species.
LOL