Enmos
Valued Senior Member
That last one doesn't go.
God is like atheists in foxholes
- Thread starter Syzygys
- Start date
That last one doesn't go.
And you know this how?
Say more.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
A person that would live forever would still not exist "outside all relations of time"
Do you really think that if they developed some sort of treatment that would allow you to live forever that you would suddenly exist "outside all relations of time" and would not be subject to any change?
If a person is literally not subject to any change, that 'person' would not be considered to be alive.
If a person exists outside all relations of time, that 'person' would not be considered to exist.
If atheists find it meaningful to go around telling people that belief in God is wrong/outdated/irrational/bad, then even atheism, despite some of its proponents staunchly maintaining that atheism has no creed, no beliefs, nor a promise - then even atheism works out of a creed, beliefs, and in fact promises something.
That promise is, usually, that "life without God" is a better life than "life with God."
I don't like angry, cynical people.
I am likely to look favorably on things that lampoon the angry and the cynical.
Note that I introduced my illustration with Sartre's view with "Even Sartre ..."
You need to consider the whole analogy.
The water drop analogy was intended to illustrate how when same is with same, there is no friction; but when two unrelated things (such as the water drop on the hot stove plate) are put together, there is friction.
When a human acts against his true nature, he is like a drop of water on a hot stove plate - just like the drop of water is pushed around frantically when placed on a hot stove plate, so the human suffers when he acts against his true nature.
On the other hand, when a human acts in line with his true nature, he is like a drop of water in the river - just like there is no friction between the drop of water and the river, so there is no friction when a human acts in line with his true nature.
??
As I pointed earlier: Buddhists and Hindus are on the course to overcome suffering, and some of them have already attained that goal.
So you mean that to be beyond suffering, one would have to have an externally smooth, untroubled course of life, with no aging, illness and death, nor any other externally observable problem?
As in -
"If there would be such a thing as nirvana (or if God would exist), then I would have a nice house, my skin wouldn't wrinkle, my joints would work fine, and I would have a loving spouse and good children, and all the people in the world would like me, and no airplane engine would fall on my house."
-?
Sure, this is a way to formulate it too.
Sometimes I think that your conviction that you are right and superior is due to your awareness that you don't really care to have a conversation with the other person, nor are you interested in having a discussion as such. This is one of those times.
The fact is that aging, illness and death, along with birth, do come in a vast variety of shapes and sizes.
It travels just fine. The problem here is the opaqueness with which you communicate your point. How am I supposed to read
It wasn't an insult.
You're eager to see insults ...
:shrug:
A person that would live forever would still not exist "outside all relations of time"
Do you really think that if they developed some sort of treatment that would allow you to live forever that you would suddenly exist "outside all relations of time" and would not be subject to any change?
If a person is literally not subject to any change, that 'person' would not be considered to be alive.
If a person exists outside all relations of time, that 'person' would not be considered to exist.
There are things about a person that are subject to change, and things that are not subject to change. The things that change are secondary, are temporary expressions of that which is permanent.
For example, a person always does something, however subtle it may be (such as mental actions); a person cannot be completely idle. That are person is bound to act is a permanent, eternal characteristic of a person.
What in particular a person does, this is temporary - whether they wash their hands, eat, watch tv or ski or whatever it is they do.
An atheist may believe that life without God is better than life with God, but you can't confuse the atheist with atheism. Atheism is nothing more than the lack of a belief in a god. It does not even go as far as to say that there is no god, let alone that life is better without one.
How out of touch must you be that in your pursuit to lampoon angry and cynical people that you pick on atheists? Look around you, Wynn: Who is causing all the unrest? Who is the loudest and angriest? The most cynical? Certainly it isn't the atheist.
Again, without having a clue as to what you supposedly believe, all I have to go by is what you share in conversation. To that point all you had shared was Sartre. I'm not a mind-reader.
Again, if all you are saying is that acting in one's true nature is the path of least resistance, then you are divorced from the topic of this conversation. If you are saying, however, that acting in one's true nature ends all suffering, then you are making a false claim. Make up your mind as to which point you are trying to make.
Do you have any evidence for the existence of one?
That's just another baseless religious claim, no different than the Scientologist who claims they've attained a Cleared Theta level.
Yes. Nirvana is a form of paradise, and it promises things ultimately unattainable. No aging, no disease, no illness, no unrest. These ideals are antiquated, and don't address conditions like anxiety disorders and depression, which a person has no control over, to say nothing of cancer or COPD or any of the myriad diseases and disorders a person has no say in. You'll of course say, "Ah, but then you're identifying with the body," but this is something said only by someone who doesn't know what it's like to be sick. Try not suffering while you have MS, or cancer.
No, it's one or the other, not both.
You're not clever enough to turn my words around on me. I've typed until my fingers were raw trying to parse meaning from your impossibly vague and elusive writing, and all I got for it was this stupid paragraph.
Seriously, they should make t-shirts for people who talk to you.
Why is birth always mentioned last, as if a throw-in? And what are these various "shapes and sizes?" I don't think you even know what you mean here.
Of course it was an insult. If it wasn't, why haven't you yet said what you really meant?
:shrug:
I'm afraid I can't continue this. I don't want to walk into the mental labyrinth that you keep presenting.
But then again, given how sure you are of yourself, and of everything else, there really doesn't seem to be a need for me to talk to you, or you to me.
Cheers!
But then again, given how sure you are of yourself, and of everything else, there really doesn't seem to be a need for me to talk to you, or you to me.
Cheers!
Yeah, I guess I'm like the Liberal "Gotcha" media, what with all my questions and everything. How dare I ask you to support your claims with evidence?!
Keep bailing, Wynn. It's the only thing you're good at.
Interesting that accusations of certainty are coming from the psuedo-Buddhist. :shrug:
How could I resist such an utterly nice person as yourself, eh?
Right, because now I'm a bully for asking you to clarify, and having an opinion as to the veracity of the claims made by the faith you are so apparently hesitant to fully embrace.
Meanwhile, you have trashed atheism, called those who agree with it cynical and angry, and said that my arguments in these forums constitute a "morbid obsession" with religion--an insult you have used against several posters. So when you throw a stone, it's fine. But when I throw a stone, I'm a big meanie.
I would say this is an example of solipsism at its finest, but in truth I don't think you really believe all that. You are merely employing a tactic to avoid further debate now that I've laid bare all of your arguments, and people are beginning to see them for what they really are.
I'm afraid you have got a competitor ...
"An atheist may believe that life without God is better than life with God, but you can't confuse the atheist with atheism. Atheism is nothing more than the lack of a belief in a god. It does not even go as far as to say that there is no god, let alone that life is better without one. "
I'm afraid you have got a competitor ...
"An atheist may believe that life without God is better than life with God, but you can't confuse the atheist with atheism. Atheism is nothing more than the lack of a belief in a god. It does not even go as far as to say that there is no god, let alone that life is better without one. "
And what are you trying (read: failing) to say by using that quote?
that you are making the obvious error of confusing solipsism with a solipsist of course
Not at all. When she acts as if only her feelings matter, she is being solipsistic, because that's what solipsism is--the belief that oneself is all that matters.
Conversely, atheism is not the belief that society without God is preferable to one with God.
incorrect
As you have so adroitly pointed out, solipsism/atheism in no way dictates a hierarchical bias to a problem/situation
I don't know how much clearer I can make this point, but I'll try once more.
Solipsism is, basically, extreme self-absorption. This is why when Wynn only considered her own feelings as having any value, she is being solipsistic. She tosses insults casually, but acts severely wounded--to the point of ending conversations--when she feels she has been insulted or slighted in some way. This is selfish, self-absorbed behavior, so for me to say "Solipsism at its finest" is accurate. Her actions are the very definition of the term.
However, when Wynn said that one of the promises of creeds of atheism is that a life without God is a better life, she was mischaracterizing atheism. You see the difference? In the first case, the actions fit the term used; in the second, they did not.
Solipsism is self-absorption.
Atheism is not the claim that life without God is a better life.
Understand now?
You are still carrying on with the same incorrect manner of thinking
You are still confusing solipsism for a solipsist.
You, in your discussion about atheism/atheist, have already provided the framework for denying any hierarchical bias being applied to these terms.
I can't fathom how you can continue to fail to understand this.
I did no such thing. I only pointed out that her idea of atheism was incorrect. Is that really so hard to comprehend? I didn't try to divorce atheists from atheism, only atheism from things that are not atheism.
If she had said "One of the things atheists say is that there no God," my statement of "don't confuse atheism with the atheist" would have made absolutely no sense.