I, Atheist.

[Pica Pica]

 

Never mind.  I think that was the conversational equivalent of slamming my head against a wall.

~ Blair

That's your choice. *shrugs* Remember, I am open to listening, but expect me to be critical of everything said. That's how I work. I don't ever take anything on faith.

-- Brede

Sounds absolutely exhausting, and not a little limiting, but I suppose that it's fair.

Though I think what she meant is that you don't seem to be talking to her in anything like her language, I think she wanted a bit of feelings in the communication, that you may have been breaking it down and assesing the elements rather than taking an interest in the emotional thrust of the whole. I suppose that is the method of critique being applied, but it is very hard to converse with.

I personally think the philosophical method of finding the nature of something by constantly breaking it down into simpler pieces is highly flawed, i think understanding of something relies in knowing where those pieces originally sat - something philosophy often ignores citing a few occassions when common sense was proved irrefutably wrong.

But I suppose that's why I only got a 2:2.

[Attis]

Philosophy isn't about breaking any pieces down. It's about examining things as they are. Sometimes, reductionism is used to find the vital parts, but often my points are in fact not reductionistic, rather they are the opposite. I stress the abstract, the least defined in respect to particulars or parts, in my arguments because it's from the abstract we can understand the behaviors between parts and wholes, instead of guessing what part does what, or why we have such and such whole. In this context, my views are holistic, but in the materialistic sense of it, rather than the 'modern' sense of it.

-- Brede

[Omika]

Philosophy isn't about breaking any pieces down. It's about examining things as they are. Sometimes, reductionism is used to find the vital parts, but often my points are in fact not reductionistic, rather they are the opposite. I stress the abstract, the least defined in respect to particulars or parts, in my arguments because it's from the abstract we can understand the behaviors between parts and wholes, instead of guessing what part does what, or why we have such and such whole. In this context, my views are holistic, but in the materialistic sense of it, rather than the 'modern' sense of it.

-- Brede

I have no idea as to what you're getting at, here.  It's like you spew words out every time someone addresses you, much like a squid spitting ink in the eyes of a predator to allow for evasive movements.

It's extremely confusing, and even a little haughty.

~ Blair

[Pica Pica]

Now holistic materialism I can really get my teeth into. The physical reations and interplay of all matter, and the wonderful lack of purpose (but not order) to these movements.

But I would say that modern philosophy never tries to understand things as they are. Indeed, one of the first defining modern philosophers, Descartes, stated his purpose of reducing everything to what he could know. The empiricists were similarly reductionist, breaking apart a concept to understand it from within.

The philosophical method to understand things as they are often involve taking apart it's elements, understanding them as they are and then putting them back together, often causing all kinds of crazy chimeras. The trouble with 'the abstract' is that ontologically it doesn't exist, everything is instantiated relentlessly in the specific.

There is also the problem of analysing a social trend (like religion) by treating the ideas as almost mathematical data to be computed. You said somewhere that evil is in essence a subtraction...but to deal with something social like that is nonsensical because purely logical universe seems to lack significant motivation on the social level. This probably being why many of the debates have been a bit sharp, because people find it hard to find the motivational elements in your logical and processed way of dealing with issues of emotion.


However as much as I disagree with your methods, I've got to admire you for having some.


(BTW, Have you read 'The Emotional Brain' by Joseph LeDoux, it's a really interesting account of emotions from a neurobiological view. It really links the subjective concept of an inner life to the objective ones of materialism and survival. It's also written very well).

[Nero]

I have no idea as to what you're getting at, here.  It's like you spew words out every time someone addresses you, much like a squid spitting ink in the eyes of a predator to allow for evasive movements.

It's extremely confusing, and even a little haughty.

~ Blair

ROFL That was freakin hilarious. My apologies, guys, continue your discussion.

[Jeannette]

As a Christian, I subscribe to neither agnosticism or atheism. However, people must make their own choices, and I support their right to freely do so. Before arriving at any decision, particularly on matters of choosing one's beliefs, it's best to study the matter carefully and do as much research as possible. Whatever you choose, do so with as much information and knowledge as you can possibly gather.
Personally I have found honest-with-themselves Athiests, who don't know if there is a god, so they honestly tell others that they do not believe in God, to be much more honest, and much more at peace with themselves, and much more readily capable of living Christlike lives, than any of the many pseudo-christians I have met who don't actually believe in God any more than any Athiest, but claim they do, dishonestly.
I have met many an Athiest whose everyday behavior, actions, and beliefs are much more Christian than many a dishonest-with-him-or-her-self pseudo christian, and I am quite convinced that our Lord would much rather that those of us who have not yet attained a testimony of Him and His Goodness, not pretend that we have, but that we would honestly share with others our lack of such testimony, just like all the Atheists do.  In that respect, I am convinced that God is much more pleased with each and every Athiest than He is with a less-than-honest pseudo-believer.

[RebeccaFog]

I think, and am not sure, that I am accidentally understanding pieces of this discussion.

   First, I'm still not sure whether we are supposed to be testifying on behalf of our beliefs and as to why we believe the way we do.

   Second, I think that if I understand Brede correctly, no person should expect another person to live their life for them, and, no person should live their life for another. I think that this is not a declaration on behalf of 'every being for its' self' ( as I first assumed ). This statement leaves it open to any one person to live their life in cooperation with another person, as long as in doing so, that they are living their own life by doing so. We can't assume that every person living their life for their self is inherently selfish because each person might include living with and working well with others to be in their best interest.
   

  Anyway, I don't think I'm an atheist because I believe in the human spirit. I do not know of GOD as an entity of itself, however, I do believe in God as a living & very integral piece of the human spirit. God is accessible to us all, in my opinion. It is up to the individual whether or not they will make this connection. (I think this means that Brede is allowing for the person who lives their own life to not necessarily be an atheist)
  That's what I'm thinking so far. If I am wrong, I perfectly expect to be corrected.

   I do have a question for Brede:
   I am a person who thrives intuitively. I don't think that being intuitive excludes intelligence, however, I will say that sometimes the scenarios that you put forth appear to only value the intellect. Is this just my perception, or do you think that the language you use to express these ideas is structured in a way that doesn't allow for those of us who tend to rely on intuition over reason to easily grasp your concepts?

Just wondering.

[Attis]

I have no idea as to what you're getting at, here.  It's like you spew words out every time someone addresses you, much like a squid spitting ink in the eyes of a predator to allow for evasive movements.

Um not even wrong as Enrico Fermi would say to his opponents.

It's extremely confusing, and even a little haughty.

Maybe because you think it to be a such, prove it to the case, then I'll listen. If you can't, then yield.

I think that this is not a declaration on behalf of 'every being for its' self' ( as I first assumed ). This statement leaves it open to any one person to live their life in cooperation with another person, as long as in doing so, that they are living their own life by doing so. We can't assume that every person living their life for their self is inherently selfish because each person might include living with and working well with others to be in their best interest.

Selfish means to be self centered, or a statement reflexive as to one's self. Basically, what I'm hammering home is that there is no action one can do without declaring their own reason in doing so. In essence, you have to engage the "self gear" of the mental transmission between your mind and your actions resulting from your mind. I is the marker that says, self is the fountainhead of this choice. Self is the originate of choice, and so on. Therefore, by my view of it, everyone is selfish, just not very good at it all the time. That's why we go about learning things, particular and unparticular.

Anyway, I don't think I'm an atheist because I believe in the human spirit.

I'm an atheist because I do believe in the human spirit, just not the one we call soul.

I am a person who thrives intuitively. I don't think that being intuitive excludes intelligence, however, I will say that sometimes the scenarios that you put forth appear to only value the intellect.

I think intuition is just another word for automated integration of the facts. Some are better than others. I tend to be the worse at it, so my behaviors and thoughts are generally counter-intuitive/non-intuitive.

Is this just my perception, or do you think that the language you use to express these ideas is structured in a way that doesn't allow for those of us who tend to rely on intuition over reason to easily grasp your concepts?

I work from the point of rigorous structure in all my propositions because I am trying to understand it as well as you. I grasp most of my own views, but often I write from the point of introspection as to grasp that final piece I'm wrestling out. Also, I leave it structured as to better reference it for examining it from a logical proofs position, that allows me to go and test it later to see if any absurdities are present within it, or if I am missing a premise.

-- Brede

[Emerald]

Pssst... Blair, Rebecca, Jeannette, Pica Pica... need some ammo?
Look here----> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

-Emerald 

[Omika]

I have no idea as to what you're getting at, here.  It's like you spew words out every time someone addresses you, much like a squid spitting ink in the eyes of a predator to allow for evasive movements.

Um not even wrong as Enrico Fermi would say to his opponents.

It's extremely confusing, and even a little haughty.

Maybe because you think it to be a such, prove it to the case, then I'll listen. If you can't, then yield.

I think that this is not a declaration on behalf of 'every being for its' self' ( as I first assumed ). This statement leaves it open to any one person to live their life in cooperation with another person, as long as in doing so, that they are living their own life by doing so. We can't assume that every person living their life for their self is inherently selfish because each person might include living with and working well with others to be in their best interest.

Selfish means to be self centered, or a statement reflexive as to one's self. Basically, what I'm hammering home is that there is no action one can do without declaring their own reason in doing so. In essence, you have to engage the "self gear" of the mental transmission between your mind and your actions resulting from your mind. I is the marker that says, self is the fountainhead of this choice. Self is the originate of choice, and so on. Therefore, by my view of it, everyone is selfish, just not very good at it all the time. That's why we go about learning things, particular and unparticular.

Anyway, I don't think I'm an atheist because I believe in the human spirit.

I'm an atheist because I do believe in the human spirit, just not the one we call soul.

I am a person who thrives intuitively. I don't think that being intuitive excludes intelligence, however, I will say that sometimes the scenarios that you put forth appear to only value the intellect.

I think intuition is just another word for automated integration of the facts. Some are better than others. I tend to be the worse at it, so my behaviors and thoughts are generally counter-intuitive/non-intuitive.

Is this just my perception, or do you think that the language you use to express these ideas is structured in a way that doesn't allow for those of us who tend to rely on intuition over reason to easily grasp your concepts?

I work from the point of rigorous structure in all my propositions because I am trying to understand it as well as you. I grasp most of my own views, but often I write from the point of introspection as to grasp that final piece I'm wrestling out. Also, I leave it structured as to better reference it for examining it from a logical proofs position, that allows me to go and test it later to see if any absurdities are present within it, or if I am missing a premise.

-- Brede

I don't know who Enrico Fermi is, but I know what a squid is (I'm pretty sure most people would say the same thing).  I also don't know what you mean by yield.  Is this a duel?  I don't even see what you want me to prove.  How the Hell do I prove anything to you?  I just call it like I see it, and people generally like that about me.

When you post things, it's like, "Dot-dot-dot, stop, dot-dot-dot".  It's like, if a dripping faucet could type (and had access to a dictionary), this is what it would look like.  It's like, if I took a bunch of encylopedias, a dictionary, a thesaurus, a block of ice, a PhD certificate and a human arm, then jammed them all into a mulcher, the wet, greasy slop that spewed out would resemble what I see when you type responses to what people say.

At least, symbolically.  Or whatever.

~ Blair

[Fer]

Strictly speaking, I should not be answering this.  I am an agnostic. But its the same reason a lot of people choose to be atheists. The simple fact is, theres no way to prove that theres a God. I know, you are supposed to take it on faith. But thats what all the major religions say.   who is to say one is better than another? Granted, it sounds weird to believe that the universe was formed when a ball of energy exploded. But if you look at it objectively, doesnt it sound just as weird to say that some omnipotent being snapped his fingers and all of a sudden it was here?

[Attis]

I don't know who Enrico Fermi is...

Okay here's a link for your viewing pleasure.

I know what a squid is (I'm pretty sure most people would say the same thing).  I also don't know what you mean by yield.  Is this a duel?  I don't even see what you want me to prove.  How the Hell do I prove anything to you?

Just give me something to consider outside of generalizations. Give me an argument. Say start with a proposition, "X is so because 1...2...3...nth reasons."

I just call it like I see it, and people generally like that about me.

Do you mean is that you think I'm being wordy to hide something? Um, got proof? That's mind reading, you don't know anything, but what I give. You can't suspect anything else. I never suspect anything of others. So please, don't pull the Miss Cleo here, lets keep the conversation clean.

When you post things, it's like, "Dot-dot-dot, stop, dot-dot-dot".  It's like, if a dripping faucet could type (and had access to a dictionary), this is what it would look like.  It's like, if I took a bunch of encylopedias, a dictionary, a thesaurus, a block of ice, a PhD certificate and a human arm, then jammed them all into a mulcher, the wet, greasy slop that spewed out would resemble what I see when you type responses to what people say.

So, my style is chunky, "WAAAAH!" Does that make me wrong? Not really. Does it make my arguments hard to read sometimes? Definitely! I'll take it under consideration, but just accept what I say as it is, not anything else. Don't try to conspiracy-theory it, just take it as it is, but not as you think it is.

And you just gave me an idea to parse in a WILL IT BLEND, episode....

Pssst... Blair, Rebecca, Jeannette, Pica Pica... need some ammo?
Look here----> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

-Emerald 

Nice try, but I like a list of any fallacies I've pulled, and I should know them all by now, when I was a fundie Christian, I pulled all of them, and I think I invented a couple new ones too.

-- Brede

[ChildOfTheLight]

*walks around handing out chocolate chip cookies to all*

[Pica Pica]

whether or not you believe in established religions, you still might need to have faith -- in yourself, and in those you love.

and the things religion stands for, you probably stand for. like marriage, hard work, sentimental emotions. of course, those things all came before religions came along and appropriated them as their own.

and art, great art, anyway, is always made with the hands, in honor of powers in nature we are so in awe of we name as gods.

destroy religion if you must, but don't destroy the quest for your own personal spirituality. i sense that there are some very wondrous things you can make with your hands.

As a very probable dyspraxic I find this a bit worrying...I have hundreds of ideas but hands that are unable to respond right at all...I have to use words...I've got nothing else.

By the way, I forgotten what the core issue of contention is...i'm just replying to individual posts,

[Omika]

Just give me something to consider outside of generalizations. Give me an argument. Say start with a proposition, "X is so because 1...2...3...nth reasons."

That's boring and robotic.  I say, "Give a man a dollar, you're giving yourself a dollar".  People should go, "Yes, ah, compassion.  Very wise."  I am not going to spell out things you should have been taught in the third grade.  I swear to God, we should have "How to have social skills, compassion and to not be a total effing douchebag" courses in all levels of the education system.

Do you mean is that you think I'm being wordy to hide something? Um, got proof? That's mind reading, you don't know anything, but what I give. You can't suspect anything else. I never suspect anything of others. So please, don't pull the Miss Cleo here, lets keep the conversation clean.

The other night I had a dream I was searching the island of Trinidad for my spiritual advisor.  When I found her, she took my hand and ran, so I ran as well.  We kept running, and I was getting this feeling that an invisible, malicious presence was chasing us.  It seemed to be after me.  We hid beneath a pier, and we were waist deep in water when she looked me in the eyes and said, "They will always know where you are.  You have to learn how to be where you're not."  It was very vivid and powerful, like most of my dreams.  It's directed me towards something.

I place just as much value in the spiritual and emotional as I do in the scientific and logical.  Balance is always key.  Cooperation, not competition.  People are supposed to learn this very early on.

You're too far in one direction.

So, my style is chunky, "WAAAAH!" Does that make me wrong? Not really. Does it make my arguments hard to read sometimes? Definitely! I'll take it under consideration, but just accept what I say as it is, not anything else. Don't try to conspiracy-theory it, just take it as it is, but not as you think it is.

Are you saying I'm a baby?  I am not.  It does make you wrong, because I can't understand what you're getting at, ever.  You can't have a conversation with someone if you get off on speaking over their head constantly.  Nothing you say makes sense to me.

It's like, I say something, and then you barf out a bunch of pretty words, and I understand most of them, but the overall point of what you're trying to say to me is just lost.  I do not understand you, because you don't seem to want me to understand you.

~ Blair

[RebeccaFog]

Hey Brede,

  Blair makes a good point. Sometimes after reading one of your posts, I'm not sure what the topic or theme is once I get to the end. Can you take a minute at the beginning to do a synopsis or summary?
 
  Kind of like:

   "The topic of this post is the absence of God in everything. God is a concept that the human race needed early on in order to fill gaps in its understanding of the world around them. There never was a God and this post will explain why."

Just a thought.

[Sarah Louise]

I think it might be time for both of you to step back from personalizing your responses.  To me anyway they seem a little personal and contemptuous.  Sorry for butting in.

Sarah L.

[David W. Shelton]

This has gone on far enough.

Topic locked.