Author Topic: The Object and The Hazard  (Read 2205 times)

Re: The Object and The Hazard
« Reply #60 on: May 18, 2017, 11:04:38 PM »
Damn.....offended much?

I thought I may have been a little too abrasive.

Thanks for saying how you really feel though.....dick

Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk
I do find it interesting to see how easy it is to get your goat.  And you say you have love and kindness in your heart for all.  Well, I can see that your professed attitude is pretty much like your god--a fiction. 
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent,
Is he able but not willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able or willing?
Then why call him god?

Re: The Object and The Hazard
« Reply #61 on: May 19, 2017, 12:51:05 AM »
I do find it interesting to see how easy it is to get your goat.  And you say you have love and kindness in your heart for all.  Well, I can see that your professed attitude is pretty much like your god--a fiction.
I strive to abide by the same things you do and never said it was easy for me or that I was without fault, but whatever.

So now I'm wrong for calling you a dick for being a dick?

It is profanity and not becoming, but it is oh so fitting.

Does that make me right for calling you one? Nope; never said I was right or good or anything, but that I do try to be.

Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk


Re: The Object and The Hazard
« Reply #62 on: May 19, 2017, 01:11:39 AM »
I strive to abide by the same things you do and never said it was easy for me or that I was without fault, but whatever.

So now I'm wrong for calling you a dick for being a dick?

It is profanity and not becoming, but it is oh so fitting.

Does that make me right for calling you one? Nope; never said I was right or good or anything, but that I do try to be.

Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk
Okay, I'm a dick.  Whatever that means to you--no problem.  You indicated that I said something that I did not say.  Correcting you makes me a dick, I'm comfortable with that.  As I used to tell my students--I'm an asshole, and as long as you understand that we should get along fine.  And we usually did.  The difference between my students and you, is that I could send the students out of my room--can I send you to stand in the corner for not realizing sooner that I'm a dick???  You still believe in a fiction--no wonder you such a hard time following the dictates of your fiction.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent,
Is he able but not willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able or willing?
Then why call him god?

Offline aitm

Re: The Object and The Hazard
« Reply #63 on: May 19, 2017, 03:58:10 PM »
You base GOD not existing on the fact that YOU cannot observe IT in nature.

Not quite nancy... a)religions define their god. b) so far those definitions, any and all of them have yet to offer any support to the claims. c) I don't need no effin c.
The gods of the multitude of religions, of the hundreds of thousands of god humanity has worshipped has not, not a single one, shown any type of evidence....ANY type of evidence that it has the type of power ascribed to it by "its" followers. The very fact that humanity has proven time and time again that it invents gods to suit its specific culture is lost on you. The mountains of evidence that every single god has been a manifestation of human imagination simply does not seem to bother you. You are like a child with some mild mental problems.  "oh.....not that flower, but THAT flower is a SPECIAL flower..." Oy.
A humans desire to live is exceeded only by their willingness to die for another. Even god cannot equal this magnificent sacrifice. No god has the right to judge them.-first tenant of the Panotheust

Re: The Object and The Hazard
« Reply #64 on: May 21, 2017, 08:22:03 PM »
Wow guys. I leave for a few days and everyone is at eachothers throats. Nice.
"To have faith is to lose your mind and to win God."
-The Sickness unto Death - 1849

Offline Cavebear

Re: The Object and The Hazard
« Reply #65 on: June 18, 2017, 04:12:34 AM »
So I want to speed run some philosophy by you all, based around conflict. This shouldn't be long but there is a [tl;dr] at the bottom just in case.

Basic premise: No inherent meaning in the world, we project socially constructed meaning on our perception of reality, yada yada. I don't think this is too radical to suggest here, but even if you don't believe that just bear with me for a bit.

The human condition operates in the realm of The Self and The Other.

The Self is the internal sense of perspective, identity, consciousness etc. These are of course very different things but I'm trying to make this short so this is uber simplified.
The Other is the material environment/world/universe of everything else perceived outside of the Self.

The Self categorizes The Other predominantly as either Objects for use, or Hazards of danger.

Object: clothes, tools, food, etc.
Hazard: storms, fire, cliffs, wild life etc.


Congrats, you have discovered the Id...  Yawn...
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!  b 1950

Offline Baruch

Re: The Object and The Hazard
« Reply #66 on: June 18, 2017, 08:36:46 AM »
The Wizard of Id is more funny, particularly his marriage ;-)
שלום

Re: The Object and The Hazard
« Reply #67 on: June 18, 2017, 09:01:29 AM »
Okay, I'm a dick.  Whatever that means to you--no problem.  You indicated that I said something that I did not say.  Correcting you makes me a dick, I'm comfortable with that.  As I used to tell my students--I'm an asshole, and as long as you understand that we should get along fine.  And we usually did.  The difference between my students and you, is that I could send the students out of my room--can I send you to stand in the corner for not realizing sooner that I'm a dick???  You still believe in a fiction--no wonder you such a hard time following the dictates of your fiction.
Could you show that a singular creative force for all existence is a fiction please?

I can be a dick too. I was probably just being whiny.
You disagreeing with me doesn't make you a dick; it is the way you sometimes go about it that does.

peace


Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk


Offline Cavebear

Re: The Object and The Hazard
« Reply #68 on: June 20, 2017, 07:48:53 AM »
Two dicks fencing with each other.  The imagery is both hilarious and disturbing.  LOL!
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!  b 1950

Re: The Object and The Hazard
« Reply #69 on: June 22, 2017, 09:05:32 AM »
Could you show that a singular creative force for all existence is a fiction please?

I can be a dick too. I was probably just being whiny.
You disagreeing with me doesn't make you a dick; it is the way you sometimes go about it that does.

peace


Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk
Glad you think I'm a dick.  I mean, you are simply stupid beyond belief--well no, not belief, for that is all you have.  The proper question is can you show in any way, shape or form, that the universe was created by or has 'a singular creative force for all existence' within it?  No, you can't--and that is the fiction; you have to make it up in your own feeble, easily swayed, wishful mind.  You are so weak that you cannot look at reality and accept it--somehow you seemed so scared by it that you have to make up fictions to help you cope.  But I guess, you have to get through the night anyway you can. 
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent,
Is he able but not willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able or willing?
Then why call him god?

Re: The Object and The Hazard
« Reply #70 on: June 22, 2017, 11:47:48 AM »
Glad you think I'm a dick.  I mean, you are simply stupid beyond belief--well no, not belief, for that is all you have.  The proper question is can you show in any way, shape or form, that the universe was created by or has 'a singular creative force for all existence' within it?  No, you can't--and that is the fiction; you have to make it up in your own feeble, easily swayed, wishful mind.  You are so weak that you cannot look at reality and accept it--somehow you seemed so scared by it that you have to make up fictions to help you cope.  But I guess, you have to get through the night anyway you can.
You faultily divide nature from it's source.

I acknowledge a source because it has been shown throughout all existence and within. I don't expect you to make a connection you haven't personally witnessed; I would only hope that you do not put it out of consideration based solely on the underdeveloped, disconnected, slightly assuming presupositon many seem to come to; that is, of course, the division of nature or existence from purpose and cause.

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk


Re: The Object and The Hazard
« Reply #71 on: June 22, 2017, 12:35:05 PM »
You faultily divide nature from it's source.

I acknowledge a source because it has been shown throughout all existence and within. I don't expect you to make a connection you haven't personally witnessed; I would only hope that you do not put it out of consideration based solely on the underdeveloped, disconnected, slightly assuming presupositon many seem to come to; that is, of course, the division of nature or existence from purpose and cause.

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk
Your acknowledgement  of a source does not make it so.  That is simply your belief.  Look Pops, you make the assumption that most other theists make--that I popped out of my mother an atheist and have simply been too busy or uninterested to look for meaning and purpose--in everything.  And you further assume that only theists like you have enough intelligence to figure things out. And you expect me to bow to your greater intellect--and even more importantly, to you greater belief and faith for the Truth has been revealed to you and it should be evident that that is so.  Simply take your word and be 'saved' or at least in the know.  Well, Pops, I'd like to make a request--one made to me by my DI in basic training all the time--get you head out of your ass!!!

I have spent a life time searching for meaning, purpose and Truth.  I have examined many many avenues.  I've overturned such rocks as two christian churches and was the board president in one.  I turned over the meditation rock--the new age rock--the astrology rock--graphology rock--and some others I've forgotten about.  What it comes down to Pops, is that nature is what is.  There is no supernatural stuff--no spirits--no god(s)--no Jesus or any other savior.  There is only one savior and that is you--and only for yourself.  We live, we experience life, we die.  That's it.  I have asked you time and again for proof that that is not so.  All you can come up with is personal experience--yours or others.  That is not proof.  So, get your head out of your ass and give me some proof! 
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent,
Is he able but not willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able or willing?
Then why call him god?

Offline Baruch

Re: The Object and The Hazard
« Reply #72 on: June 22, 2017, 12:46:59 PM »
You faultily divide nature from it's source.

I acknowledge a source because it has been shown throughout all existence and within. I don't expect you to make a connection you haven't personally witnessed; I would only hope that you do not put it out of consideration based solely on the underdeveloped, disconnected, slightly assuming presupositon many seem to come to; that is, of course, the division of nature or existence from purpose and cause.

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

They ideology that nature solved the bootstrap problem that humans can't solve ... creation without creator.  But that is a tricky analysis ... people are projecting from a universe now, which has people in it, to a distant past when there were no people (not so long ago, you don't have to go all the way back to the Big Bang).  That kind of thing is plausible but not experimental (no time machine).  But there are things now that happen in nature, without human intervention.  Rocks falling down hill for instance, don't require demons to push them.  That is because we gave up on all the angelology/demonology/pagan minor spirits ... in favor of natural law (without asking where natural law comes from).  Not a bad thing ... but unfortunately asking as Brent does ... where do natural laws come from, runs into that time machine problem.  We can see back in time, astronomically, but that isn't what I mean by .. no time machine.  Any argument that requires a time machine into the past, or the future ... is pretty much crap to me.  Taking "living causative agent" further back in time to our animal ancestors ... gets us eventually to abiogenesis ... which is also requiring multiple trips to other inhabited planets (for comparison now) or a time machine into the past (to observe the very start of life on Earth).  Eventually we might have comparative data on life forms from other planets ... but I really don't believe we will ever have a time machine.
« Last Edit: June 22, 2017, 12:49:57 PM by Baruch »
שלום

Offline SGOS

Re: The Object and The Hazard
« Reply #73 on: June 22, 2017, 01:23:54 PM »
They ideology that nature solved the bootstrap problem that humans can't solve ... creation without creator.  But that is a tricky analysis ... people are projecting from a universe now, which has people in it, to a distant past when there were no people (not so long ago, you don't have to go all the way back to the Big Bang).  That kind of thing is plausible but not experimental (no time machine).  But there are things now that happen in nature, without human intervention.  Rocks falling down hill for instance, don't require demons to push them.  That is because we gave up on all the angelology/demonology/pagan minor spirits ... in favor of natural law (without asking where natural law comes from).  Not a bad thing ... but unfortunately asking as Brent does ... where do natural laws come from, runs into that time machine problem.  We can see back in time, astronomically, but that isn't what I mean by .. no time machine.  Any argument that requires a time machine into the past, or the future ... is pretty much crap to me.  Taking "living causative agent" further back in time to our animal ancestors ... gets us eventually to abiogenesis ... which is also requiring multiple trips to other inhabited planets (for comparison now) or a time machine into the past (to observe the very start of life on Earth).  Eventually we might have comparative data on life forms from other planets ... but I really don't believe we will ever have a time machine.
Therefore, God?

Offline Baruch

Re: The Object and The Hazard
« Reply #74 on: June 22, 2017, 06:57:33 PM »
Therefore, God?

Not at all.  I am pretty much agreeing with the common sense, non-ideological position of most posters here.  But in so many arguments, the pattern is bull ... hypotheticals that have no experimental basis for example.  Or claiming to know what an ancient chicken scratching means, or what happened 2000 years ago.  The standard of argument (maybe driven by trolls) is pretty poor.  So my point has nothing to do with theism or atheism ... just stupid vs more stupid.
שלום