Grow Intellectually
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-12-2013, 11:05 PM
RE: Grow Intellectually
(01-12-2013 10:45 PM)natachan Wrote:  I have just realized that this poster has made no less than three threads (that I have seen) that say almost the exact same thing. I do not know why this poster has chosen to do this, unless they are specifically out to antagonize this board. This is the only logical reason that occurs to me.

As an objectivist (or near enough to it) I will simply state that your idea of an incomprehensible unknowable universe is foreign to me. I am unable to grasp this concept of reality and for the sake of my sanity I will not attempt to.

It's a fairly regular occurrence actually. Every once and a while a guy comes around who says that absolutes are all wrong and that true agnosticism is the only way. They almost always start multiple threads saying the same thing. My guess is they are so agnostic they can't say with any certainty whether this thread exists or not.Tongue

I'm homophobic in the same way that I'm arachnophobic. I'm not scared of gay people but I'm going to scream if I find one in my bath.

I'm. Also homophobic in the same way I'm arachnophobic. I'm scared of spiders but I'd still fuck'em.
- my friend Marc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-12-2013, 11:13 PM
RE: Grow Intellectually
I just realized that saying positively that there is (or is not) is the very definition of a rationalist. The object of reason is to come to a conclusion. Reason is taking predicates and putting them together so that they form an argument. Reasoning is saying; If A is B and C is A, therefore C is B, not If A is B and C is A, then we cannot know for certain whether C is A. The entire point of Reason is to come to a conclusion.

I'm homophobic in the same way that I'm arachnophobic. I'm not scared of gay people but I'm going to scream if I find one in my bath.

I'm. Also homophobic in the same way I'm arachnophobic. I'm scared of spiders but I'd still fuck'em.
- my friend Marc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-12-2013, 11:14 PM
RE: Grow Intellectually
(01-12-2013 10:39 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  
(01-12-2013 10:34 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  It's easy for one to claim one "knows" any particular supposed "qualities" about an imaginary figure whose supposed "qualities" one pulls out of one's own ass.

And yet we call God ineffable, so apparently we really are slackers since it's so easy.Tongue

That's the fun part for pathological liars: You can make up whatever you want to and happily believe it's true.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-12-2013, 11:22 PM
RE: Grow Intellectually
(01-12-2013 11:14 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  
(01-12-2013 10:39 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  And yet we call God ineffable, so apparently we really are slackers since it's so easy.Tongue

That's the fun part for pathological liars: You can make up whatever you want to and happily believe it's true.

That's why I think they had the protestant reformation (sorry KC). Catholics weren't very fun pathological liars. Calling God indescribable and unknowable and all that.

I'm homophobic in the same way that I'm arachnophobic. I'm not scared of gay people but I'm going to scream if I find one in my bath.

I'm. Also homophobic in the same way I'm arachnophobic. I'm scared of spiders but I'd still fuck'em.
- my friend Marc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-12-2013, 11:25 PM
RE: Grow Intellectually
(01-12-2013 11:22 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  
(01-12-2013 11:14 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  That's the fun part for pathological liars: You can make up whatever you want to and happily believe it's true.

That's why I think they had the protestant reformation (sorry KC). Catholics weren't very fun pathological liars. Calling God indescribable and unknowable and all that.

Well, pathological lying does have its drawbacks....one guys lies inevitably clash with the other guys lies, and a schism develops....

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
01-12-2013, 11:39 PM (This post was last modified: 02-12-2013 10:15 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Grow Intellectually
(01-12-2013 09:29 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  @BuddhistAlternative

Quote:I am aware, as the Buddhists have been aware for centuries, that the nature of God is unknowable.

"If therefore the mode of anything's being exceeds the mode of the knower, it must result that the knowledge of the object is above the nature of the knower" - St Thomas, Summa Theologica question 12, article 4, prima pars

Evidently also known by the Catholics for centuries.

Aquinas is full of shit. Tongue
He asserted the ancient Aristotelian duality of "ipsum esse subsistens".
He thought that (as the Idealists asserted) all creatures are made of (both) "essence and existence". It's baloney. Things are actually ONLY what they are. Human brains conflate them, and organize what they observe. There is no "woo woo" essence, (besides their "existence"). The crap that flows from this fundamental error, is monumental. Aquinas did not say that "anything" about his deity was *unknowable*, (that would have been heresy). The Latin verb (in the Summa), means "comprehend", not "know", and he distinguishes between "apprehend", and "comprehend". "Any knowledge" would suffice. There is no evidence for any divine beings.
In fact there is no coherent definition of one, even.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
01-12-2013, 11:42 PM
RE: Grow Intellectually
(31-08-2013 06:17 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(31-08-2013 06:15 PM)Paranoidsam Wrote:  Well, putting it like that, I'm an agnostic atheist as well, in that I wouldn't rule the idea of God out completely. But I seriously doubt his existence...

But those who say, there's no proof either way, and so can't decide one way or the other, piss me off no end.

Yes. It ain't 50/50. Not even close.Dodgy





"So you start out with the odds of God existing a less than 1 in 1.5 million, this is a strong empirical case. When I say less than 1.5 million, I mean that's a good argument we have that the odds are even less. So really when people say we don't have evidence against God's existence, that's fucking false; we have really really fucking good evidence that God does not exist." -Richard Carrier

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
01-12-2013, 11:48 PM
RE: Grow Intellectually
(01-12-2013 11:39 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(01-12-2013 09:29 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  @BuddhistAlternative


"If therefore the mode of anything's being exceeds the mode of the knower, it must result that the knowledge of the object is above the nature of the knower" - St Thomas, Summa Theologica question 12, article 4, prima pars

Evidently also known by the Catholics for centuries.

Aquinas is full of shit. Tongue
He asserted the ancient Aristotelian duality of "ipsum esse subsistens".
He thought that (as the Idealists asserted) all creatures are made "essence and existence". It's baloney. Things are actually ONLY what they are. Human brains conflate them, and organize what they observe. There is no "woo woo" essence, (besides their "existence"). The crap that flows from this fundamental error, is monumental. Aquinas did not say that "anything" about his deity was *unknowable*, (that would have been heresy). The Latin verb (in the Summa), means "comprehend", not "know", and he distinguishes between "apprehend", and "comprehend". "Any knowledge" would suffice. There is no evidence for any divine beings.
In fact there is no coherent definition of one, even.

You're right he doesn't quite say that we can't know God. He says we can't make any positive assertions about God. We can only say what God is not, which is known as the via negativa, we can also describe God with analogies.

I'm homophobic in the same way that I'm arachnophobic. I'm not scared of gay people but I'm going to scream if I find one in my bath.

I'm. Also homophobic in the same way I'm arachnophobic. I'm scared of spiders but I'd still fuck'em.
- my friend Marc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-12-2013, 08:07 AM
RE: Grow Intellectually
This dang wolfpack already pulled all the stuffing out of this fluffy chew toy. Sad

My Gwynnies provides a vector for the expression I love; I do not see an "evolving past" dualities but rather a "reduction towards" fundamentals, that love is void and void is still, and that falling into my Gwynnies leaves me nothing to say.

other than that part Tongue

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-12-2013, 10:20 AM
RE: Grow Intellectually
(01-12-2013 11:48 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  
(01-12-2013 11:39 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Aquinas is full of shit. Tongue
He asserted the ancient Aristotelian duality of "ipsum esse subsistens".
He thought that (as the Idealists asserted) all creatures are made "essence and existence". It's baloney. Things are actually ONLY what they are. Human brains conflate them, and organize what they observe. There is no "woo woo" essence, (besides their "existence"). The crap that flows from this fundamental error, is monumental. Aquinas did not say that "anything" about his deity was *unknowable*, (that would have been heresy). The Latin verb (in the Summa), means "comprehend", not "know", and he distinguishes between "apprehend", and "comprehend". "Any knowledge" would suffice. There is no evidence for any divine beings.
In fact there is no coherent definition of one, even.

You're right he doesn't quite say that we can't know God. He says we can't make any positive assertions about God. We can only say what God is not, which is known as the via negativa, we can also describe God with analogies.

Read any of your creeds. They are plumb full of "positive assertions".
Your entire beligion does nothing if NOT make (doctrinal) "positive assertions" about this fluffy chew toy. Apparently the frozen tundra has slowed ze brain cells. Big Grin

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: