Rightglory?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-10-2017, 11:51 AM
RE: Rightglory?
(13-10-2017 11:48 AM)natachan Wrote:  Wall of text is wall of text. And some of it was just woo. I don't pay attention to woo.

Not some of it; virtually all of it was woo.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like unfogged's post
13-10-2017, 11:52 AM
RE: Rightglory?
well if I was reading it right there was the bit about believing because he didn't like the alternative. Unless I'm horribly mistaken. That was interesting. Still not a good reason.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2017, 11:56 AM
RE: Rightglory?
@ethos

Too much word salad for my taste. Maybe try being more concise?

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2017, 01:51 PM
RE: Rightglory?
(13-10-2017 11:20 AM)ethos Wrote:  
(12-10-2017 09:07 PM)DLJ Wrote:  Well, we are animals.
We're perambulating digestive systems with smart phones.

Big Grin

Yes, there is a difference. I draw a distinction between the limbic system responses and the cognitive system responses. The latter includes a rationalisation/representation of the 'feeling'.

There is a lust (or disgust) 'alert' which is completely involuntary. And that can trigger an auto-response: fight, flight, freeze or fuck (other words beginning with 'f').

Love is a category-term that can include a bunch of stuff: attachment, affection, affinity (other words beginning with 'a').

To quote one of TTA's greatest philosophers:
...
Off with the acidity, sorry about that. But I just get mainly that from our whole current culture...
I am sorry that your notion of love became such... You agree that our notions are formed on the basis of our experiences, right? So you say, besides about love, that the experiences you've had up to now formed inside you the notion that we are not more than lifeless machines thrown away in a corner of the universe by chance evolution of some stones? You also dug out some facts that you've interpreted as proof to a certain thought. These facts now serve as anchors to that belief that we are lifeless machines. It makes me feel bad with myself, because I am not a better person than you (even if I don't know you) but yet I've had apparently better experiences that formed inside me a different notion of what we are. And it is not even necessary for my faith to refute these claims about the stones - who knows, they may turn out to be facts. However, I wholeheartedly abhor the spirit that comes trough these words arranged and chosen in a similar, reactionary atheistic way. A spirit of deep resentment, sarcastic towards truth and life, completely opposite to love and the notion that people before us had about love. (The spirit coming from all similar statements, not necessarily yours or the hypothetical mine). I refuse to accept what you were lead to accept, what you like to imply with these facts, but facts as long as they were obtained trough sincere research, are perfectly fine.
...
sorry for the novel.

Not a problem. I'm fine with novels. Even at 3:50am (here).

But I confess that like Robvalue, I struggled to comprehend. I'll have to read your reply a few times to see how you got all that from what I wrote.

It might be a language thing. So maybe some definitions might be useful.

Did you mean "notion" as 1. or 2.?

1. a conception of or belief about something.
2. an impulse or desire, especially one of a whimsical kind.

If 1. then yes, notions (conception) will emerge (as a processing output) from direct or indirect experience (the input)
or notions (beliefs) form to become a baseline for individual ethics.
If 2. then yes if one counts 'sensory data' as 'experience'.

I didn't suggest 'lifeless'.
I don't know what you mean by 'stones', 'spirit' or 'reactionary atheistic', but I'd be interested to find out.

And I hope you don't mind a little pedantry if I correct a spelling error... I think you want to say 'through'; 'trough' is a long, narrow open container from which animals
eat or drink; or in a wave, the opposite of 'peak'.

Smile

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2017, 05:25 PM (This post was last modified: 13-10-2017 05:38 PM by ethos.)
RE: Rightglory?
You survived that and you still write me? Woah. Big Grin.

Now, from what I gather, we have a difference not in mental functions, but in what we have chosen to be our aesthetic approaches to life.
I speak for something that is out of this world. How can we judge it with our means that are from this world?

(13-10-2017 11:38 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  Thanks for your reply ethos, but I'm afraid I couldn't understand what you were saying at all.
It could be a language thing. But start from somewhere maybe, if you would like. Take anything you found bizzare. Basically, it has to be everything if I was sincere enough. Or... Toss a coin?

(13-10-2017 11:48 AM)natachan Wrote:  Wall of text is wall of text. And some of it was just woo. I don't pay attention to woo.
I like to see what you mean there with your statement, but I don't even have the possibility Wink . Though I think I won't have such a possibility, because you imply my answer too long and not clear (I assume). But, would you like to understand it?

(13-10-2017 11:49 AM)unfogged Wrote:  Nowhere did I say that "mind alone" was the goal.

Yup, you didn't. But thats what it seemed your way of thinking implied. Am I wrong to assume you don't care a lot about the image you project about yourself to me?


Quote:Nowhere did I say that I think you do not think for yourself. Please stop responding to what you think I'm thinking and respond to the actual questions.

...

Quote:Again, nothing to do with what I asked. This is just a huge non-sequitur.
So, what you write implies you are interested in nothing more than what you ask me. Or that you would like me to be neater, I hope the second?


Quote:You use a lot of words but say very little. Your distinction between think and believe is meaningless to me and the rest explains exactly nothing.
Ok, so back to the start then? I do appreciate you do the opposite, so yay, we've found something in common. I would refrain from saying more about my other impressions.
I don't quite feel the same enthusiasm from your part, but I appreciate you taking the effort.


Quote:No, I do not. Science does not assume it knows everything. If anything, science assumes it knows only a partial amount about a tiny fraction of reality and even that may be wrong. It's the theists who often claim to have the ultimate answers.
Ok, then sorry for assuming for you then. Because that's what I believe in too, if not clear from my wall of woo - that we don't know anything, even weather God exists.


Quote: The fact that we have personas is irrelevant to whether or not a god exists and what attributes it may have if it does.
Ok, thats a statement based on your belief that there is no relevance in the universe?
Are you interested in looking for any reason for us having a personality then?


Quote:With all that you never even came close to what I asked or what I am curious about. There does not seem to be any possibility of communication here.
Lets not give up just yet!
Anyhow, I think I got it what you ask me for.

Why do I think I am correct in my idea of God?
I don't think I am correct in my idea of God. Sincerely, I don't.

(13-10-2017 11:52 AM)natachan Wrote:  well if I was reading it right there was the bit about believing because he didn't like the alternative. Unless I'm horribly mistaken. That was interesting. Still not a good reason.
Yes, you could say that - it is an aesthetic choice that improves my life and the things I do. But that is not the reason for me to do that. It would be very bleak if I did what I did for the things I get from it, no? It wouldn't be different from human relationships nowadays Big Grin .

(13-10-2017 11:56 AM)Szuchow Wrote:  @ethos

Too much word salad for my taste. Maybe try being more concise?

Man, I got tiiiired! Try with what I wrote, or just salvage some things you consider edible from there and toss them back at me?

(13-10-2017 01:51 PM)DLJ Wrote:  
(13-10-2017 11:20 AM)ethos Wrote:  ...
Off with the acidity, sorry about that. But I just get mainly that from our whole current culture...
I am sorry that your notion of love became such... You agree that our notions are formed on the basis of our experiences, right? So you say, besides about love, that the experiences you've had up to now formed inside you the notion that we are not more than lifeless machines thrown away in a corner of the universe by chance evolution of some stones? You also dug out some facts that you've interpreted as proof to a certain thought. These facts now serve as anchors to that belief that we are lifeless machines. It makes me feel bad with myself, because I am not a better person than you (even if I don't know you) but yet I've had apparently better experiences that formed inside me a different notion of what we are. And it is not even necessary for my faith to refute these claims about the stones - who knows, they may turn out to be facts. However, I wholeheartedly abhor the spirit that comes trough these words arranged and chosen in a similar, reactionary atheistic way. A spirit of deep resentment, sarcastic towards truth and life, completely opposite to love and the notion that people before us had about love. (The spirit coming from all similar statements, not necessarily yours or the hypothetical mine). I refuse to accept what you were lead to accept, what you like to imply with these facts, but facts as long as they were obtained trough sincere research, are perfectly fine.
...
sorry for the novel.

Not a problem. I'm fine with novels. Even at 3:50am (here).

But I confess that like Robvalue, I struggled to comprehend. I'll have to read your reply a few times to see how you got all that from what I wrote.

It might be a language thing. So maybe some definitions might be useful.

Did you mean "notion" as 1. or 2.?

1. a conception of or belief about something.
2. an impulse or desire, especially one of a whimsical kind.

If 1. then yes, notions (conception) will emerge (as a processing output) from direct or indirect experience (the input)
or notions (beliefs) form to become a baseline for individual ethics.
If 2. then yes if one counts 'sensory data' as 'experience'.

I didn't suggest 'lifeless'.
I don't know what you mean by 'stones', 'spirit' or 'reactionary atheistic', but I'd be interested to find out.

And I hope you don't mind a little pedantry if I correct a spelling error... I think you want to say 'through'; 'trough' is a long, narrow open container from which animals
eat or drink; or in a wave, the opposite of 'peak'.

Smile

Thanks for your reply. I understood a lot about myself from reading it. Lets fix those things with fewer words. When rereading it I get I might have seemed ignorant and offensive, sorry in advance.
I got that the conception of love you have links love with lust, right? And comparing it with the one I have trough faith, it seems less rich to me... DId you see the spoiler about "love" ?

Stones - I oversimplified. I meant the theory of an asteroid hitting Earth and carrying life on it, triggering evolution with that. Why would that possibility ever exclude God? And why people use these facts to justify their resentment of the idea of calling the Reason for the universe - God ?

Spirit - hm, I mean spirit. Dumbing down that term to something more understandable will make the conception suffer. Let me try though.

Its a bit like "The whole is more than the sum of the parts" principle.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2017, 05:27 PM
RE: Rightglory?
(13-10-2017 11:51 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(13-10-2017 11:48 AM)natachan Wrote:  Wall of text is wall of text. And some of it was just woo. I don't pay attention to woo.

Not some of it; virtually all of it was woo.

Hm, unfogged, I am surprised from what you write, you gave me a different impression. Would you define woo and provide proof please?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2017, 06:27 PM
RE: Rightglory?
So I was right.

Most of what I read was unintelligible nonsense that just sounded profound but meant little. If the belief is "an aesthetic choice" then I just don't understand why you would do that. The truth isn't always pleasant. I would like it if libertarian free will existed, but there is no reason to think it does. Should I continue to believe in it because it would make me happy? Or should I accept what is evident and make peace with it?

I'm not sure why you disparage the material world or human relations. It seems odd to me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like natachan's post
13-10-2017, 06:52 PM
RE: Rightglory?
(13-10-2017 05:25 PM)ethos Wrote:  
(13-10-2017 11:49 AM)unfogged Wrote:  Nowhere did I say that "mind alone" was the goal.

Yup, you didn't. But thats what it seemed your way of thinking implied. Am I wrong to assume you don't care a lot about the image you project about yourself to me?

I have no control over what you infer. I did not imply that. The image you project is that you don't listen to anything anybody says but just go off on whatever tangent happens to catch your stream of consciousness.

Quote:
Quote:Again, nothing to do with what I asked. This is just a huge non-sequitur.
So, what you write implies you are interested in nothing more than what you ask me. Or that you would like me to be neater, I hope the second?

I would have appreciated your attempting to address what I asked rather than just ignore it and spout a wall of incomprehensible woo. If you are going to ignore or dodge every question asked then this can not possibly be productive.


Quote:
Quote:You use a lot of words but say very little. Your distinction between think and believe is meaningless to me and the rest explains exactly nothing.
Ok, so back to the start then? I do appreciate you do the opposite, so yay, we've found something in common.

I do the opposite so we have something in common? You make no sense at all.

Quote:I would refrain from saying more about my other impressions.
I don't quite feel the same enthusiasm from your part, but I appreciate you taking the effort.

There's that condescension again. Why do you insist on not dealing with what people say but try to guess at their motives? It's really annoying.


Quote:
Quote: The fact that we have personas is irrelevant to whether or not a god exists and what attributes it may have if it does.
Ok, thats a statement based on your belief that there is no relevance in the universe?


My belief that "there is no relevance in the universe"? That phrase does not have any meaning that I can determine. I have no clue what you are trying to say there.

Quote:Are you interested in looking for any reason for us having a personality then?

I don't see that there is any need to assume that there is some reason for having personalities. Why would I look for a reason for something that doesn't need one beyond what we know about the evolution of social animals?

Quote:Why do I think I am correct in my idea of God?
I don't think I am correct in my idea of God. Sincerely, I don't.

Then why do you believe any of it?
Why do you call it "right glory" if you do not think it is right?
Why do you castigate other denominations as heretical when you don't know that they aren't more correct than you?

(13-10-2017 05:27 PM)ethos Wrote:  Hm, unfogged, I am surprised from what you write, you gave me a different impression. Would you define woo and provide proof please?

Woo is the unsubstantiated bullshit you've been posting about infinities and needing to find a reason for personalities and finding "relevance in the universe". The evidence for it being woo is that you are linking apparently unrelated concepts without any explanation of why you believe a connection exists along with the number of people responding that they can not follow what you are saying. Its all touchy-feely new-age nonsense that has no basis in reality as far as I can tell. That's woo.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like unfogged's post
13-10-2017, 07:08 PM
RE: Rightglory?
ethos, for what it’s worth, and I wouldn’t be writing this if I didn’t have some hope of you becoming a contributing member; that wall of text and the streaming consciousness that created it is incomprehensible.

It looks like I’m not the only one who could make much sense of it or, truth be told, wanted to try.

I don’t know if it’s a language issue but please do try to be more concise and more direct. I know I, for one, would appreciate it.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2017, 09:11 PM
RE: Rightglory?
@ethos

What you wrote is wall of woo and I don't see much reason to sift through it.

Wysłane z mojego 6045K przy użyciu Tapatalka

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: