Atheistforums.com

Humanities Section => Philosophy & Rhetoric General Discussion => Topic started by: Absurd Atheist on April 22, 2017, 04:41:17 PM

Title: The Object and The Hazard
Post by: Absurd Atheist on April 22, 2017, 04:41:17 PM
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.

There are of course many nuances and this list is rudimentary, I tried to base it around simple one-dimensional concepts but of course the descriptions should be more complex and are in real life, ex. guns probably fall somewhere in the middle. This also refers more to the perception of clothes, tools, storms etc., rather then the actual literal piece of clothing. This is an important concept for this next part.

While the Object and the Hazard are obviously important for survival, the issue comes when we contact other individuals. Due to not being able to percieve the internal "self" of another person, in some cases the mind perceives said person as either an object of use or hazard of danger.

Examples: WARNING These aren't intended to be political but may be taken that way. If you're sensitive to your politics maybe stay away.

Object: Slavery literally legally consider other peoples bodies as property. All forms of slavery count including: child slavery, sex slavery, debt slavery, race slavery etc. Another example of objectification is objectifying and stealing what doesn't belong to you: theft and colonialism.

Hazard: Also known as otherization these days, the mental creation of a hazard of other people can be seen in: implicit bias and the social construction of violent black people, xenophobia against foreign migrants, The Red Scare, labeling the Right"Nazi's" and the Left "Commies". One infamous historical example would be the hazardization of Jewish community in Nazi Germany.

Now this isn't to say that Object and Hazard is never justified, i.e. if a mugger jumps around the corner is it safe to consider them a Hazard? Probably, but there's also probably more nuance then that as well.

I'd argue that these two concepts lie somewhere at the root of conflict and violence as most wars are fought either to take something from someone else, or because they are consider a major threat. Yes I know this is a root cause claim but I'm just questioning the merit. There's also a lot more context but I don't want to overload anymore then I already have.

Thoughts?

[tl;dr] The mind sometimes misunderstands other people's bodies outside of their own as either objects for use or hazards of danger creating conflict (ex. slavery or xenophobia).
Title: Re: The Object and The Hazard
Post by: Sorginak on April 22, 2017, 04:47:40 PM
Your Object/Hazard argument seems to be more sociological in nature than philosophical, at least to me. 

Title: Re: The Object and The Hazard
Post by: Absurd Atheist on April 22, 2017, 05:14:31 PM
Quote from: Sorginak on April 22, 2017, 04:47:40 PM
Your Object/Hazard argument seems to be more sociological in nature than philosophical, at least to me.

How so? I can definitely see how it's an aspect of sociology, but I don't see how this isn't philosophical. Unless we're discussing validity.
Title: Re: The Object and The Hazard
Post by: Mike Cl on April 22, 2017, 06:58:54 PM
I'd suggest all actions of humans can be thought of as mostly, if not always, selfish or self serving.  I tell my wife, child, grandchild 'I love you."  I want to be loved by them so I tell them that.  Giving to those in need--it makes me feel so much better.  All actions would include the thought it would benefit us as well. 
Title: Re: The Object and The Hazard
Post by: Baruch on April 22, 2017, 11:24:52 PM
I & Thou by Martin Buber

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_and_Thou
Title: Re: The Object and The Hazard
Post by: Absurd Atheist on April 23, 2017, 01:45:02 PM
Quote from: Baruch on April 22, 2017, 11:24:52 PM
I & Thou by Martin Buber

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_and_Thou

Yes, I have more in the vein of "I and Thou" and the bonds we create with each other, but I wanted to gauge interests first. I think what is most important to take away from here is how the application of these concepts of object and hazard on the material world is simultaneously cross-applied onto others who also presumably have their own consciousness. Many other thinkers have come up with the basic concept of The Self and The Other, I'm more interested in the breakdown of encounters and conflict.
Title: Re: The Object and The Hazard
Post by: Absurd Atheist on April 23, 2017, 01:49:42 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on April 22, 2017, 06:58:54 PM
I'd suggest all actions of humans can be thought of as mostly, if not always, selfish or self serving.  I tell my wife, child, grandchild 'I love you."  I want to be loved by them so I tell them that.  Giving to those in need--it makes me feel so much better.  All actions would include the thought it would benefit us as well.

I agree on the egocentric nature of "humanity", and I mean egocentric in a neutral and not negative connotation. I'm not sure it's possible to escape egocentric-ism truly considering we're more or less locked into a singular point-of-view. Accepting this, my question is how do we moved on most effectively and minimize clash between people outside of our relationships who have no "selfish" reason to aid or at the very least live peaceably. Of course this is getting into social contract territory but I think it's still a valid question for today.
Title: Re: The Object and The Hazard
Post by: Baruch on April 23, 2017, 04:26:39 PM
Quote from: Absurd Atheist on April 23, 2017, 01:49:42 PM
I agree on the egocentric nature of "humanity", and I mean egocentric in a neutral and not negative connotation. I'm not sure it's possible to escape egocentric-ism truly considering we're more or less locked into a singular point-of-view. Accepting this, my question is how do we moved on most effectively and minimize clash between people outside of our relationships who have no "selfish" reason to aid or at the very least live peaceably. Of course this is getting into social contract territory but I think it's still a valid question for today.

As long as people want "everything" and there is more than one person, then conflict is necessary.  Politics is the way we peacefully divvy up power and wealth and fame ... when there is more than one competing interest.  This gets socially modulated by the collective "us" vs "them".  Per the idea of the UN, if we consider "us" not "us & them", then there will not be militant competition.  But that takes a spiritual revolution .. I don't see secular ideology or scientific psychology getting us there.
Title: Re: The Object and The Hazard
Post by: popsthebuilder on May 13, 2017, 10:57:32 PM
What he said

Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

Title: Re: The Object and The Hazard
Post by: Mike Cl on May 14, 2017, 09:47:26 AM
Quote from: Baruch on April 23, 2017, 04:26:39 PM
As long as people want "everything" and there is more than one person, then conflict is necessary.  Politics is the way we peacefully divvy up power and wealth and fame ... when there is more than one competing interest.  This gets socially modulated by the collective "us" vs "them".  Per the idea of the UN, if we consider "us" not "us & them", then there will not be militant competition.  But that takes a spiritual revolution .. I don't see secular ideology or scientific psychology getting us there.
Oh yeah, spiritual all the way--I mean all of the organized religions I know are, oh so peaceful!!  The way of the spirit!  God told me and so it is......as I slice your throat!  What 'spirit' (which is a fiction people just love to 'believe' in!) will bring peace???  When and where has that happened???!!!  Secular is the ONLY way peace will ever come to this planet.  It is our only hope.  If all the religions were to suddenly just disappear then we could have a shot at some actual peace.  For peace to be real we have to have thought about it and using critical thinking figure it out.  We will not get it by wishing for it or by seeking guidance from skydaddy/mommy or some 'spirit'.  We will not 'believe' our way into peace.
Title: Re: The Object and The Hazard
Post by: aitm on May 14, 2017, 01:49:00 PM
The vast majority of human behavior observed is selfish in nature as it is in most cases benign activities that would normally prompt selfish behavior. Not selfish as in me first, but selfish as in "what I am doing at the moment is specifically for my benefit because nothing prompts me at the moment to act differently".

Yet, this observation is used as a generic explanation or suggested explanation of human behavior when it really is simply the norm under normal, customary, ordinary life. But when the occasion arises, I suggest the vast amount of humans change drastically into more of a selfless pure champion of all the extraordinary behaviors that humans exhibit when the need arises. People will charge into dangerous situations to help other people, complete strangers. Many will risk their lives and some will knowingly go into a situation understanding they are going to die. I suspect most if not all people have that "point" where fear turns into action, but that point may be a rather difficult point to locate during an emergency, it may not turn into action until the very point where inaction becomes more dangerous than action i.e. fight or flight, when no flight is available.

Under normal conditions of life, there are so many variables that need to be considered that generic standards are rather easy to postulate but more difficult to produce using a generic standard. Point to a person and suggest that action "a" will be done under condition "a" can certainly achieve relative success, but choosing people of various ethnic or cultural background most likely will not produce the same results.

I have seen first hand that genetics can produce stunning similar behaviors socially when the progeny never knew the parent he/she mimics. I have seen a son who mimics his fathers social behavior as exactly as if they had spent a lifetime together instead of one single year as an infant and no further contact. Behavior so exact as to be strikingly eerie. Probably not the point of this OP though.


Title: Re: The Object and The Hazard
Post by: Baruch on May 14, 2017, 02:35:03 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 14, 2017, 09:47:26 AM
Oh yeah, spiritual all the way--I mean all of the organized religions I know are, oh so peaceful!!  The way of the spirit!  God told me and so it is......as I slice your throat!  What 'spirit' (which is a fiction people just love to 'believe' in!) will bring peace???  When and where has that happened???!!!  Secular is the ONLY way peace will ever come to this planet.  It is our only hope.  If all the religions were to suddenly just disappear then we could have a shot at some actual peace.  For peace to be real we have to have thought about it and using critical thinking figure it out.  We will not get it by wishing for it or by seeking guidance from skydaddy/mommy or some 'spirit'.  We will not 'believe' our way into peace.

Spirituality isn't the same as religion.  Per Darwin, I can rob, rape and kill you at any time, to maximize my chances of mating with your SO ... and if we are both fertile, I can produce offspring that can be used to replace any that you have produced.  Think Hamlet.  The cuckoos do this, by laying their eggs in another species nest, to be raised gratis by other parents.  Per nature, there is no crime I can't commit, if it is in my short term interest to do so.  No species, except by law of unintended consequences, ever looks out for the long term (rational law) including humans.  If I haven't committed a crime against you, it is only because there hasn't been the motivation or opportunity ... not because it is contrary to my or your nature.  By spiritual, I mean to act un-naturally, though as a tautology, you would deny that is even possible, because you will find some Darwinian rationalization as to why I should give money to the National Endowment for the Arts.

Critical thinking?  A better weapon and opportunity to injure you.  That is what critical thinking produces.
Title: Re: The Object and The Hazard
Post by: Mike Cl on May 14, 2017, 05:14:52 PM
Quote from: Baruch on May 14, 2017, 02:35:03 PM
Spirituality isn't the same as religion. 
Really???  Wow!  Didn't know that!...............
What is this 'spirit' you are talking about??  Seems to me it is simply another theist fiction so that you/they can believe whatever they want. 
Title: Re: The Object and The Hazard
Post by: Mike Cl on May 14, 2017, 05:24:32 PM
Quote from: Baruch on May 14, 2017, 02:35:03 PM
Per Darwin, I can rob, rape and kill you at any time, to maximize my chances of mating with your SO ... and if we are both fertile, I can produce offspring that can be used to replace any that you have produced. 
Really.  Darwin said that did he.  When and where? 
Title: Re: The Object and The Hazard
Post by: Mike Cl on May 14, 2017, 05:32:04 PM
Quote from: Baruch on May 14, 2017, 02:35:03 PM
  Per nature, there is no crime I can't commit, if it is in my short term interest to do so.  No species, except by law of unintended consequences, ever looks out for the long term (rational law) including humans.  If I haven't committed a crime against you, it is only because there hasn't been the motivation or opportunity ... not because it is contrary to my or your nature.  By spiritual, I mean to act un-naturally, though as a tautology, you would deny that is even possible, because you will find some Darwinian rationalization as to why I should give money to the National Endowment for the Arts.

Of course 'nature' does not limit the crime(s) I can commit.  So what?  I don't know of any govt run by 'nature'.  All laws and rules of conduct are created by various societies and govts.  Not 'nature'. 

I have not committed a crime against you because committing crimes is not something I do--not intentionally.  I don't think most people would become blood thirsty criminals if there were no official laws or rules to live by. 

And I am not a darwinian.  I do think he discovered ideas that became the Darwin theory of evolution.  Being Darwinian , or supporting Darwinsim is simply political in nature, not scientific.
Title: Re: The Object and The Hazard
Post by: Baruch on May 14, 2017, 09:58:20 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 14, 2017, 05:24:32 PM
Really.  Darwin said that did he.  When and where?

Did he ever denounce the British Empire?  Of course, robbing, raping and killing is OK, if you are English ;-)
Title: Re: The Object and The Hazard
Post by: Baruch on May 14, 2017, 10:00:58 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 14, 2017, 05:14:52 PM
Really???  Wow!  Didn't know that!...............
What is this 'spirit' you are talking about??  Seems to me it is simply another theist fiction so that you/they can believe whatever they want.

Is a poet not inspired?  Or is he just doing another Pythagorean calculation?  In-spirit = inspired.  Methinks you are another Plato, who like Mikey, hates everything.
Title: Re: The Object and The Hazard
Post by: Baruch on May 14, 2017, 10:02:32 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 14, 2017, 05:32:04 PM
Of course 'nature' does not limit the crime(s) I can commit.  So what?  I don't know of any govt run by 'nature'.  All laws and rules of conduct are created by various societies and govts.  Not 'nature'. 

I have not committed a crime against you because committing crimes is not something I do--not intentionally.  I don't think most people would become blood thirsty criminals if there were no official laws or rules to live by. 

And I am not a darwinian.  I do think he discovered ideas that became the Darwin theory of evolution.  Being Darwinian , or supporting Darwinsim is simply political in nature, not scientific.

In nature, there are no crimes.  It is natural for the criminal to commit crimes.  Per nature, there is no reason to prohibit the natural exercise of his nature (as a jackal imitator).  Would you arrest a lion for eating a zebra?
Title: Re: The Object and The Hazard
Post by: Mike Cl on May 14, 2017, 10:39:50 PM
Quote from: Baruch on May 14, 2017, 09:58:20 PM
Did he ever denounce the British Empire?  Of course, robbing, raping and killing is OK, if you are English ;-)
I don't know if he denounced the British Empire or not.  Don't care if he did or did not.  It has nothing to do with his theory. 
Title: Re: The Object and The Hazard
Post by: Mike Cl on May 14, 2017, 10:42:12 PM
Quote from: Baruch on May 14, 2017, 10:00:58 PM
Is a poet not inspired?  Or is he just doing another Pythagorean calculation?  In-spirit = inspired.  Methinks you are another Plato, who like Mikey, hates everything.
Remember, 'Mikey likes it!'--not hates it.  Ah, yes, the inspired spirit.  Yeah, I can go along with that.  At times, going with your inspiration is a good thing.
Title: Re: The Object and The Hazard
Post by: Mike Cl on May 14, 2017, 10:47:02 PM
Quote from: Baruch on May 14, 2017, 10:02:32 PM
In nature, there are no crimes.  It is natural for the criminal to commit crimes.  Per nature, there is no reason to prohibit the natural exercise of his nature (as a jackal imitator).  Would you arrest a lion for eating a zebra?
Since, as you put it, there are no crimes in nature.  So, it is not 'natural' for criminals to commit crimes.  Crimes are a human invention.  So, all criminals are such because they have been labeled by a certain society.  As you are very well aware, every society has different laws and rules, so each has their own crimes.  A crime in one society does not make it a crime in another.  So, the term 'criminal' is situational.  And that situation is never found in 'nature'. 
Title: Re: The Object and The Hazard
Post by: Baruch on May 15, 2017, 06:59:40 AM
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 14, 2017, 10:39:50 PM
I don't know if he denounced the British Empire or not.  Don't care if he did or did not.  It has nothing to do with his theory.

Killing 6 million Jews had nothing to do with Lebensraum either ;-(
Title: Re: The Object and The Hazard
Post by: Baruch on May 15, 2017, 07:01:04 AM
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 14, 2017, 10:47:02 PM
Since, as you put it, there are no crimes in nature.  So, it is not 'natural' for criminals to commit crimes.  Crimes are a human invention.  So, all criminals are such because they have been labeled by a certain society.  As you are very well aware, every society has different laws and rules, so each has their own crimes.  A crime in one society does not make it a crime in another.  So, the term 'criminal' is situational.  And that situation is never found in 'nature'.

You would make a good German in Merkel's Germany.  Just not resist when the immigrants rob or rape you.  You would be interfering with the rights of refugees.

For some naturalists, humans are a part of nature ... for others humans aren't part of nature.  I see you as the second, since you oppose all human invention (like crime legislation).  That is simply anti-human.  At least if humans are a part of nature, it is natural for humans to be criminals, in police uniform or out.  We do what we do because we are what we are ... no guilt or shame, just like animals fucking in public.  Or are you just anti-government ... is it OK for private corporations to create and enforce rules?
Title: Re: The Object and The Hazard
Post by: Mike Cl on May 15, 2017, 09:56:36 AM
Quote from: Baruch on May 15, 2017, 06:59:40 AM
Killing 6 million Jews had nothing to do with Lebensraum either ;-(
Does Lebensraum equate to Manifest Destiny??

In any case, neither policy had anything to do with Darwin.
Title: Re: The Object and The Hazard
Post by: Mike Cl on May 15, 2017, 10:03:13 AM
Quote from: Baruch on May 15, 2017, 07:01:04 AM
You would make a good German in Merkel's Germany.  Just not resist when the immigrants rob or rape you.  You would be interfering with the rights of refugees.

For some naturalists, humans are a part of nature ... for others humans aren't part of nature.  I see you as the second, since you oppose all human invention (like crime legislation). 
At times, Baruch, you do like to insert yourself into the things I write.  When did I ever say humans are not a part of nature?  Everything is a part of nature, including humans.  Nothing is outside of nature.  That is where we part company since you are a theist.  Did I ever say I was against crime legislation?  Defining what a crime is is a necessary function of every society. 
Title: Re: The Object and The Hazard
Post by: Baruch on May 15, 2017, 12:58:53 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 15, 2017, 10:03:13 AM
At times, Baruch, you do like to insert yourself into the things I write.  When did I ever say humans are not a part of nature?  Everything is a part of nature, including humans.  Nothing is outside of nature.  That is where we part company since you are a theist.  Did I ever say I was against crime legislation?  Defining what a crime is is a necessary function of every society.

It is an A vs B question ... and you have answered B.  So we can screw in public, shamelessly, like the animals we are.  You are not opposed to anything, because everything is natural.  So why all the hate against Southerners ... are you a bigot?  Society is natural?  So Nazi Germany is natural?  And you approve of all natural things?
Title: Re: The Object and The Hazard
Post by: Mike Cl on May 15, 2017, 02:09:17 PM
Quote from: Baruch on May 15, 2017, 12:58:53 PM
It is an A vs B question ... and you have answered B.  So we can screw in public, shamelessly, like the animals we are.  You are not opposed to anything, because everything is natural.  So why all the hate against Southerners ... are you a bigot?  Society is natural?  So Nazi Germany is natural?  And you approve of all natural things?
Not sure how you could have gotten the impression that I said all that is natural is good??!?  Once again, you are inserting your feeling into my sentences. 

For good or bad, all that is here is of nature.  Cow shit is natural, that does not mean I want to eat it or that it is good for me.  One of the biggest hoax's of the food industry is the push to make everything 'natural' or that 'natural' is better for you.  Everything is natural--all manmade stuff is still natural---everything used is from nature.

I may have to amend my statement about all being natural.  Human made rules are not natural in that they are not produced by nature.  Human societies create their own set of rules of conduct.  If you are a bonobo, then screwing in public is natural.  If you are human, in all the societies I'm aware of, screwing in public is not acceptable. (And if it were acceptable I don't think 'we' could screw in public--you are not my type) It's not unnatural, just not the accepted norm. 

Not opposed to anything?  Where did that assessment come from?  I am opposed to much the same as you and Pops.  I subscribe to the Golden Rule (my version of course) and strive to live by it.  So, even some of societies rules I don't deem personally acceptable. 

Am I a bigot?  Yeah, I suppose.  I am a bigot toward the KKK, no doubt.  The same for skinheads and Merikan Nazis.  And others.  So, yeah, I'm a bigot--I dare say, so are you and just about every other person who ever lived.  I don't hate all Southerners--but I am not a fan of the South in general.  As I have indicated in many other posts--the common average Joe (of any society) wants the same thing.  To live in peace, being with and supporting their families and go about their lives as they would like. 
Title: Re: The Object and The Hazard
Post by: Baruch on May 15, 2017, 06:38:30 PM
OK ... so how can you oppose something that is natural ... except by bigotry?  I can see opposing something because it is somehow ... unnatural.  But for the moment, we both agree that everything is natural.  For me "natural" means something different for you, but we do agree superficially.  Are you saying that you oppose something because it is irrational?  And if everything is natural, then isn't irrationality just as natural as rationality?  How can you oppose the irrational, except by bias (not the same as bigotry).  Isn't bias, or bigotry, just other ways of saying ... I have a bigger stick than you?
Title: Re: The Object and The Hazard
Post by: Mike Cl on May 15, 2017, 07:13:36 PM
Quote from: Baruch on May 15, 2017, 06:38:30 PM
OK ... so how can you oppose something that is natural ... except by bigotry?  I can see opposing something because it is somehow ... unnatural.  But for the moment, we both agree that everything is natural.  For me "natural" means something different for you, but we do agree superficially.  Are you saying that you oppose something because it is irrational?  And if everything is natural, then isn't irrationality just as natural as rationality?  How can you oppose the irrational, except by bias (not the same as bigotry).  Isn't bias, or bigotry, just other ways of saying ... I have a bigger stick than you?
You are saying that natural is the same as good.  As I said--cow shit is natural, does not mean I want to eat it or that it is good for you.  You said ".......we both agree that everything is natural. "  If everything is natural, how can anything be unnatural???  I oppose all that I think is not good--accept all that I think is good.  Of course, 'good' is in the eye of the beholder. 

Bias is simply your point of view.  We are all biased.  We almost have to be.  But if one makes an effort one can figure out what their bias is.  When studying a historian or history, one of the first things that has to be taken into account.  Bigotry is about the same.  No, neither bias or bigotry does not equate to 'I have a bigger stick than you.'
Title: Re: The Object and The Hazard
Post by: Baruch on May 15, 2017, 10:34:55 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 15, 2017, 07:13:36 PM
You are saying that natural is the same as good.  As I said--cow shit is natural, does not mean I want to eat it or that it is good for you.  You said ".......we both agree that everything is natural. "  If everything is natural, how can anything be unnatural???  I oppose all that I think is not good--accept all that I think is good.  Of course, 'good' is in the eye of the beholder. 

Bias is simply your point of view.  We are all biased.  We almost have to be.  But if one makes an effort one can figure out what their bias is.  When studying a historian or history, one of the first things that has to be taken into account.  Bigotry is about the same.  No, neither bias or bigotry does not equate to 'I have a bigger stick than you.'

Right, so if I have a bigger stick than you, then other than your bias, there is no reason why I can't make you eat cow shit?  Are you Maoist?
Title: Re: The Object and The Hazard
Post by: Mike Cl on May 15, 2017, 11:04:49 PM
Quote from: Baruch on May 15, 2017, 10:34:55 PM
Right, so if I have a bigger stick than you, then other than your bias, there is no reason why I can't make you eat cow shit?  Are you Maoist?
Not a Maoist--must be and idiotist for trying to have a conversation with you.
Title: Re: The Object and The Hazard
Post by: Baruch on May 16, 2017, 06:59:12 AM
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 15, 2017, 11:04:49 PM
Not a Maoist--must be and idiotist for trying to have a conversation with you.

Just trying to clarify where you are coming from.  So basically you are uber-biased uber-bigoted?  I have to ask ... have you ever used Uber?
Title: Re: The Object and The Hazard
Post by: Mike Cl on May 16, 2017, 09:22:27 AM
Quote from: Baruch on May 16, 2017, 06:59:12 AM
Just trying to clarify where you are coming from.  So basically you are uber-biased uber-bigoted?  I have to ask ... have you ever used Uber?
No, you care nothing about where I'm coming from.  You are too addicted to clever word play.  Yes, you are very good at it, but it can get rather overbearing. 

I have never used Uber, but my son-in-law was an Uber driver in SF for a short while.
Title: Re: The Object and The Hazard
Post by: SoldierofFortune on May 16, 2017, 09:28:39 AM
Quote from: Baruch on May 16, 2017, 06:59:12 AM
Just trying to clarify where you are coming from.  So basically you are uber-biased uber-bigoted?  I have to ask ... have you ever used Uber?

Uber^s cognate in english is super.
I am sure he has used the word supermen even one time.
In addition to it, he may have heard the word ubermensh which was used by nietchetze(not sure how it is spelled )
Title: Re: The Object and The Hazard
Post by: Baruch on May 16, 2017, 01:09:30 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 16, 2017, 09:22:27 AM
No, you care nothing about where I'm coming from.  You are too addicted to clever word play.  Yes, you are very good at it, but it can get rather overbearing. 

I have never used Uber, but my son-in-law was an Uber driver in SF for a short while.

Continuing along the primrose path ... so meaning only means "your meaning" for you.  I am glad you aren't overbearing (my meaning is the one true meaning).  So if you get up one day and decide to start offing White people or some other group ... what should we do about that?  What is your excuse?  As a predator, you are within your rights.  Rights as established by governments, are just arbitrary BS by the upper class, right?
Title: Re: The Object and The Hazard
Post by: Baruch on May 16, 2017, 01:11:48 PM
Quote from: SoldierofFortune on May 16, 2017, 09:28:39 AM
Uber^s cognate in english is super.
I am sure he has used the word supermen even one time.
In addition to it, he may have heard the word ubermensh which was used by nietchetze(not sure how it is spelled )

Uber-mensch.  Yes .. it means Superman, as in Nietzsche, not as in Clark Kent.  But actually as "Man of Steel" means Stalin in Russian, this is a clever wordplay by the creators of the comic, to tie in with both Stalin and Hitler.  Those two are still the only political geniuses of the 20th century ... everything we do now, is still caught between the poles of their twin totalitarianism ... Enlightenment guys having tea and crumpets are .. way past their expire date.  Politically, we are Poles, being massacred by both E and W neighbors.
Title: Re: The Object and The Hazard
Post by: Mike Cl on May 16, 2017, 02:23:20 PM
Quote from: Baruch on May 16, 2017, 01:09:30 PM
Continuing along the primrose path ... so meaning only means "your meaning" for you.  I am glad you aren't overbearing (my meaning is the one true meaning).  So if you get up one day and decide to start offing White people or some other group ... what should we do about that?  What is your excuse?  As a predator, you are within your rights.  Rights as established by governments, are just arbitrary BS by the upper class, right?
Off on some sort of tangent, I see.  And one that makes sense to you--and only you.  You have lost me now.
Title: Re: The Object and The Hazard
Post by: Baruch on May 16, 2017, 07:52:22 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 16, 2017, 02:23:20 PM
Off on some sort of tangent, I see.  And one that makes sense to you--and only you.  You have lost me now.

You have no rational basis for your decisions, other than rationalizations that don't hold water.  A universal problem.
Title: Re: The Object and The Hazard
Post by: Mike Cl on May 16, 2017, 08:14:40 PM
Quote from: Baruch on May 16, 2017, 07:52:22 PM
You have no rational basis for your decisions, other than rationalizations that don't hold water.  A universal problem.
Once again, you are referring to yourself and nobody else. 
Title: Re: The Object and The Hazard
Post by: Baruch on May 17, 2017, 05:47:23 AM
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 16, 2017, 08:14:40 PM
Once again, you are referring to yourself and nobody else.

Life has no meaning, except for your arbitrary self dealing ... and that is rational?  I agree with you ... my life has no meaning, except for my arbitrary self dealing.  But I don't call that rational, it is irrational, and I don't bother rationalizing (BSing) it.  If you hate Southerners (the original point) because you feel like it ... fine, just don't say you are better than Hitler or Stalin.  People hate all sorts of people, a behavior as common as fleas.  Phobias are common too ... look up Francophobia ... and are commonly the source of hatreds.

Right now I hate all D behavior ... and it is irrational.  I hate R behavior too, but they aren't the agent provocateurs right now, like they were a year ago.  I irrationally hate 2/3 of American political behavior.  I think you do too, just not the same behaviors.
Title: Re: The Object and The Hazard
Post by: Mike Cl on May 17, 2017, 08:55:03 AM
Quote from: Baruch on May 17, 2017, 05:47:23 AM
Life has no meaning, except for your arbitrary self dealing ... and that is rational?  I agree with you ... my life has no meaning, except for my arbitrary self dealing.  But I don't call that rational, it is irrational, and I don't bother rationalizing (BSing) it.  If you hate Southerners (the original point) because you feel like it ... fine, just don't say you are better than Hitler or Stalin.  People hate all sorts of people, a behavior as common as fleas.  Phobias are common too ... look up Francophobia ... and are commonly the source of hatreds.

Right now I hate all D behavior ... and it is irrational.  I hate R behavior too, but they aren't the agent provocateurs right now, like they were a year ago.  I irrationally hate 2/3 of American political behavior.  I think you do too, just not the same behaviors.
Ah yes, semantics once again.  I don't think the fact that all that is Earth and on Earth is irrational--or rational.  It just is; it's happenstance in that all of this is on this one particular planet.  I don't think it is irrational for life to happen somewhere in this universe; it is a mathematical certainty that life would and will happen.  To subscribe rational or irrational anything to nature smacks of automatically including a god(s) into the mix.  I don't think that way--since you are a theist, you do.  Nature is not an entity.  It is not a thing.  It is simply the way the universe works.  Because we are a product of nature, we have no meaning in a universal sense.  We were not 'put' here for a reason.  We are happenstance.  The only meaning one has is the meaning the individual person gives to themselves. 

As for politics, I simply hate all of it.  The D's are cowards and stupid in their own self-defeating way.  The R's are simply totally self-serving at the top with the base being stupidly driven by fear.  The entire system is corrupt, with corporations having their way with the country. 
Title: Re: The Object and The Hazard
Post by: Baruch on May 17, 2017, 12:46:05 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 17, 2017, 08:55:03 AM
Ah yes, semantics once again.  I don't think the fact that all that is Earth and on Earth is irrational--or rational.  It just is; it's happenstance in that all of this is on this one particular planet.  I don't think it is irrational for life to happen somewhere in this universe; it is a mathematical certainty that life would and will happen.  To subscribe rational or irrational anything to nature smacks of automatically including a god(s) into the mix.  I don't think that way--since you are a theist, you do.  Nature is not an entity.  It is not a thing.  It is simply the way the universe works.  Because we are a product of nature, we have no meaning in a universal sense.  We were not 'put' here for a reason.  We are happenstance.  The only meaning one has is the meaning the individual person gives to themselves. 

As for politics, I simply hate all of it.  The D's are cowards and stupid in their own self-defeating way.  The R's are simply totally self-serving at the top with the base being stupidly driven by fear.  The entire system is corrupt, with corporations having their way with the country.

Thanks again for the conversation.  I had to tease out of you, your POV again ... because I am self-dealing.
Title: Re: The Object and The Hazard
Post by: Mike Cl on May 17, 2017, 02:13:40 PM
Quote from: Baruch on May 17, 2017, 12:46:05 PM
Thanks again for the conversation.  I had to tease out of you, your POV again ... because I am self-dealing.
Why 'tease' when all you had to do was ask a straight forward question?  But then, I do realize that is how your mind works--you would rather tease or play complicated word games than ask a straight forward question.  If you want to know my POV (not 'privately owned vehicle' as the Army likes to call them), just ask.
Title: Re: The Object and The Hazard
Post by: Baruch on May 18, 2017, 03:59:33 AM
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 17, 2017, 02:13:40 PM
Why 'tease' when all you had to do was ask a straight forward question?  But then, I do realize that is how your mind works--you would rather tease or play complicated word games than ask a straight forward question.  If you want to know my POV (not 'privately owned vehicle' as the Army likes to call them), just ask.

Right, but I didn't know how to get past your irrational hatreds.
Title: Re: The Object and The Hazard
Post by: popsthebuilder on May 18, 2017, 09:00:02 AM


Quote from: Mike Cl on May 17, 2017, 08:55:03 AM
Ah yes, semantics once again.  I don't think the fact that all that is Earth and on Earth is irrational--or rational.  It just is; it's happenstance in that all of this is on this one particular planet.  I don't think it is irrational for life to happen somewhere in this universe; it is a mathematical certainty that life would and will happen.  To subscribe rational or irrational anything to nature smacks of automatically including a god(s) into the mix.  I don't think that way--since you are a theist, you do.  Nature is not an entity.  It is not a thing.  It is simply the way the universe works.  Because we are a product of nature, we have no meaning in a universal sense.  We were not 'put' here for a reason.  We are happenstance.  The only meaning one has is the meaning the individual person gives to themselves. 

As for politics, I simply hate all of it.  The D's are cowards and stupid in their own self-defeating way.  The R's are simply totally self-serving at the top with the base being stupidly driven by fear.  The entire system is corrupt, with corporations having their way with the country.

But how can nature be both everything and nothing, as per your words?

Is that not illogic?

Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

Title: Re: The Object and The Hazard
Post by: Mike Cl on May 18, 2017, 09:18:46 AM
Quote from: Baruch on May 18, 2017, 03:59:33 AM
Right, but I didn't know how to get past your irrational hatreds.
That's the problem.  Those 'irrational fears' are not mine but yours. 
Title: Re: The Object and The Hazard
Post by: Mike Cl on May 18, 2017, 09:20:35 AM
Quote from: popsthebuilder on May 18, 2017, 09:00:02 AM

But how can nature be both everything and nothing, as per your words?

Is that not illogic?

Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk
Are we both reading English??  Could you point out 'my words' that says that?
Title: Re: The Object and The Hazard
Post by: popsthebuilder on May 18, 2017, 10:37:35 AM
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 18, 2017, 09:20:35 AM
Are we both reading English??  Could you point out 'my words' that says that?
I recall you recently saying that everything is nature.

I recall you more recently saying that nature is not anything.



Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

Title: Re: The Object and The Hazard
Post by: Baruch on May 18, 2017, 01:13:27 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 18, 2017, 09:18:46 AM
That's the problem.  Those 'irrational fears' are not mine but yours.

Then David Duke is a good candidate for you to vote for? ;-)
Title: Re: The Object and The Hazard
Post by: Baruch on May 18, 2017, 01:19:45 PM
Quote from: popsthebuilder on May 18, 2017, 10:37:35 AM
I recall you recently saying that everything is nature.

I recall you more recently saying that nature is not anything.



Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

I think he means the first ... but that nature doesn't exist or not exist, it is what is.  Exist/not-exist is a dichotomy he considers irrelevant.  So for you, for something to be anything, does existence matter?  I think this question is mere semantics, not substance.  I think he is a "hard empiricist" ... the fact that a fiction exists, is non-existence to him, because it is self contradictory?  My hand exists, but my ideas about my hand (that it proves G-d) don't exist.  A Medieval turn in theology, discarded, was extreme nominalism, that names are "flatus vocis" ... mere flatulence ... compared to the things they signify.  So fiction, which is all words, is a whole lot of flatulence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominalism
Title: Re: The Object and The Hazard
Post by: Mike Cl on May 18, 2017, 01:28:35 PM
Quote from: Baruch on May 18, 2017, 01:13:27 PM
Then David Duke is a good candidate for you to vote for? ;-)
What do you think.
Title: Re: The Object and The Hazard
Post by: Mike Cl on May 18, 2017, 01:34:57 PM
Quote from: popsthebuilder on May 18, 2017, 10:37:35 AM
I recall you recently saying that everything is nature.

I recall you more recently saying that nature is not anything.



Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk
Nature is what is.  What you see is what you get.  The significance of anything--including you--is determined by you and you alone.  Nature is the set of laws (or processes if you prefer) that creates this universe and all that is in it.  I don't recall saying nature is not anything.  Nature is everything--all that is is natural.  Therefore, nothing exists that is unnatural or supernatural.  If it exists, it is natural and of nature.  Nature is not a being, it is not a creature, it does not live; it is a set of processes.  So, Pops, when I tell you god is a fiction, I simply mean that since god does not exist, god cannot be.  Nothing can transcend nature.   
Title: Re: The Object and The Hazard
Post by: Mike Cl on May 18, 2017, 01:50:57 PM
Quote from: Baruch on May 18, 2017, 01:19:45 PM
I think he means the first ... but that nature doesn't exist or not exist, it is what is.  Exist/not-exist is a dichotomy he considers irrelevant.  So for you, for something to be anything, does existence matter?  I think this question is mere semantics, not substance.  I think he is a "hard empiricist" ... the fact that a fiction exists, is non-existence to him, because it is self contradictory?  My hand exists, but my ideas about my hand (that it proves G-d) don't exist.  A Medieval turn in theology, discarded, was extreme nominalism, that names are "flatus vocis" ... mere flatulence ... compared to the things they signify.  So fiction, which is all words, is a whole lot of flatulence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominalism
So, Baruch, can I come to you to translate me to the rest of the world?  "I think he means the first.....", is a disingenuous (at best) statement from you.  You know damn well what I mean and what I think about god and the universe.  We have been talking about it for a couple of decades now.   You are becoming rather sloppy with your sentences lately--are you okay--are you ill or is somebody near to you ill?  You don't seem to be able to concentrate as well now as in the past.  For example, you say, "My hand exists, but my ideas about my hand (that it proves G-d) don't exist. " , is rather awkward, especially for you.  What does that mean?  Your had exists but your ideas about your had proves god exists?  Or that your ideas don't exist?  ??  Your hand exists because it exists --mainly evolution of humans is the reason.  Your thoughts about it are yours.  If your hand proves to you that god exists, then so be it for you.  The significance of your hand is supplied by you and you alone.  Nature does not care one way or the other if you have a hand or what that hand means to you. 

You also say, "So fiction, which is all words, is a whole lot of flatulence.".  Really?  That's what I think, but somehow I don't think you do.  God is a fiction and all the words and works about god really boils down to '..a whole lot of flatulence,' and of the smelliest sort!
Title: Re: The Object and The Hazard
Post by: Baruch on May 18, 2017, 03:23:10 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 18, 2017, 01:28:35 PM
What do you think.

You will never enter the SJW inner sanctum ... first they will embrace Muslims, but soon, KKK members too.
Title: Re: The Object and The Hazard
Post by: popsthebuilder on May 18, 2017, 07:03:22 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 18, 2017, 01:34:57 PM
Nature is what is.  What you see is what you get.  The significance of anything--including you--is determined by you and you alone.  Nature is the set of laws (or processes if you prefer) that creates this universe and all that is in it.  I don't recall saying nature is not anything.  Nature is everything--all that is is natural.  Therefore, nothing exists that is unnatural or supernatural.  If it exists, it is natural and of nature.  Nature is not a being, it is not a creature, it does not live; it is a set of processes.  So, Pops, when I tell you god is a fiction, I simply mean that since god does not exist, god cannot be.  Nothing can transcend nature.
That's a hell of a leap of faith.



Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

Title: Re: The Object and The Hazard
Post by: Mike Cl on May 18, 2017, 08:27:04 PM
Quote from: popsthebuilder on May 18, 2017, 07:03:22 PM
That's a hell of a leap of faith.



Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk
There is not a drop of faith involved.
Title: Re: The Object and The Hazard
Post by: popsthebuilder on May 18, 2017, 08:58:14 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 18, 2017, 08:27:04 PM
There is not a drop of faith involved.
You base GOD not existing on the fact that YOU cannot observe IT in nature.

Doing so is basically to say that existence as a whole is only comprised of what you can wrap your head around...your right; that doesn't take faith.

You now say nature is the laws that bind, but what is causal to the laws? Nature?

I'm done; you are going in illogical circles of repeat thought and thinking it to be some superior critical conclusion of all thought when it is based on partiality.


Quote from: Mike Cl on May 18, 2017, 08:27:04 PM
There is not a drop of faith involved.


Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

Title: Re: The Object and The Hazard
Post by: Baruch on May 18, 2017, 09:27:40 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 18, 2017, 08:27:04 PM
There is not a drop of faith involved.

Things are what they are, because we are what we are.

All materialists are alchemists, following Ororboros the dragon who eats his own tail, forming the circle of life.  Or auto-fellatio ;-)  Self-reference usually ends in paradox, for the sacred and the profane.
Title: Re: The Object and The Hazard
Post by: Mike Cl on May 18, 2017, 09:55:44 PM
Quote from: popsthebuilder on May 18, 2017, 08:58:14 PM
You base GOD not existing on the fact that YOU cannot observe IT in nature.

Doing so is basically to say that existence as a whole is only comprised of what you can wrap your head around...your right; that doesn't take faith.

You now say nature is the laws that bind, but what is causal to the laws? Nature?

I'm done; you are going in illogical circles of repeat thought and thinking it to be some superior critical conclusion of all thought when it is based on partiality.



Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk
You were done before you started.  Your stupidly held beliefs are just that--beliefs.  The only foundations that exist for them are in your own head and nowhere else.  You want to live a fiction--go ahead and do so, I don't give a shit.  You are simply irreparably ignorant. 
Title: Re: The Object and The Hazard
Post by: popsthebuilder on May 18, 2017, 10:27:25 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 18, 2017, 09:55:44 PM
You were done before you started.  Your stupidly held beliefs are just that--beliefs.  The only foundations that exist for them are in your own head and nowhere else.  You want to live a fiction--go ahead and do so, I don't give a shit.  You are simply irreparably ignorant.
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

Title: Re: The Object and The Hazard
Post by: Mike Cl on May 18, 2017, 11:04:38 PM
Quote from: popsthebuilder on May 18, 2017, 10:27:25 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. 
Title: Re: The Object and The Hazard
Post by: popsthebuilder on May 19, 2017, 12:51:05 AM
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 18, 2017, 11:04:38 PM
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

Title: Re: The Object and The Hazard
Post by: Mike Cl on May 19, 2017, 01:11:39 AM
Quote from: popsthebuilder on May 19, 2017, 12:51:05 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.
Title: Re: The Object and The Hazard
Post by: aitm on May 19, 2017, 03:58:10 PM
Quote from: popsthebuilder on May 18, 2017, 08:58:14 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.
Title: Re: The Object and The Hazard
Post by: Absurd Atheist on May 21, 2017, 08:22:03 PM
Wow guys. I leave for a few days and everyone is at eachothers throats. Nice.
Title: Re: The Object and The Hazard
Post by: Cavebear on June 18, 2017, 04:12:34 AM
Quote from: Absurd Atheist on April 22, 2017, 04:41:17 PM
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...
Title: Re: The Object and The Hazard
Post by: Baruch on June 18, 2017, 08:36:46 AM
The Wizard of Id is more funny, particularly his marriage ;-)
Title: Re: The Object and The Hazard
Post by: popsthebuilder on June 18, 2017, 09:01:29 AM
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 19, 2017, 01:11:39 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

Title: Re: The Object and The Hazard
Post by: Cavebear on June 20, 2017, 07:48:53 AM
Two dicks fencing with each other.  The imagery is both hilarious and disturbing.  LOL!
Title: Re: The Object and The Hazard
Post by: Mike Cl on June 22, 2017, 09:05:32 AM
Quote from: popsthebuilder on June 18, 2017, 09:01:29 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. 
Title: Re: The Object and The Hazard
Post by: popsthebuilder on June 22, 2017, 11:47:48 AM
Quote from: Mike Cl on June 22, 2017, 09:05:32 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

Title: Re: The Object and The Hazard
Post by: Mike Cl on June 22, 2017, 12:35:05 PM
Quote from: popsthebuilder on June 22, 2017, 11:47:48 AM
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! 
Title: Re: The Object and The Hazard
Post by: Baruch on June 22, 2017, 12:46:59 PM
Quote from: popsthebuilder on June 22, 2017, 11:47:48 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Object and The Hazard
Post by: SGOS on June 22, 2017, 01:23:54 PM
Quote from: Baruch on June 22, 2017, 12:46:59 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?
Title: Re: The Object and The Hazard
Post by: Baruch on June 22, 2017, 06:57:33 PM
Quote from: SGOS on June 22, 2017, 01:23:54 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.
Title: Re: The Object and The Hazard
Post by: Cavebear on June 23, 2017, 04:49:48 AM
Quote from: Mike Cl on June 22, 2017, 12:35:05 PM
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!

There is not proof of a deity from theists, there never will be one, and there cannot be one.

They chase a will-of-the-wisp, a gaslight in the swamp, a cloud in the sky.  I understand what they WANT, but it isn't there to find.  And so many waste the only existence they have seeking more than that.

They have the right to seek something that doesn't exist.  But that right ends at the tip of their noses.  They do NOT have the right to try and force me to live THEIR fantasy, THEIR dreams, THEIR hopes.

When I watch a fantasy movie, I allow the created world they provide to be real for a time.  But when the movie is over, so is the created reality.  Theists don't do that.  They persist.  They not only think it is true for themselves, but they demand it must also be true for all other people.  This is where they fail.

This is where they will always fail until the last one dies just like the lat believer in a flat earth died.  We just have to wait them out and hope they don't destroy us in some theistically-created end-of-world scenario first.
Title: Re: The Object and The Hazard
Post by: Baruch on June 23, 2017, 05:35:27 AM
Cave bear - I really like this last post except for the very last bit.  I didn't give it a like, because I don't want you to melt like the wicket witch ;-)

On the other hand, if you look at yourself in the mirror ... honestly ... you won't see an Eloi, you will see a Morlock.  There are only Morlocks here.
Title: Re: The Object and The Hazard
Post by: SGOS on June 23, 2017, 08:51:56 AM
Quote from: Cavebear on June 23, 2017, 04:49:48 AM
When I watch a fantasy movie, I allow the created world they provide to be real for a time.  But when the movie is over, so is the created reality.  Theists don't do that.  They persist.  They not only think it is true for themselves, but they demand it must also be true for all other people.
I've had this thought also, but never thought about confirming it's accuracy.  In my small circle of acquaintances, I have noticed a correlation between deep religious belief and a dislike of science fiction/fantasy.  I don't know if this sample is representative of the whole or not, but the correlation I make is sometimes identified by a hostile rejection of fantasy as "unworthy child's play."  It seems odd that such a definitive rejection occurs in the presence of their own religious fantasies of demons, angels, seers of the future, miraculous conjurings of holy men, and an Iron Man like protector.

Like you, I immensely enjoy fantasy.  It appears throughout the ages in literature, film, and art and is taught in advanced courses in higher institutions of learning.  It's not that I wish to deny the religious their fantasy, but it perplexes me how they can reject common fantasy, while immersing themselves so whole heartedly in that one particular fantasy they believe not only as real, but is at the same time, is the one ultimate truth.

For things which cannot be proven or things that are beyond understanding, it seems that a typical response would be a bit of manageable confusion, as one files it away for possible future consideration, or it may be identified as an interesting myth, or even a blissful thought.  But whole hearted unsupported adoption of the incomprehensible fantasy as ultimate truth is an extreme reaction.  And when it happens in the face of outright often hostile rejection of less favored fantasies, it is perplexing.

OK, one more try and explaining my reaction to the phenomenon.  It's like there can be no acceptance of fantasy, because fantasy is morally wrong.  Something with the nature of fantasy can only be viewed as certifiably real, or certifiably false, and in addition it must be judged and subsequently embraced whole heartedly or thrown into a category of thoughts that are worthy of contempt.
Title: Re: The Object and The Hazard
Post by: Baruch on June 23, 2017, 01:11:48 PM
SGOS - yes ... obsession is bad for you.  And some religious folks are obsessed (religious folks are the majority).  So take fantasy and add obsession ... a superb analysis!

I do like science fiction ... but have seen enough in 6 decades ... and I am religious.  I am the exception that proves your rule.

In general nobody likes contrary evidence to their one trick pony.  Hence the rejection of science by those religious who are educated enough to know that science exists.
Title: Re: The Object and The Hazard
Post by: Cavebear on June 29, 2017, 05:12:08 AM
Quote from: SGOS on June 23, 2017, 08:51:56 AM


OK, one more try and explaining my reaction to the phenomenon.  It's like there can be no acceptance of fantasy, because fantasy is morally wrong.  Something with the nature of fantasy can only be viewed as certifiably real, or certifiably false, and in addition it must be judged and subsequently embraced whole heartedly or thrown into a category of thoughts that are worthy of contempt.

Is it possible that, if the religious accept other fantasies as even temporarily real, it equates fantasy with their own beliefs?  In other words, if they accept one bit of fantasy, it conflates to their own?
Title: Re: The Object and The Hazard
Post by: Baruch on June 29, 2017, 07:05:55 AM
Quote from: Cavebear on June 29, 2017, 05:12:08 AM
Is it possible that, if the religious accept other fantasies as even temporarily real, it equates fantasy with their own beliefs?  In other words, if they accept one bit of fantasy, it conflates to their own?

A great idea.
Title: Re: The Object and The Hazard
Post by: SGOS on June 29, 2017, 07:42:31 AM
Quote from: Cavebear on June 29, 2017, 05:12:08 AM
Is it possible that, if the religious accept other fantasies as even temporarily real, it equates fantasy with their own beliefs?  In other words, if they accept one bit of fantasy, it conflates to their own?
Thanks for articulating that.  It is exactly what I was trying to say, and while I was saying it, I knew I wasn't doing it very well.