Athiest are the dumbest people. No Offence its just true.

[Baruch]

I guess there really are no philosophical problems, then, only language puzzles?

Your cartoon was very good ... but it would fit me better if the guy is returning "Being and Nothingness" by Sartre, and say ... "now I want to kill myself because my being means nothing".  Inside joke alert ... Sartre as an existentialist, wouldn't approve of that.  Like MLK, he found meaning by putting his life on the line.  Actually I couldn't finish "Being and Nothingness" because the jargon made it very hard to read, and it isn't an essay, but a long book.

Per Wittgenstein, there are only language puzzles.  But he said it as Wittgenstein 2.0.  Wittgenstein 1.0 didn't say that, and many others have criticized it.  The best lay book on modern philosophy was ... "Wittgenstein's Poker" ... where Wittgenstein goes up against Carl Popper.  One thing the book shows, is that philosophers take themselves too seriously.  Democritus for example was called the "Laughing Philosopher".

If you joined me in the universe were the book club for reading "Godel, Escher, Bach" was a real happening ... we could get deep into the question of if it really is just word puzzles.  I tend to invert things, I think Hofstadter, in the light of the last 35 years, has been shown to be wrong.  Words are tools, but unless the point of the conversation is to discuss tools, then we are going about things wrong.  We must discuss what the words refer to, not just how words make this difficult.

[Baruch]

Marzipan a Belgian specialty? First time I heard that.
Also, 'micro-agression' is a trigger word for me as I got severly beat up by an ill-tempered little person. So yeah I'll thank you for avoiding that word around me in the future?
:p

OK, I will only macro-a-dress.  I didn't know you were so sensitive about skirt lengths ;-)  Belgium is between France and the Netherlands, and is rather sensitive about that.  I did use "?".  And like the infamous "les pommes de terre frites" debate ... perhaps marzipan is more popular more south or more north of Brussels.  I also promise to not bring up the question of your sprouts ;-)

[Baruch]

First, how do you know I chose a dog avatar?  I may have chosen a cat avatar?  And I hear what you said.  Yes, all I speak comes from me.  And I comprehend the world as I comprehend it; nobody else sees it as I do.  Nor as you do.  So, yes it is easy to see that all words, sentences and thoughts are bias laden.  For real communication to occur, I have to cut through my bias first--and find a way to cut through yours; which means you have to want to allow me to do that.  That is not the easiest thing to do, and the conditions have to be correct. 

I have been aware for quite some time what your bias are (well, to a small degree)--and I do think we have actually connected on ideas we agree on.  We have, from time to time, communicated.   In any case, I do find what you think and how you think to be, well, entertaining and at times enlightening.  And every now and again we can communicate.

Yes, mutual human understanding is still stuck in the "rabbit ears" era of television.  Could you move a little more to the left, Gunsmoke is coming on ;-)

[Mike Cl]

  Words are tools, but unless the point of the conversation is to discuss tools, then we are going about things wrong.  We must discuss what the words refer to, not just how words make this difficult.

You have never spoken truer words!  :)  Two people could be talking about a table saw.  If one thinks of it as a saw built into a table, and the other a saw laying on a table, they could be deep into a conversation with little to no communication going on.  To communicate both (or all) parties must understand what the words mean.

[Mike Cl]

Yes, mutual human understanding is still stuck in the "rabbit ears" era of television.  Could you move a little more to the left, Gunsmoke is coming on ;-)

Hell--get your own spot in front of the TV, I'm watching it; want me some Chester Good and Festus!

[Baruch]

You have never spoken truer words!  :)  Two people could be talking about a table saw.  If one thinks of it as a saw built into a table, and the other a saw laying on a table, they could be deep into a conversation with little to no communication going on.  To communicate both (or all) parties must understand what the words mean.

It is hard enough agreeing on what substantial things mean.  "Wood" for instance.  Do you include plywood?  In philosophy, we discuss insubstantial things ... so no wonder the whole deal is about better or worse word definitions, rather than anything more substantial ;-)

[Mr.Obvious]

OK, I will only macro-adress.  I didn't know you were so sensitive about skirt lengths ;-)  Belgium is between France and the Netherlands, and is rather sensitive about that.  I did use "?".  And like the infamous "les pommes de terre frites" debate ... perhaps marzipan is more popular more south or more north of Brussels.  I also promise to not bring up the question of your sprouts ;-)

Oh no, it's popular over here. Not my cup of tea but kids love it to death. Especially during Sinterklaas. I just wouldn't say we make renowned marzipan. Credit where credit is due, not where it ain't.

[Unbeliever]

Your cartoon was very good ... but it would fit me better if the guy is returning "Being and Nothingness" by Sartre, and say ... "now I want to kill myself because my being means nothing".  Inside joke alert ... Sartre as an existentialist, wouldn't approve of that.  Like MLK, he found meaning by putting his life on the line.  Actually I couldn't finish "Being and Nothingness" because the jargon made it very hard to read, and it isn't an essay, but a long book.

Per Wittgenstein, there are only language puzzles.  But he said it as Wittgenstein 2.0.  Wittgenstein 1.0 didn't say that, and many others have criticized it.  The best lay book on modern philosophy was ... "Wittgenstein's Poker" ... where Wittgenstein goes up against Carl Popper.  One thing the book shows, is that philosophers take themselves too seriously.  Democritus for example was called the "Laughing Philosopher".

If you joined me in the universe were the book club for reading "Godel, Escher, Bach" was a real happening ... we could get deep into the question of if it really is just word puzzles.  I tend to invert things, I think Hofstadter, in the light of the last 35 years, has been shown to be wrong.  Words are tools, but unless the point of the conversation is to discuss tools, then we are going about things wrong.  We must discuss what the words refer to, not just how words make this difficult.

Yeah, I just last week finished reading Wittgenstein's Poker (as per your previous suggestion) - a very interesting book! I'm still thinking about the different positions of the two antagonists, so I don't yet know which (if either) I agree with.

[Mike Cl]

It is hard enough agreeing on what substantial things mean.  "Wood" for instance.  Do you include plywood?  In philosophy, we discuss insubstantial things ... so no wonder the whole deal is about better or worse word definitions, rather than anything more substantial ;-)

That's why jargon is so important--the specific vocabulary that surrounds any particular subject.  I love baseball  stats and sabermetrics more so.  But even when I talk to a fellow sabermetric nut, I ask them to define the key term.  If we discuss ops+, for example, I ask what it means to him and most importantly how does he figure it.  Then, when we both know what each of us mean, we can have a fruitful discussion about it. That process can seem such a pain-in-the-ass and time waster, but it is critical for communication. 

[Baruch]

That's why jargon is so important--the specific vocabulary that surrounds any particular subject.  I love baseball  stats and sabermetrics more so.  But even when I talk to a fellow sabermetric nut, I ask them to define the key term.  If we discuss ops+, for example, I ask what it means to him and most importantly how does he figure it.  Then, when we both know what each of us mean, we can have a fruitful discussion about it. That process can seem such a pain-in-the-ass and time waster, but it is critical for communication.

And the scientific method is the acme of that process.  Philosophers arguing in front of grad students ... less so.

[Baruch]

Yeah, I just last week finished reading Wittgenstein's Poker (as per your previous suggestion) - a very interesting book! I'm still thinking about the different positions of the two antagonists, so I don't yet know which (if either) I agree with.

Wow!  My first convert "wringing hands in glee" ... today obscure intellectual history, tomorrow the Vatican!

[Randy Carson]

Hello
The Reason why I say "atheist are the Dumbest people"
there are more reasons than 1.  But mostly because most atheist have no belief in things they cant understand and/or only belief in the 5 recorded senses of the human being.

A little about me, I am a Christian but im sad to say im not a born again Christian, I truly hope I can get there one day soon, I battle with a lot of evil on a daily basis.  I also want to say that I am NOT the type of person that is a "google freak" and I do not squawk off like a parrot or just repeat things I have read or heard from people for the reason I have little faith in man. So most things I say is from organic thoughts and "nuggets" that I believe have come into my mind from asking in prayer "to let me see, and to let me hear" also asking for wisdom,knowledge and understanding. I am not saying in any way that I have it all figured out, I am far from that.

So now I hope you understand that I am not pretending to be something im not,Ill tell you that I have never been to church as a adult but I do pray many times a day everyday, I also have had a true experience with god,and I feel really bad that I still have not let myself be born again after such a experience with God.

Now lets get to some things. Ill start with atheist thinking it is so far fetched that there actually can be a heaven or a kingdom in the sky. Well this is short and sweet also a fact,......Wait for it...HAHA Its that we live in a kingdom in the sky people!! think about it.

Another thing Ill say before the replies come in and this isn't just for atheist but for most people is how people are gauging another mans intelligence or what people "Think" makes a person smart, is good grades, collage degrees, "Titles", spelling etc.  Im here to tell you that is a joke, all of the things I just listed off,no matter how good you are at them, Only means you lack a learning disability you see all normal humans can learn anything they want, so how can one be smart simply because they have learned something. when we all have that ability.
Smart is the inventors and people with the NEW great ideas, people that are having a different perspective than the masses, and if you truly cant see that there is a God then you are Truly a fool.
I tend to see the truth in "reading Between the lines" like science has truly accomplished nothing.

This was a pathetic post. If he hadn't been banned already, I would be calling him on the carpet for it.

My apologies to all for this poor showing.

[Sargon The Grape]

This was a pathetic post. If he hadn't been banned already, I would be calling him on the carpet for it.

My apologies to all for this poor showing.

For once, we are in complete agreement.

[Randy Carson]

For once, we are in complete agreement.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Can somebody explain the last two pages?