Started by Absurd Atheist, April 22, 2017, 04:41:17 PM
Quote from: popsthebuilder on May 18, 2017, 10:27:25 PMDamn.....offended much?I thought I may have been a little too abrasive.Thanks for saying how you really feel though.....dickSent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 18, 2017, 11:04:38 PMI 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.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on May 19, 2017, 12:51:05 AMI 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
Quote from: popsthebuilder on May 18, 2017, 08:58:14 PMYou base GOD not existing on the fact that YOU cannot observe IT in nature.
Quote from: Absurd Atheist on April 22, 2017, 04:41:17 PMSo 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.
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 19, 2017, 01:11:39 AMOkay, 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.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on June 18, 2017, 09:01:29 AMCould 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. peaceSent from my Z983 using Tapatalk
Quote from: Mike Cl on June 22, 2017, 09:05:32 AMGlad 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.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on June 22, 2017, 11:47:48 AMYou 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
Quote from: Baruch on June 22, 2017, 12:46:59 PMThey 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.
Quote from: SGOS on June 22, 2017, 01:23:54 PMTherefore, God?