Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Dec 23, 2014 - 08:15am PT
|
This is the sum substance of what happens to Fruitmen who want to save the world playing god.
They always fail in the end due to their defective minds thinking that God is just like them.
They become imitators.
To get humanity cured from disease these imitators Dr HFCS types start their work onto humanity.
The present world is a direct result of the many HFCS types and their fine workmanship on humanity, rolls eyes.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Dec 23, 2014 - 09:11am PT
|
Once again you and I are venturing into levels beyond our pay grade, John. You seem to think that where there is no matter (particles, etc.), there is a void, empty space - nothing - enforced perhaps by your meditative experiences. I contend that down there at quantum levels things are much more complicated and cannot be so easily categorized into form & mass and the absence of such.
That's not what I have been saying, John. Look closely: The fundamental truth is: "Emptiness is form, and form is emptiness - exactly."
That is - when you look close enough, in the void you find stuff roiling, and when you look into that stuff, you see it has "no physical extent." What I suspect you and others are getting hung up on is a partial understanding of this - in that discursively, the stuff is the fundamental truth. We say it is both - that stuff can only exist because of no-thing, and the void can only exist because of the stuff in it. They call it co-origination, whereas the discursive mind will insist that the stuff sources or causes it all - even the void.
What I really suspect with jabs like, "You are out of your pay grade," translated to, "you do not know what you are talking about because I say so," is once again so much veiled scientism. For example, where do you believe the quantifiers are "out of their pay grade?"
You are betraying your bias relative to what is familiar to you. Fair enough.
JL
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
|
Dec 23, 2014 - 09:37am PT
|
donnski: . . . - make-believe non-sense!
Insightful with every word.
What we think Reality is, is constructed. It’s something made, created—a sort of consensual, convenient, expedient, approximate, practical, conjectured state of many many sorts. Look how often we cannot be sure of “what is what” or even the object we are talking about. (Happens every time; there is just about nothing that people do not generate controversy about.)
The process is caused by—and the result of—beliefs. Beliefs are commonly everywhere, everything. Finding any “thing” that is not a belief requires unrelenting honest discipline. You gotta really want it.
“Non-sense” is a very adept choice of words. Not sense and “non-sense” leaves what? What could be neither? What transcends a polarity?
Good job.
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
|
Dec 23, 2014 - 09:46am PT
|
Hey, MikeL you referred to " Ward's view" on the Crimpergirl thread.
What is that view, in your own words?
And what moved you to announce that this view, unidentified by yourself, is unpopular, or otherwise marginal ?
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Dec 23, 2014 - 10:47am PT
|
I was asked if i'd wear a t-shirt in Pakistan that read in big letters... Darwinian Evolutionist. I said no. In Hawaii, yes, in Pakistan, no.
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Dec 23, 2014 - 10:51am PT
|
Mike makes up his own pet theory of cognition and awareness, while JL and Friends hold fast to their pet theory (well, it's absolute truth, actually) of the fundamental nature of the universe.
That both are beyond anyone's pay grade matters not a wit - it's religion.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Dec 23, 2014 - 11:09am PT
|
Concrete examples of progress in the 21st century...
...being able to wear my 'Darwinian evolutionist' t-shirt in Pakistan, in Peshawar, say, and being able to feel safe... and being able to actually be safe.
...women being able to drive unaccompanied by men in Saudia Arabia.
...state laws in America referencing atheists - re their NOT being able (qualified) to hold political office - amended or repealed.
(what, too much too ask? too soon?)
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Dec 23, 2014 - 11:15am PT
|
And to achieve this, um, nirvana, oh, progress, how many people die?
Nirvana. Yeah, that's it, lol!
'Sweet jesus you are obtuse...'
|
|
donnski
Mountain climber
Nanoose Bay, BC
|
|
|
Dec 23, 2014 - 11:30am PT
|
How would you know donnski?
It is not up to the non-believer to prove that god does not exist, or that the bible is not the word of god, or that religion is false. It is up to the believers to prove that it is true. The religious make the erroneous assumption that believing in god is an inherent baseline to human existence. It is not. We are all born without beliefs. We gain beliefs as we age and journey through life. To move from non-belief to belief requires convincing evidence, at least for rational thinking people. Blind faith is inadequate. Faith by definition is belief without substantiation. The religious pretend to know things they do not know.
There are a couple of fundamental principles in both science and philosophy: 1) belief should be based on the strength of the evidence, and 2) the more fantastic the claim the better the evidence needs to be. God, heaven, hell, the bible, and the concept of a soul are all pretty fantastic yet lack real evidence - no evidence what so ever.
More than any other group the Catholic church has scoured the world for evidence of their beliefs for almost 2000 years and repeatedly come up empty handed.
So given the above together with rationales written by people like Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, etc. it is reasonable to think that it is "make-believe non-sense."
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Dec 23, 2014 - 11:33am PT
|
The religious pretend to know things they do not know.
Welcome to the choss pile, donnski. But don't spend too much time here, take it from someone who knows, it's a trap. lol
with rationales written by people like Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, etc
now you're talkin! :)
.....
Sure the Abrahamic religions evolved out of hard times to serve vital functions, individual and communal; and sure they had played a very important role in our development and history. But hey this is the 21st century, time to get on with it!
|
|
donnski
Mountain climber
Nanoose Bay, BC
|
|
|
Dec 23, 2014 - 11:36am PT
|
Yes, thanks for the advice. As they say you can't argue with irrational people. I am out of here - going skiing.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Dec 23, 2014 - 11:39am PT
|
Good to hear, take a turn and a shot for me, twice over if you got good weather, hahaha!!
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Dec 23, 2014 - 11:44am PT
|
That's not what I have been saying, John. Look closely: The fundamental truth is: "Emptiness is form, and form is emptiness - exactly."
That is - when you look close enough, in the void you find stuff roiling, and when you look into that stuff, you see it has "no physical extent." What I suspect you and others are getting hung up on is a partial understanding of this - in that discursively, the stuff is the fundamental truth. We say it is both - that stuff can only exist because of no-thing, and the void can only exist because of the stuff in it. They call it co-origination, whereas the discursive mind will insist that the stuff sources or causes it all - even the void.
What I really suspect with jabs like, "You are out of your pay grade," translated to, "you do not know what you are talking about because I say so," is once again so much veiled scientism. For example, where do you believe the quantifiers are "out of their pay grade?"
You are betraying your bias relative to what is familiar to you. Fair enough.
JL
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
Colorado
|
|
|
Dec 23, 2014 - 01:07pm PT
|
. . . in the void you find stuff roiling, and when you look into that stuff, you see it has "no physical extent."
It seems to me that when one ventures down towards quantum levels either discussions become very mathematical OR metaphysical. The physicists are concerned with predictability of theory and the philosophers with metaphysical structure, including subjective resolutions of anti-intuitive observations. I lack qualifications in either area. But the quote above states "you see . . ." to which I must reply, How do you do that? And, How can you be so certain of your position?
Happy Holidays, all!
;>)
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
|
Dec 23, 2014 - 01:39pm PT
|
DMT: I'm picking on your ideas, actually. I don't see the utility of what it is you are so often driving toward....
1. Can’t find anything materially.
2. Can’t say what anything is completely and accurately.
3. We disagree with everyone all the time (a little bit of proof for #1 and #2 with this).
4. Apparently, if anyone wants to find anything incontrovertibly, it seems that they must go to extreme ends. Total destruction, in fact.
5. Agreements about reality are simply that. No more. There is no hard proof for anything but 1 thing.
6. The inherent contradictions of language and the very use of language confounds all attempts at being clear, concise, and concrete.
Ha-ha. No one needs to ride with me anywhere, DMT. I am knot. The only utility of any investigation is to find oneself. Every other objective is an illusion. When one gets there (to find oneself), he or she finds that there is no there there.
Honestly, and this might seem absurd, but there doesn’t seem to be “utility” either, not to anything. It just seems that way to a person’s mind. That’s why we disagree with each other to begin with (#1-#3 above). If there were any utility to be claimed, it would be the utility of being relaxed, rested, and at-peace. However, you can do that right now wherever you are. There’s no where to go and nothing to do . . . not really. You have everything you could possibly want or need right here and right now in the moment. Verstand?
So, why do anything? Because it’s an uncontrolable expression of your nature, of who and what you are. (It doesn’t mean you can do anything you want, in both senses of the words.)
Donnski: 1) belief should be based on the strength of the evidence, and 2) the more fantastic the claim the better the evidence needs to be.
I don’t believe I remember the second principle from graduate school. It might be a common folklore for you, but it’s not what I was taught formally. Moreover, if you could think of anything more fantastic than what reality appears to be according to any discipline, I’d sure as heck like to hear it. As for the first principle, it’s that word “strength” that seems problematical to me. You’ll need a standard for that. If you think that the standard is expert consensus, then I’d say you’re still struggling to define rock-solid proof.
Your arguments are based upon your beliefs.
What is not? (Apply that skepticism without prejudice.)
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Dec 23, 2014 - 01:53pm PT
|
Interesting: A "Mattering Map" as the basis for an alternative Humanist Manifesto ...
http://thehumanist.com/magazine/january-february-2015/features/getting-humanism-right-side-up
it is about affirming what we do believe, not just denying what we don’t.
re: atheism
So this has been my stance for years and years...
"Why would I define myself reactively, that is, in opposition to another’s viewpoint, when I can instead choose a proactive identity?"
Yet gobs and gobs of "a-theists" don't mind. lol
...and don't seem to understand why it's not a good idea... strategically.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Dec 23, 2014 - 02:30pm PT
|
there, dear.
You crack me up.
Is this a nitpick on my adding a couple more examples to the first, it's all I can gather.
whatever, strangeman, I'm too busy for your riddles.
If it's not your bait n switch or your crude replies it's your riddles - I can't afford them.
Your in the corner with Blu, WB and MikeL this month, lol!
.....
Just as long as YOUR clear on what your problem is, what else matters. ;)
.....
"Religious ideologies are best understood as crude, fanciful mattering maps—well intentioned but clumsy attempts to afford a stable sense of meaning and shared sense of purpose."
http://thehumanist.com/magazine/january-february-2015/features/getting-humanism-right-side-up
|
|
Psilocyborg
climber
|
|
|
Dec 23, 2014 - 04:24pm PT
|
1) belief should be based on the strength of the evidence
I agree. So with what evidence do you base your belief?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!