Fair to say that atheists might be the biggest believers?

For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict.

Moderator: Dan~

Re: Fair to say that atheists might be the biggest believers

Postby phyllo » Sun Jan 08, 2017 10:23 pm

How about you?

What "here and now" do you believe your own fate to be "beyond"? How is this related to your current belief in God? And what of those who reject your frame of mind -- the stuff that you claim to believe or know to be true "in your head"? What is to be their own fate?
I don't know how many times I'm supposed to say "I don't know", "It's not my decision", "It's not under my control" .

Is there any way at all that you can take this out of your head? A way that you can demonstrate that your own moral and political values are in sync with the one true God?

Indeed, I've lost count of how many times that I have tried to pin religionists down on this.
You keep pretending that nobody wants to talk about it.

I've tried to talk to you about this dozens of times. And I'm not the only one.

But when it's in progress, it's the same cut and paste discussion over and over. Yeah, after a while ... they don't want talk to you any more.

That's when you declare victory.
Last edited by phyllo on Sun Jan 08, 2017 10:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Only the educated are free" - Epictetus
"Music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy" -Beethoven
"Everyday life is the way" -Wumen
"Do not permit the events of your daily life to bind you, but never withdraw yourself from them" - Wumen
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 9430
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am
Location: Know where

Re: Fair to say that atheists might be the biggest believers

Postby iambiguous » Sun Jan 08, 2017 10:24 pm

phyllo wrote:
On the other hand, as you get closer and closer and closer to it, you may well come to change your mind. I sure wish that I could.

Indeed, as with most things of this sorts, it is embedded more in existence itself rather than in any particular way in which any particular mind can concoct a "defense mechanism" to keep it all more...at a distance.
That's funny. One would think that it falls into your categories of identity, value judgements and intellectual contraptions. Yet, you suddenly "embed it in existence itself". :P


But my "categories" of identity and value judgements are ever and always only existential contraptions here. What I go looking for are the arguments of those able to demonstrate that this is considerably less the case with/for them. And that they are somehow able to transcend these existential components and arrive at a God that they are indeed able to demonstrate as in fact existing.

As this relates to the manner in which they do connect the dots between before and after the grave.

Something that [above] I broached with you. And, once again, you don't seem to find it worth exploring.

On the other hand, neither do folks like Uccisore or Turd.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Objectivists: Like shooting turds in a barrel.

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 19485
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Fair to say that atheists might be the biggest believers

Postby phyllo » Sun Jan 08, 2017 10:33 pm

But my "categories" of identity and value judgements are ever and always only existential contraptions here.
IOW, Iambig can change the categories any time that he feels like it ... even mid-discussion.

This is a fundamental problem. There is no stability or consistency. What is there to discuss? How can anything be discussed?
"Only the educated are free" - Epictetus
"Music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy" -Beethoven
"Everyday life is the way" -Wumen
"Do not permit the events of your daily life to bind you, but never withdraw yourself from them" - Wumen
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 9430
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am
Location: Know where

Re: Fair to say that atheists might be the biggest believers

Postby iambiguous » Sun Jan 08, 2017 11:02 pm

phyllo wrote:
On the contrary, I recognize that those on either side of any particular moral conflict of note can make reasonable arguments. Conflicting good, remember?
If every measure is equally 'reasonable' then there are no better measures, no good measures and bad measures ... basically no standard of measurement.


They are deemed reasonable given the political assumptions/premises that are commanded from both sides.

If you start with the assumption that the unborn have a natural right to life then those who abort babies are wrong.

Then it comes down to the consequences of that. With God, the consequene [for the vast majority of religionists] revoles around Judgment Day.

If you start with the assumption that women have the political right to abort, then those who would stop them are wrong.

Then it comes down to consequences. Without God, the consequence [for many pro-lifers] would be an arrest, a trial, a verdict and if found guilty one or another punishment.

And how is this not the same for all other political issues in which conflicting goods exist?

And that's before we get to the part in which I explore the extent to which these goods come to be embodied more existentially than essentially.

phyllo wrote: Hell, you can't even say that pressing the button and destroying the entire world is wrong. :confusion-shrug:


Indeed, I suspect that any number of miserable bastards out there would like nothing better than for that to happen. They simply rationalize it.

Oh, and what happens when the next "extinction event" occurs and, once again, most of life on earth is wiped out.

That might be called an "act of God", right?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Objectivists: Like shooting turds in a barrel.

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 19485
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Fair to say that atheists might be the biggest believers

Postby MagsJ » Sun Jan 08, 2017 11:33 pm

phyllo wrote:
But my "categories" of identity and value judgements are ever and always only existential contraptions here.
IOW, Iambig can change the categories any time that he feels like it ... even mid-discussion.

This is a fundamental problem. There is no stability or consistency. What is there to discuss? How can anything be discussed?

Then keep up :confusion-shrug:

You cannot force someone to be consistent because you are... it seems to be a case of transients Vs statics. Is that not life/reality?
Image
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist
 
Posts: 16549
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: North-Central London

Re: Fair to say that atheists might be the biggest believers

Postby phyllo » Sun Jan 08, 2017 11:41 pm

They are deemed reasonable given the political assumptions/premises that are commanded from both sides.
You just transferred the lack of standards to 'assumptions' ... you're saying that there are no good and bad assumptions, no better assumptions and no way to analyze assumptions. :confusion-shrug:
Indeed, I suspect that any number of miserable bastards out there would like nothing better than for that to happen. They simply rationalize it.
Yeah, they're miserable bastards and I will go out on a limb and say that there is something wrong with them, their attitude and their (potential) behavior. I know ... now you will call me Mr. Objectivist.
Oh, and what happens when the next "extinction event" occurs and, once again, most of life on earth is wiped out.

That might be called an "act of God", right?
What does that have to do with whether the miserable bastards are right or wrong?
"Only the educated are free" - Epictetus
"Music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy" -Beethoven
"Everyday life is the way" -Wumen
"Do not permit the events of your daily life to bind you, but never withdraw yourself from them" - Wumen
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 9430
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am
Location: Know where

Re: Fair to say that atheists might be the biggest believers

Postby phyllo » Sun Jan 08, 2017 11:43 pm

MagsJ wrote:
phyllo wrote:
But my "categories" of identity and value judgements are ever and always only existential contraptions here.
IOW, Iambig can change the categories any time that he feels like it ... even mid-discussion.

This is a fundamental problem. There is no stability or consistency. What is there to discuss? How can anything be discussed?

Then keep up :confusion-shrug:

You cannot force someone to be consistent because you are... it seems to be a case of transients Vs statics. Is that not life/reality?
Do you know what A=A means?

It means that the words don't suddenly change meaning from one sentence to another, from one post to another.

Cause if they do, there is no possibility of a discussion.
"Only the educated are free" - Epictetus
"Music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy" -Beethoven
"Everyday life is the way" -Wumen
"Do not permit the events of your daily life to bind you, but never withdraw yourself from them" - Wumen
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 9430
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am
Location: Know where

Re: Fair to say that atheists might be the biggest believers

Postby Mackerni » Mon Jan 09, 2017 1:16 am

phyllo wrote:
I'm the only one that makes any sense in this thread.


Enough said.
"Anybody got a problem with the way I live? I don't want to go to Heaven if I can't get in!"
User avatar
Mackerni
 
Posts: 138
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2017 12:11 am

Re: Fair to say that atheists might be the biggest believers

Postby phyllo » Mon Jan 09, 2017 1:27 am

Mackerni wrote:
phyllo wrote:
I'm the only one that makes any sense in this thread.


Enough said.
I didn't write that. :evil:
"Only the educated are free" - Epictetus
"Music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy" -Beethoven
"Everyday life is the way" -Wumen
"Do not permit the events of your daily life to bind you, but never withdraw yourself from them" - Wumen
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 9430
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am
Location: Know where

Re: Fair to say that atheists might be the biggest believers

Postby MagsJ » Mon Jan 09, 2017 5:32 pm

phyllo wrote:
MagsJ wrote:...it seems to be a case of transients Vs statics. Is that not life/reality?
Do you know what A=A means?

It means that the words don't suddenly change meaning from one sentence to another, from one post to another.

Cause if they do, there is no possibility of a discussion.
My mother.. her conversations were very transient.. she sometimes settled on a point, but more often did not. I tend to do this often too.. be transient in my conversations, but not on a debating forum.. due to the point you raised on there being little room for discussion.
Image
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist
 
Posts: 16549
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: North-Central London

Re: Fair to say that atheists might be the biggest believers

Postby iambiguous » Wed Jan 11, 2017 7:45 pm

phyllo wrote:
How about you?

What "here and now" do you believe your own fate to be "beyond"? How is this related to your current belief in God? And what of those who reject your frame of mind -- the stuff that you claim to believe or know to be true "in your head"? What is to be their own fate?
I don't know how many times I'm supposed to say "I don't know", "It's not my decision", "It's not under my control" .


Then we are back again to square one. Or, rather, to my square one.

This one: The gap between that which you have come existentially to believe is true in your head [here and now] regarding God and religion, and the ability to actually demonstrate why essentially all reasonable/rational men and women ought to believe the same.

Let alone how you would then connect that frame of mind to the frame of mind that revolves around particular moral and political issues you opine about in the government and society forum.

And those are always the dots that I aim to connect.

Which is why, over and over and over again, I copy/paste this:

1] I was raised in the belly of the working class beast. My family/community were very conservative. Abortion was a sin.
2] I was drafted into the Army and while on my "tour of duty" in Vietnam I happened upon politically radical folks who reconfigured my thinking about abortion. And God and lots of other things.
3] after I left the Army, I enrolled in college and became further involved in left wing politics. It was all the rage back then. I became a feminist. I married a feminist. I wholeheartedly embraced a woman's right to choose.
4] then came the calamity with Mary and John. I loved them both but their engagement was foundering on the rocks that was Mary's choice to abort their unborn baby.
5] back and forth we all went. I supported Mary but I could understand the points that John was making. I could understand the arguments being made on both sides. John was right from his side and Mary was right from hers.
6] I read William Barrett's Irrational Man and came upon his conjectures regarding "rival goods".
7] Then, over time, I abandoned an objectivist frame of mind that revolved around Marxism/feminism. Instead, I became more and more embedded in existentialism. And then as more years passed I became an advocate for moral nihilism.


That way, with respect to the existential relationship between my own value judgments and God and religion, I can articulate the actual sequence of events that, "out in my own particular world", came to intertwine them.

All I am after here [from the objectivists] is something [anything] along this line with respect to the organic -- "out in the world" -- trajectory that their values [here and now] have evolved from.

And then, concomitantly, the manner in which, from their own perspective, this is farther removed from dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

As this relates to God and religion.

But, sure, if all you yourself can think of is that you "don't know", and that it's "not your decision" and that it's "beyond your control", then we're probably stymied in moving forward.

And yet you still insist that...

phyllo wrote: I've tried to talk to you about this dozens of times. And I'm not the only one.


Right, others like Satyr/Lyssa and Turd and Jacob and James and Uccisore etc., have too.

Sorry, I forgot. :wink:

phyllo wrote: But when it's in progress, it's the same cut and paste discussion over and over. Yeah, after a while ... they don't want talk to you any more.

That's when you declare victory.


Well, at least no one is actually required to read/respond to me here.

And, again, what sort of "victory" have I achieved being utterly entangled in this:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

How do I even begin to explain how fractured and fragmented "I" becomes when immersed in this grim quandary.
And, in not being able to believe in God or in a religious agenda, I'm edging closer and closer to oblivion all the time. Some victory, my friend.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Objectivists: Like shooting turds in a barrel.

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 19485
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Fair to say that atheists might be the biggest believers

Postby iambiguous » Wed Jan 11, 2017 8:18 pm

phyllo wrote:
But my "categories" of identity and value judgements are ever and always only existential contraptions here.
IOW, Iambig can change the categories any time that he feels like it ... even mid-discussion.


Cite an example of where, of when I have done this. I'm not sure what it is that you are actually accusing me of here.

phyllo wrote: This is a fundamental problem. There is no stability or consistency. What is there to discuss? How can anything be discussed?


But my very point is to speculate that, in order to concoct stability and consistency "in their heads", the religious objectivists invent God.

But, in my view, this is far less a theological or philosophical frame of mind than it is a psychological defense mechanism. Embodied and manifested in one or another rendition of this:

1] For one reason or another [rooted largely in dasein], you are taught or come into contact with [through your upbringing, a friend, a book, an experience etc.] a worldview, a philosophy of life.

2] Over time, you become convinced that this perspective expresses and encompasses the most rational and objective truth. This truth then becomes increasingly more vital, more essential to you as a foundation, a justification, a celebration of all that is moral as opposed to immoral, rational as opposed to irrational.

3] Eventually, for some, they begin to bump into others who feel the same way; they may even begin to actively seek out folks similarly inclined to view the world in a particular way.

4] Some begin to share this philosophy with family, friends, colleagues, associates, Internet denizens; increasingly it becomes more and more a part of their life. It becomes, in other words, more intertwined in their personal relationships with others...it begins to bind them emotionally and psychologically.

5] As yet more time passes, they start to feel increasingly compelled not only to share their Truth with others but, in turn, to vigorously defend it against any and all detractors as well.

6] For some, it can reach the point where they are no longer able to realistically construe an argument that disputes their own as merely a difference of opinion; they see it instead as, for all intents and purposes, an attack on their intellectual integrity....on their very Self.

7] Finally, a stage is reached [again for some] where the original philosophical quest for truth, for wisdom has become so profoundly integrated into their self-identity [professionally, socially, psychologically, emotionally] defending it has less and less to do with philosophy at all. And certainly less and less to do with "logic".


Objectivists [sacred or secular] are then afforded the opportunity [by me] to describe for us how their own values are not an example of this at all.

For example, they can choose to actually demonstrate in some capacity why all rational/virtuous men and women are obligated to eschew "one of them" in order to become "one of us".
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Objectivists: Like shooting turds in a barrel.

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 19485
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Fair to say that atheists might be the biggest believers

Postby phyllo » Wed Jan 11, 2017 8:50 pm

phyllo wrote:

Iambig wrote :
But my "categories" of identity and value judgements are ever and always only existential contraptions here.

IOW, Iambig can change the categories any time that he feels like it ... even mid-discussion.


Iambig wrote :

Cite an example of where, of when I have done this. I'm not sure what it is that you are actually accusing me of here.

You did it just now.

We were discussing "oblivion" on the the other side of the grave - a subject which clearly seems to fall into the category of identity and value judgements and is therefore subjective, in my head, and separate from the stuff you consider as objective facts.
I wrote :
I don't care if oblivion is on the other side of the grave.

Iambig replied :
On the other hand, as you get closer and closer and closer to it, you may well come to change your mind. I sure wish that I could.

Indeed, as with most things of this sorts, it is embedded more in existence itself rather than in any particular way in which any particular mind can concoct a "defense mechanism" to keep it all more...at a distance.
Here you are saying it's not just subjective, only in your head. You're saying that as death gets closer, the intellectual contraptions drop away.
I point this out:
I wrote :
That's funny. One would think that it falls into your categories of identity, value judgements and intellectual contraptions. Yet, you suddenly "embed it in existence itself". :P

You simply change the categories:
Iambig wrote :
But my "categories" of identity and value judgements are ever and always only existential contraptions here.
IOW, if you have an experience (such as the approach of death) which makes you think that an intellectual contraption is not really a contraption - that it's actually "embedded in existence" ... you take it out of the category of identity and judgement. Thus you can continue to say that identity and value judgments are always "in someone's head" and that you have never had a demonstration of the objective nature of (some) of these thoughts. In fact, you have demonstrated it to yourself. :D
"Only the educated are free" - Epictetus
"Music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy" -Beethoven
"Everyday life is the way" -Wumen
"Do not permit the events of your daily life to bind you, but never withdraw yourself from them" - Wumen
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 9430
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am
Location: Know where

Re: Fair to say that atheists might be the biggest believers

Postby iambiguous » Wed Jan 11, 2017 8:53 pm

phyllo wrote:
They are deemed reasonable given the political assumptions/premises that are commanded from both sides.
You just transferred the lack of standards to 'assumptions' ... you're saying that there are no good and bad assumptions, no better assumptions and no way to analyze assumptions. :confusion-shrug:


Not the lack of standards but the assumption that the standards deemed to reflect the optimal [or the only] ratonal frame of mine, reside on one side or the other.

Again, choose a particular moral conflagration and note the optimal [or the only] rational manner in which the assumptions can be analyzed.

Indeed, I suspect that any number of miserable bastards out there would like nothing better than for that to happen. They simply rationalize it.


phyllo wrote: Yeah, they're miserable bastards and I will go out on a limb and say that there is something wrong with them, their attitude and their (potential) behavior. I know ... now you will call me Mr. Objectivist.


I will call you Mr. Objectivist only to the extent that you insist that, if others don't share your own frame of mind about them, then they are necessarily wrong.

As though it is absolutely impossible that things could ever get miserable enough for you to think like that. I call this my "Vietnam Syndrome". As in there were many, many things that I was absolutely certain I could never think before I was sent over there.

For example, I was abolutely certain of my faith in the Protestant God. And in my very conservative political values.

Indeed, that is precisely what [in my opinion] motivates the objectivists: the need [emotionally and psychologically] to ground "I" in one or another objectivist font.

Oh, and what happens when the next "extinction event" occurs and, once again, most of life on earth is wiped out.

That might be called an "act of God", right?


phyllo wrote: What does that have to do with whether the miserable bastards are right or wrong?


How miserable does God have to be in order to bring about the next extinction event.

On the other hand, if you believe in God, here's an example of what He is capable of: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=192215

As for the miserable bastards above [the mere mortals], if they were to act out their misery by seeking to harm others, with God there is no not getting caught and no not getting punished.

On the other hand, if God is omniscient, how can any mere mortal not act out God's will since nothing that any of them do is beyond the cognizance of God.

Or "in your head" does that all play out differently?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Objectivists: Like shooting turds in a barrel.

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 19485
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Fair to say that atheists might be the biggest believers

Postby iambiguous » Fri Jan 13, 2017 10:18 pm

phyllo wrote:
phyllo wrote:

Iambig wrote :
But my "categories" of identity and value judgements are ever and always only existential contraptions here.

IOW, Iambig can change the categories any time that he feels like it ... even mid-discussion.


Iambig wrote :

Cite an example of where, of when I have done this. I'm not sure what it is that you are actually accusing me of here.

You did it just now.

We were discussing "oblivion" on the the other side of the grave - a subject which clearly seems to fall into the category of identity and value judgements and is therefore subjective, in my head, and separate from the stuff you consider as objective facts.


I will admit that, given the manner in which you construe this, I may well be guilty as charged. I'm just trying to grasp the manner in which you do construe this so as to either object or to concur more substantively.

When we are speculating about our fate on the other side of the grave, that would seem to entail speculating in turn about the behaviors that we choose on this side of the grave: If you are a believer in God.

I'm merely trying to pin you down here. And you responded above that 'I don't know how many times I'm supposed to say "I don't know", "It's not my decision", "It's not under my control".'

Thus [for all practical purposes] all I can do is to probe the extent to which what you believe about all of this as true "in your head" "here and now", you are able to compel others to believe in in turn. Why? Because you are able to demonstrate why and how all reasonable men and women are obligated to think/believe the same.


I wrote :
I don't care if oblivion is on the other side of the grave.

Iambig replied :
On the other hand, as you get closer and closer and closer to it, you may well come to change your mind. I sure wish that I could.

Indeed, as with most things of this sorts, it is embedded more in existence itself rather than in any particular way in which any particular mind can concoct a "defense mechanism" to keep it all more...at a distance.


phyllo wrote: Here you are saying it's not just subjective, only in your head. You're saying that as death gets closer, the intellectual contraptions drop away.


I'm just speculating that the closer mere mortals do get to the grave [they grow old, they are afflicted with some terrible disease, they have a close-call accident etc] they are going to think about death more...intimately?

But what doesn't change is that however they think about death/oblivion in a particular context, from a particular point of view, believing or not believing in God [immortality and salvation] "in their head" encompasses components they either can demonstrate to be true for all of us or they can't.

phyllo wrote: I point this out:
I wrote :
That's funny. One would think that it falls into your categories of identity, value judgements and intellectual contraptions. Yet, you suddenly "embed it in existence itself". :P

You simply change the categories:
Iambig wrote :
But my "categories" of identity and value judgements are ever and always only existential contraptions here.


Even "existential contraptions" contain elements that can in fact be demonstrated to others as true for all of us. I have never denied that. My point instead always revolves around the extent to which the "either/or" world here is implicated in the "is/ought" world. A particular individual may embody particular value judgments regarding their own particular religious convictions that they can easily demonstrate to be true objectively: They were raised to believe in this God. They attend this church. They had this particular experience that brought them closer to God. Et cetera.

But that's not the same [to me] as demonstrating the actual existence of this God.

phyllo wrote: IOW, if you have an experience (such as the approach of death) which makes you think that an intellectual contraption is not really a contraption - that it's actually "embedded in existence" ... you take it out of the category of identity and judgement. Thus you can continue to say that identity and value judgments are always "in someone's head" and that you have never had a demonstration of the objective nature of (some) of these thoughts. In fact, you have demonstrated it to yourself. :D


Note to others:

In all sincerity, I'm really not sure what he is getting at here pertinent to the points that I am making.

Please site particular experiences from your own life that might serve to better illustrate his point.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Objectivists: Like shooting turds in a barrel.

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 19485
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Fair to say that atheists might be the biggest believers

Postby AutSider » Thu Jan 19, 2017 7:15 pm

No, not fair. I don't believe in God.
User avatar
AutSider
Truth seeker
 
Posts: 2948
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 9:04 pm

Re: Fair to say that atheists might be the biggest believers

Postby iambiguous » Thu Jan 19, 2017 8:07 pm

AutSider wrote:No, not fair. I don't believe in God.


Nor do I.

I'm just trying to grasp more substantively, how those who profess to believe in God, intertwine their religious beliefs "out in the world" of actual human interactions that come into conflict. And, in turn, the manner in which they intertwine God in their political prejudices when posting over at the government, society and economy forum.

Of course other objectivists eschew God and embrace Reason or Ideology or Nature instead. Some even insisting that, in so doing, they are not really objectivists at all.

Even though one is either "one of us" or "one of them".
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Objectivists: Like shooting turds in a barrel.

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 19485
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Previous

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot]