Atheists should shut up!

[surreptitious75]

I will watch your first video on Kabbalism and if it is of any interest then I will probably watch all of them
I know absolutely nothing about it other than it is derived from Judaism and Madonna was once interested

[Fixed Cross]

I feel I should offer something on AC's behalf here though.
What about one of his very short books?

Here is, for the duration of 30 days, Liber B Vel Magi Sub Figura
https://easyupload.io/ypgp0x

[Fixed Cross]

I will watch your first video on Kabbalism and if it is of any interest then I will probably watch all of them

Ill be honoured.

This bugs me to no end, having written this.

I am yes, honoured, but only by having been able to make a couple of sensible videos by grace of this magnificent heritage.

Are we not all chosen by the knowledge that steps in our path?

[surreptitious75]

The biography will give me a basic foundation and then I can carry on from there
There is plenty of literature on him for anyone that wants to seriously study him

However I am quite a slow reader and so it might be some time before I do get round to reading him
One can only read one book at a time but hopefully there is enough time for me to read all I have to

Forcing too much knowledge into your brain is not practical unless you happen to have a photographic memory
Reading should be done slowly and methodically as that is for me the best way to learn a subject in any detail

[Tab]

Humble.

Aww, there's like, this one thing in the midst of every other damn thing in the universe pretty much, that you can't know. And the primate, "Hey, in a geologic time-frame I only learnt to walk upright about 3 seconds ago" is gonna whine about it.



Yup. And I'm the un-humble guy.

[Fixed Cross]

Dude man that has no bearing. You're just... ignoring that you make a claim you cant make.
I like unhumble people but they need to be aware of it.

Like, they need to be as I am. I am unhumble before people but humble before my work. Thats Crowley and thats the Aeonic spunk.
Nietzsche was the exoteric text, which is at least as important as the esoteric. Both are insanely adequate to the cocktail.

Nietzsche is the Apollon to Crowleys Dionysos- or N the theoretical, Spartanly fortified mainframe which could serve as a cauldron to encapsulate the metallurgy of the spirit. Crowley offers means to ends, ends which Nietzsche circumscribes.

[Fixed Cross]

Surr - C's Texts, like the one I uploaded, are neat and short, a few pages max. He wrote tens of hundreds of them and some are slightly longer. But what he calls a Book is mostly a couple of pages.

I can seriously recommend reading a little bit of his noble rantings before you read something as severe and serious as a biography.

[Arcturus Descending]

Tab

Oh sure, turn up now all the dust has cleared.

Just call me Eris.

Arc, who tempted poor Tab into a damn theist thread,"]Belief has to be based on "something".

Oh, stop playing the victim. You just learned a valuable lesson here. It is good to have you back here for now.

Ok, so you believe in something. The number 1 say. Subtract 1 from that number. Do you believe in the result..?

If you do, then you believe in the absence of something.

Is that a good example, Tab? I do not have to "believe" in those numbers nor the result. I know them. They exist.

This may not be a good example but I will use it anyway. Let us take for example the fact that you have not been on this forum for quite some time. No one saw you. You did not post under your old username{s}. There was enough evidence and knowledge to say that, in fact, Tab has not been here. Why would I choose to simply "believe" this as opposed to "knowing" it? Yes, I know. We ought not to assume.

Anyway, is it not more logical to say that I have experienced and observed the absence of something? Where does belief come into play there?

I am not an atheist but an agnostic ...BUT I hold the below views.

Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods.
Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

Older dictionaries define atheism as “a belief that there is no God.” Clearly, theistic influence taints these definitions. The fact that dictionaries define Atheism as “there is no God” betrays the (mono)theistic influence. Without the (mono)theistic influence, the definition would at least read “there are no gods.”

Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion.
While there are some religions that are atheistic (certain sects of Buddhism, for example), that does not mean that atheism is a religion. To put it in a more humorous way: If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby. lol

Despite the fact that atheism is not a religion, atheism is protected by many of the same Constitutional rights that protect religion. That, however, does not mean that atheism is itself a religion, only that our sincerely held (lack of) beliefs are protected in the same way as the religious beliefs of others. Similarly, many “interfaith” groups will include atheists. This, again, does not mean that atheism is a religious belief.
…
https://www.atheists.org/activism/resou ... t-atheism/

The dust shall never clear.

[Tab]

Perhaps our disconnect is that to me, knowing something and believeing something are exactly the same thing - neurologically anyway.

To me 'knowing' and 'believeing' are more like expressions of certainty.

I frequently lose my glasses. I know right, when did glasses become a thing in my life..? Getting old sucks. Anyway. Right now, my netflix-watching glasses are sitting on the table in plain view, next to my coffee cup. I just prodded them with my finger. They're real alright.

I'm gonna go out on a limb. I'm gonna say "I know my glasses are on the table."
Now, I've tossed a cloth over them, can't see them directly, but I can see the hump.
"I still know my glasses are on the table." Now, I left the room, and told kid#1 to go in, and flip a coin, and if it's heads, they have to steal my glasses, and bunch up the cloth a bit to make it look the same. Now my kid is coming out. I look at their hands, they're empty. I fix them with my best dad-stare. "Did you steal my glasses..?" They say no. My dad-radar shows a green light. However, my kids, having my some of my genes, are horribly perfidious.

I'm about 60-75% sure my glasses are still on the table. But do I know..?

Nope, now I just believe they are on the table.

But I'm pretty sure that this didn't involve a whole different part of my brain, when I switched from knowing to believeing.

Now imagine I reverse this experiment. Glasses initially not on the table, and I know that. My kid has them. They go in. They come out, they look like they just stuck something in the back of their pants.

Now I believe my glasses are not on the table. A negative belief.

Just then I hear the blender click on and a horrible whirring, crunching, glasses-destroying sound. Perfidious kid#1 passed my glasses off to even more perfidious kid#2, who just played "does it blend" with my glasses.

I now believe my glasses don't exist.

I rush into the kitchen. And look in the blender. It's full of whizzed-up shards of uncooked pasta. Evil kid#2 hands me my glasses. All smiles. I pat them on the head, though secretly I vow revenge next pocket money day. Oh yeah.

[Arcturus Descending]

Would you not say that there are some things which require no thought at all ?

As that is not physically possible and it also makes no sense logically

lol Subjectively thinking, what came to mind when I read your words in the instant were things like witches flying on brooms, little fairies, et cetera. They require no thought for me as they are absolutely illogical.

You cannot have a thought that requires absolutely no thinking at all

I am not so sure of that. The time that it takes to have an old boyfriend instantaneously pop into your mind, and you, in a moment, unplug it and let it go down the drain requires no thought but only force of habit.

Also, I think that that would have to depend on the subject of the thought and the individual's interest in it.

But what is involved in "absolutely no thinking" to you?

[Tab]

Hmm, in addition to the last post - this 'whole atheism is a lack of belief' thing bothers me.

Lack implies absence of some kind. I lack the ability to play the violin etc. Lol, I also lack the violin.

However I believe in violins, because I've seen them.

Atheists have obviously heard of god, otherwise why would they say they're an atheist..? And not an A?whatnow?ist.

So atheists do have beliefs about god, just not the same ones as a theist. They do not "lack belief".

[Arcturus Descending]

surreptitious75"

Obviously there can be no belief if there is not first some kind of knowledge.

So knowledge is the foundation of belief ? Are you absolutely certain about this

I used the term "knowledge" there with reference to the world as we see it and its workings. Any intelligent human being observing all of THIS can derive a creator God, and form a belief of God's existence, even if wrong.

Is it not true that scientists form their, let us say, beginning beliefs and assumptions and theories based on what they have observed and gathered knowledge on?

Of course, there is that so-called handed-down knowledge which is really nothing more than non-thinking and opinion and dogma carried forward by family.
Of course, the world still goes out of its way to say: "See, here I am. You are correct in your belief." lol This is not my thinking.

Is it not possible to have belief that is just emotional reasoning and nothing else

[/quote][/quote]
I am not so sure that it can be only a form of emotionalism and nothing else. After all, that belief does have to be based on something but I may be misunderstanding you here.

[Arcturus Descending]

Tab

Hmm, in addition to the last post - this 'whole atheism is a lack of belief' thing bothers me.

It bothers me to the point that I am about to roar like a dragon. lol

Lack implies absence of some kind. I lack the ability to play the violin etc. Lol, I also lack the violin.

However I believe in violins, because I've seen them.

So what are you saying here, Tab? You have not yet confirmed the existence of violins so that you can only "believe" in them? What will it take for you to know that they are "real"?

Atheists have obviously heard of god, otherwise why would they say they're an atheist..? And not an A?whatnow?ist.

And you have "heard" of fairies and goblins and witches flying on blooms. Do you believe in them?
Is word of mouth the only prerequisite for belief and confirmation?

So atheists do have beliefs about god, just not the same ones as a theist. They do not "lack belief".

Would you call the atheist's thinking "beliefs" or simply thoughts based on the thoughts of others' concepts of God's existence?
Thoughts are not beliefs.
On the other side of that coin, very often belief is based on no thought at all.
Thoughts are not beliefs. They have not even begun to step into those waters.

[Fixed Cross]

Perhaps our disconnect is that to me, knowing something and believeing something are exactly the same thing - neurologically anyway.

To me 'knowing' and 'believeing' are more like expressions of certainty.

I frequently lose my glasses. I know right, when did glasses become a thing in my life..? Getting old sucks. Anyway. Right now, my netflix-watching glasses are sitting on the table in plain view, next to my coffee cup. I just prodded them with my finger. They're real alright.

I'm gonna go out on a limb. I'm gonna say "I know my glasses are on the table."
Now, I've tossed a cloth over them, can't see them directly, but I can see the hump.
"I still know my glasses are on the table." Now, I left the room, and told kid#1 to go in, and flip a coin, and if it's heads, they have to steal my glasses, and bunch up the cloth a bit to make it look the same. Now my kid is coming out. I look at their hands, they're empty. I fix them with my best dad-stare. "Did you steal my glasses..?" They say no. My dad-radar shows a green light. However, my kids, having my some of my genes, are horribly perfidious.

I'm about 60-75% sure my glasses are still on the table. But do I know..?

Nope, now I just believe they are on the table.

But I'm pretty sure that this didn't involve a whole different part of my brain, when I switched from knowing to believeing.

Now imagine I reverse this experiment. Glasses initially not on the table, and I know that. My kid has them. They go in. They come out, they look like they just stuck something in the back of their pants.

Now I believe my glasses are not on the table. A negative belief.

Just then I hear the blender click on and a horrible whirring, crunching, glasses-destroying sound. Perfidious kid#1 passed my glasses off to even more perfidious kid#2, who just played "does it blend" with my glasses.

I now believe my glasses don't exist.

I rush into the kitchen. And look in the blender. It's full of whizzed-up shards of uncooked pasta. Evil kid#2 hands me my glasses. All smiles. I pat them on the head, though secretly I vow revenge next pocket money day. Oh yeah.

But god is not a strictly empirical certainty. He, in as far as he is defined, exists. Pezer once pointed this Leibnitzean wisdom out to me; God exists by (His) definition.

Glasses are not by definition on the table. They are by definition meant to be looked through, though.

Now, is God in your life?

[promethean75]

Pezer once pointed this Leibnitzean wisdom out to me; God exists by (His) definition.

a fatal flaw of the pezernian ontological proof is that it infers the existence of god from the claim that our idea of god involves existence... which is the same thing anslem and descartes did.

so because existence is not a 'property', and properties are contingent features of modes and attributes of a single necessary substance, substance itself cannot be defined by its properties because it must be prior to its modes. ergo; substance, i.e., 'god', is not proven to exist by the definition of the things said to be the modes and attributes of it. so while the essence of a substance must involve its existence, we do not infer from the existing things which do not share that essence that god must exist. we only infer the existence of god through the reasoning that a self-caused substance must exist prior to the causal relationships we observe between existing properties in the world that cannot be defined through themselves alone.

and btw 'god' is only 'nature', not some watchmaker outside space and time who gives a shit about what's happenin. so 'god' cain't 'be in your life'. nothing changes about/in your life if you are able to conceive of what 'god' is. i know, that's some cold shit, but all mountains are cold at the highest altitudes.

[Tab]

Hey Arc,

And you have "heard" of fairies and goblins and witches flying on blooms. Do you believe in them?

I believe they are not real. However, the point is, I believe something about them. The content of the belief maybe a negation, but the belief itself, is a positive thing, ie. I hold it. I do not lack a belief about goblins and fairies, I have one. It's the same for atheists. They have a belief about god. The content of that belief is a negation or some form of negation, but it is a belief all the same.

Theist believes unprovable X + Atheist believes unprovable Y = waste of braincells.

I can't put it any plainer than that tbh.

Hey Fixed,

But god is not a strictly empirical certainty. He, blah blah stuff subject object verb words etc.

Thanks, that was all very obscure, obfusticatory, and knowing you, occult.

And quite frankly, in practical terms, a giant pile of steaming bollocks.

I say quite openly, "we cannot know". With a subtext of "debates of this type are a massive waste of time - move along." Which is a practical statement. Life is short, and there are other more tractable things to think about.

Look at the lengths you and karpel have had to go to preserve your vainglorious state of 'being able to know everything'. Karpel with his - 'well it's impossible to know anything for sure, and yet we do anyway.' Sophist hand-washing. And your - 'well if you bend your mind in strange enough ways it's maybe possible to divine some inkling of god's nature.'

How does any of that help fix the sink..? What's the point..?

[Fixed Cross]

Pezer once pointed this Leibnitzean wisdom out to me; God exists by (His) definition.

a fatal flaw of the pezernian ontological proof is that it infers the existence of god from the claim that our idea of god involves existence... which is the same thing anslem and descartes did.

so because existence is not a 'property', and properties are contingent features of modes and attributes of a single necessary substance, substance itself cannot be defined by its properties because it must be prior to its modes. ergo; substance, i.e., 'god', is not proven to exist by the definition of the things said to be the modes and attributes of it. so while the essence of a substance must involve its existence, we do not infer from the existing things which do not share that essence that god must exist. we only infer the existence of god through the reasoning that a self-caused substance must exist prior to the causal relationships we observe between existing properties in the world that cannot be defined through themselves alone.

and btw 'god' is only 'nature', not some watchmaker outside space and time who gives a shit about what's happenin. so 'god' cain't 'be in your life'. nothing changes about/in your life if you are able to conceive of what 'god' is. i know, that's some cold shit, but all mountains are cold at the highest altitudes.

And nature does not per its definition exist?

[Fixed Cross]

Hey Arc,

And you have "heard" of fairies and goblins and witches flying on blooms. Do you believe in them?

I believe they are not real. However, the point is, I believe something about them. The content of the belief maybe a negation, but the belief itself, is a positive thing, ie. I hold it. I do not lack a belief about goblins and fairies, I have one. It's the same for atheists. They have a belief about god. The content of that belief is a negation or some form of negation, but it is a belief all the same.

Theist believes unprovable X + Atheist believes unprovable Y = waste of braincells.

I can't put it any plainer than that tbh.

Hey Fixed,

But god is not a strictly empirical certainty. He, blah blah stuff subject object verb words etc.

Thanks, that was all very obscure, obfusticatory, and knowing you, occult.

And quite frankly, in practical terms, a giant pile of steaming bollocks.

I say quite openly, "we cannot know". With a subtext of "debates of this type are a massive waste of time - move along." Which is a practical statement. Life is short, and there are other more tractable things to think about.

Look at the lengths you and karpel have had to go to preserve your vainglorious state of 'being able to know everything'. Karpel with his - 'well it's impossible to know anything for sure, and yet we do anyway.' Sophist hand-washing. And your - 'well if you bend your mind in strange enough ways it's maybe possible to divine some inkling of god's nature.'

How does any of that help fix the sink..? What's the point..?

Bye Tab.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Look at the lengths you and karpel have had to go to preserve your vainglorious state of 'being able to know everything'.

Never claimed that. Never. So, straw man ad hom bs. Hope it's comforting to sum up stuff you clearly did not understand and did not interact with.

Karpel with his - 'well it's impossible to know anything for sure, and yet we do anyway.'

And I never argued that. You didn't understand what I wrote or never cared to. Strawman shit again. And in citation marks no less. What an ass you are.

Amazingly poor philosophical discussion partner, which was clear right off when you couldn't really respond to points made or ask for clarification if something was unclear.

But you 'know' you're right, so no need to actually interact with the ideas of people you disagree with.

A beautiful finish here on your part, insulting and strawmanning and smug after never having really interacted with a damn thing.

Thank you for making it clear you are someone everyone should ignore.

[surreptitious75]

But what is involved in absolutely no thinking to you ?

All thought involves predeterminism so the concept of no thinking is just not possible
For even automatic or instinctive thoughts are predetermined within the subconscious
They will involve the firing of neurons in exactly the same way that much deeper thoughts will
So you cannot experience any thought no matter how trivial without the firing of those neurons

You may perceive an automatic thought as something that requires zero effort but from the perspective of your brain this is not true
Just as you may think nothing of your breathing but your hypothalamus is making sure you dont stop breathing otherwise you will die
And equally you may think nothing of your pulse but your heart is making sure it doesnt stop otherwise you will die from that as well
So just because you are not consciously aware of something your body is doing does not mean it is not actually doing anything as such

[Tab]

Bye folks.

And this is why debating this stuff is pointless. Without a firm footing of what the object of contention is, god, and belief in this case, or how such objects may be approached and talked about in such a way that is accessable to people outside of one's own personal ethos and experience...

The debate just becomes a competition of attention span and tolerance for tangents. Both of which frankly, when it comes to religious topics or topics which have components of them, I don't have.

During these posts I've repeatedly said what I count as valid examples of "holding a belief", and what I think the difference is between believeing and knowing is. I've also put forth what I think is a reasonable argument for why I say "we can not know" within the boundaries of my terms, and this is also important, I've tried to do so as clearly and accessably as I can.

Let me re-emphasize the word reasonable, as in practical, functional in wider society.

You guys haven't. Simple as that. You have failed to engage me at my level, failed to convince me that you were ever really trying, especially on the part of you Fixed. Which is a pity. As a teacher, my instinct is to simplify things, to educate, yours just seemed to be to use your greater width of reading to bludgeon and dismiss. Neither of which is useful, unless your intent is simply to dominate. Which, this being a very sparsely populated internet forum is meh, silly, or symptomatic of, well, eh forget it.

Karpel, ok, so I've apparantly straw-manned you. Sorry. That was simply what I understood the gist of your posts was about. My bad. But also your bad. Perhaps you assumed I'm smarter than I am, perhaps you assumed we naturally share some parameters of what is acceptable as a basis for making decisions, behaviour etc. that we don't. Whatever. Do you feel this was a successful ending to our interactions..?

I still believe what I believed at the beginning. But now I believe you and fixed are lesser than I thought at the outset.
You believe presumably exactly the same things that you began with, and that's fine. And now think I'm a fool to boot, that's also fine. I'm old, I'll get over it lol.

But in summary, we didn't do very well. Which is sad, especially for three people who profess to be intelligent.

On the other hand, from a maintaining my English pov. still a win for me.

[promethean75]

And nature does not per its definition exist?

indubitably, but the nature to which you refer can be understood only as 'natura naturata', that which exists as a particular mode or attribute of the infinite substance, and therefore does not exist in and of itself. in this sense, 'per its definition' it does not exist, as it depends on and cannot be conceived of separate from this substance. 'god', on the other hand - which we understand as 'substance' (not to be thought of as physical material, as these are merely modes and attributes) - we call 'natura naturans', what is in itself and conceived through itself. that is to say, what necessarily exists and depends on nothing else through which to be conceived. natura naturans does, per its definition, exist, but those things which we observe and experience do not pertain to the essential nature of the infinite substance. they could very well not exist, and this would change nothing of natura naturans.

my dearest Henry Oldenburg,

as to the view of certain people that I identify god with nature (taken as a kind of mass or corporeal matter), they are quite mistaken.

love, lens grinding and other indoor sports,

Spinoza

[surreptitious75]

I will watch your first video on Kabbalism and if it is of any interest then I will probably watch all of them
I know absolutely nothing about it other than it is derived from Judaism and Madonna was once interested

I watched the second one KETHER [ the volume was too low on the first one ] and so I will probably watch the others in the next few days
I dont believe in it as such but it is philosophical and religious so definitely interests me because it adds to my knowledge of human culture

[Arcturus Descending]

Hey Tab,

And you have "heard" of fairies and goblins and witches flying on blooms. Do you believe in them?

I believe they are not real.

Why can you not say that to you they are not real ~ just part of myth and folklore?
There are things which one can be certain do not exist. They are just nor logical.
Now, if we were speaking about "psychic phenomenon", for example, you might say that you believe that PP is not real but there you cannot be certain if you have an open mind at least insofar as the "real" scientific investigation goes ~ not the fanciful movies and books.

However, the point is, I believe something about them. The content of the belief maybe a negation, but the belief itself, is a positive thing, ie. I hold it.

I gather what you mean here by "belief" is that they are a part of myth and folklore and simply do not exist.
I still cannot stop seeing what you call belief here to be knowledge of...

I do not lack a belief about goblins and fairies, I have one. It's the same for atheists. They have a belief about god. The content of that belief is a negation or some form of negation, but it is a belief all the same.

I am going to have to give this some more thought. It just seems that the way in which the word belief and believe here is being used is all wrong.
I may be wrong of course but....

I can't put it any plainer than that tbh.

I am beginning to think that the proper usage of words is more important than this discussion of atheists shutting up.lol

[Tab]

Whoo, English lesson, feels like work.

Ok, 'believe' is a verb, as in "I believe I can fly, I believe I can touch the sky." A verb is a 'doing' word. As in "Hey Arc, what do you do in the mornings..?" "Well Tab, I - insert verb here, for example 'wake up' or 'watch' (the news)."

A noun is the name of something. Tab is a noun, so is Arcturus. Verbs also have noun forms. Usually they are just the verb+ing, like the names of activities such as 'playing tennis' which is handy. For example, I like ice-cream (noun), my wife (noun), and playing tennis (noun form of verb). Sure, I could just say "I like Tennis." But maybe I don't like Tennis much to watch, but I do like to play, so saying " I like playing Tennis." is closer to the truth for me. Sometimes nouns are different from the verbs though. Think-> (a) thought. Or know-> (some) knowledge. Or Believe-> (have/hold a) belief.

So 'belief' is a noun form of believe. As in Joe believes that 1) fairies exist. 2) fairies have wings. 3) Tinkerbell is a popular fairy name. So Joe has 3 beliefs about fairies. Think of them as 3 bits of paper with 'wings' 'exist' and 'Tinkerbell' written on them and Joe has them in his pocket. Except the pocket is in his brain. It's a fairy brain pocket.

Joe however, is sceptical about Trolls. He doesn't believe that 1) trolls exist in the wild. 2) or that bridges have trolls. 3) or that there used to be a troll under his bed that stole his socks even though his mum told him that once.

Joe's Troll brain pocket has 3 pieces of paper with 'don't exist' 'not under bridges' and 'not under beds' written on them. 3 beliefs about trolls.