I don't think you are mentally ill Joe, just a little confused about 'what it's all about.' — universeness
There are non-believers in a god/s and there are atheists, those that challenge theists. — Gregory A
I've been an atheist for about 20 years, so I feel pretty neutral on this issue. Maybe there was such a guy. Maybe not. Some of the words in the book are nice. Others not. I consider myself influenced by some Christian ideas, but I guess many of us must be — lll
Bruno Bauer is one of the people like this that interests me. He was a left Hegelian, and he was part of the attempt to transform Christianity into something modern and rational. David Strauss has some great passages too. — lll
We need a lot more than this max of around 100 years to work stuff out properly!! — universeness
Sounds like a pretty well-balanced approach to me, although I think the influences are from more ancient storytelling as all the Christian stories are rehashed from earlier ones. — universeness
It is by means of Empfindung or sense experience that sentient beings are able to distinguish individuals from one another, including, in some instances, individuals that share the same essence. The form of experience is temporality, which is to say that whatever is directly experienced occurs “now”, or at the moment in time to which we refer as “the present”. Experience, in other words, is essentially fleeting and transitory, and its contents are incommunicable. What we experience are the perceivable features of individual objects. It is through the act of thinking that we are able to identify those features through the possession of which different individuals belong to the same species, with the other members of which they share these essential features in common.
Unlike sense experience, thought is essentially communicable. Thinking is not an activity performed by the individual person qua individual. It is the activity of spirit, to which Hegel famously referred in the Phenomenology as “‘I’ that is ‘We’ and ‘We’ that is ‘I’” (Hegel [1807] 1977: 110). Pure spirit is nothing but this thinking activity, in which the individual thinker participates without himself (or herself) being the principal thinking agent. That thoughts present themselves to the consciousness of individual thinking subjects in temporal succession is due, not to the nature of thought itself, but to the nature of individuality, and to the fact that individual thinking subjects, while able to participate in the life of spirit, do not cease in doing so to exist as corporeally distinct entities who remain part of nature, and are thus not pure spirit.
A biological species is both identical with and distinct from the individual organisms that make it up. The species has no existence apart form these individual organisms, and yet the perpetuation of the species involves the perpetual generation and destruction of the particular individuals of which it is composed. Similarly, Spirit has no existence apart from the existence of individual self-conscious persons in whom Spirit becomes conscious of itself (i.e., constitutes itself as Spirit). Just as the life of a biological species only appears in the generation and destruction of individual organisms, so the life of Spirit involves the generation and destruction of these individual persons. Viewed in this light, the death of the individual is necessitated by the life of infinite Spirit.
And I do accept the magic bullet theory — Gregory A
Now there's a good example of the boiling pot calling out the frothing kettle!Your stupidity is (an effect) brought on by a zealous nature intellectual arrogance allows — Gregory A
In all fairness what would we do with these 3 Dawkins books : The Blind Watchmaker, The Selfish Gene & The God Delusion if evidence of a god were shown. How does he get away with 'The Magic of Reality' anyhow — Gregory A
There are non-believers in a god/s and there are atheists, those that challenge theists.
— Gregory A
That's not how the word is used by most. If you make up your own usages, you'll likely be misunderstood, especially if you are demonizing/misrepresenting folks. Here's what I got from googling 'atheist,' just to be sure of myself before pointing it out.
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. — lll
Experience, in other words, is essentially fleeting and transitory, and its contents are incommunicable
Pure spirit is nothing but this thinking activity, in which the individual thinker participates without himself (or herself) being the principal thinking agent. That thoughts present themselves to the consciousness of individual thinking subjects in temporal succession is due, not to the nature of thought itself, but to the nature of individuality, and to the fact that individual thinking subjects, while able to participate in the life of spirit, do not cease in doing so to exist as corporeally distinct entities who remain part of nature, and are thus not pure spirit......
Does the scientific discovery of dark energy logically reveal an omnipotent power at work? — Joe Mello
Why are you silly uneducated people on a philosophy forum when all you do is pull shit out of your asses and plagiarize the Internet?
Look up the word “philosophy”.
It isn’t defined as “love of bullshit”. — Joe Mello
Yours is an appeal to popular usage and if accepted why then the title of this thread 'The Invalidity of Atheism'. Why not let Google decide everything for us. We are here to present our own interpretation of what motivates relevant groups. To me, for example, atheism is an element of the Left. Does Google agree. I don't think so. But they do at the same time take the 'Christ' out of their doodle leading up to and including Dec.25 their own atheism on display, and a show of solidarity with the Left. — Gregory A
Yours is an appeal to popular usage and if accepted why then the title of this thread 'The Invalidity of Atheism'. — Gregory A
But they do at the same time take the 'Christ' out of their doodle leading up to and including Dec.25 their own atheism on display, and a show of solidarity with the Left. — Gregory A
A fairly accurate description of love in my opinion. — universeness
After reading some of this, I thought it supported a panpsychist position, then I thought it was more duelist, and finally, I thought it may actually be in support of naturalism.
Is my thinking anywhere near what it is actually saying? — universeness
Does the scientific discovery of dark energy logically reveal an omnipotent power at work? — Joe Mello
Theism offers an explanation for our existence, atheism offers no explanations of its own, a weaker position. Naturalism is the counter-position to theism, atheism occupying a non-existent middle ground. The majority of the world's scientists, academics, etc. are not atheists accepting religion for what it is, Stephen Jay Gould's non-overlapping magisteria an example.
If atheism were valid, atheists would not be able to open their mouths. They would have nothing to talk about. — Gregory A
Regardless it does look like you're downplaying atheism's actual intentions which are to take away the rights of those who believe.
— Gregory A
— lll
That's paranoid projection, brother, for which you have not made a case. I'm not sure that most people can walk without that crutch or something like it. If you take away Jesus, they'll get their fix from the child-eating lizardmen who live in tunnels or the Pleiadians come to save us from outer space. If the species makes it another few centuries, we'll probably have believers in the mutterings of a pontifical pulsar, with cryptographers interpreting its beeps and buzzes for a priesthood. I suspect that you're defending a monotheism (and not 'the Seven' or The Secret) simply because you were born among those who babbled of it and not some other fairy's tail. You've shown up late, too, for its glory days are past indeed, and the educated, if still Christian, are at least modest enough to take their theology negative (figurative or cultural at the least.)
You can check out The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire to discover that Christianity was originally an offensive heresy that refused to tolerate the other religions already in place, like an only child who just would not share its toys.
Astrophysicist Neil Degrasse Tyson ... — Joe Mello
... an atheist, disagrees with you three boys, and calls the discovery of Dark Energy the best argument he's seen for the existence of an omnipotent God. — Joe Mello
Grandpa Joe is a foreman and owner of a painting company — Joe Mello
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.