| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Sphere" |
| Date: |
30 Dec 2006 10:59:50 PM |
| Object: |
Antitheism |
I don't think I invented the term but I have been
seeing it bantied about for awhile, and I think
the first use of it I've ever seen was someone
describing my position. I think I'll have a go at
defining the term.
Antitheist: n. Somone who believes God is
a bad idea.
Antitheists may also accept the label Atheist,
or might not. The primary distinction between
atheism and antitheism is that the atheist may
think the question of the existence or non-existence
of God worthy of consideration, while the antitheist
does not. The primary interest of the antitheist
with respect to God is to make the idea go away,
and it is even possible for an antitheist to believe
that God exists -- but is irrelevant.
Antitheists are generally not well received by
monotheists, and for good reason. The antitheist
probably finds the behavor of monotheists
particularly unpleasant in their pushing of the
God idea as some sort of absolute truth.
As an antitheist, my brief against monotheism
is this: The idea of One God is a schoolyard bully
who cannot play well with others. It is basic to
the idea of One God that all other notions of divinity
must be destroyed -- frequently by killing the people
who hold those other notions of divinity. People
infected with the One God idea have to be viewed with
suspicion, as in the past -- and even the present --
they have been known to engage in violence based
upon this evil idea, sometimes collectively.
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection.
.
|
|
| User: "buddhapest" |
|
| Title: Re: working Views (was Re: Antitheism) |
06 Jan 2007 10:26:29 AM |
|
|
"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:kpgvp2tqro55gimdmi3nah0i0rsdfu9ree@4ax.com...
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 09:38:16 -0600, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 10:22:31 -0500, in alt.atheism
Tang Huyen <tanghuyen{delete}@gmail.com[remove]> wrote in
<12pvflnj9bspp30@news.supernews.com>:
"Christopher A.Lee" wrote:
Tang Huyen:
"Christopher A.Lee":
So many of these loonies imagine that everything revolves around
the
hypothetical object of their religious belief and are too stupid to
accept that it doesn't for people outside their religion.
That's what the Buddha says about rigidly sticking to views.
Not just theism of any type, but also scientistic-physicalism.
I'm not certain what you are trying to get at here. What does
scientistic-physicalism mean? It could not have anything to do with
modern science, since the Buddha had never seen how modern science
works. It hadn't been invented yet. If it is simple as 'accepting
reality' then I don't see any reason to accept your interpretation of
this. If he is pointing out that any method of understanding can be
misused if it is used in an inappriate venue, I agree completely, but
not with the conclusion you appear to have drawn beyond that.
Such views are purely subjective, strictly sentimental, a
revenge of mind over matter, especially as they are used as
ultimate boxes into which to fit everything, without mercy.
Why would you claim that science is subjective?
A mixture of projection, stupidity and ignorance.
We're talking about people whose view of reality is determined by what
their religion says rather than finding out how reality works.
this is priceless. might you then
explain to us how reality works?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: working Views (was Re: Antitheism) |
06 Jan 2007 10:51:31 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 16:26:29 GMT, "buddhapest"
<pestaroonie@netzero.com> wrote:
"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:kpgvp2tqro55gimdmi3nah0i0rsdfu9ree@4ax.com...
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 09:38:16 -0600, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 10:22:31 -0500, in alt.atheism
Tang Huyen <tanghuyen{delete}@gmail.com[remove]> wrote in
<12pvflnj9bspp30@news.supernews.com>:
"Christopher A.Lee" wrote:
Tang Huyen:
"Christopher A.Lee":
So many of these loonies imagine that everything revolves around
the
hypothetical object of their religious belief and are too stupid to
accept that it doesn't for people outside their religion.
That's what the Buddha says about rigidly sticking to views.
Not just theism of any type, but also scientistic-physicalism.
I'm not certain what you are trying to get at here. What does
scientistic-physicalism mean? It could not have anything to do with
modern science, since the Buddha had never seen how modern science
works. It hadn't been invented yet. If it is simple as 'accepting
reality' then I don't see any reason to accept your interpretation of
this. If he is pointing out that any method of understanding can be
misused if it is used in an inappriate venue, I agree completely, but
not with the conclusion you appear to have drawn beyond that.
Such views are purely subjective, strictly sentimental, a
revenge of mind over matter, especially as they are used as
ultimate boxes into which to fit everything, without mercy.
Why would you claim that science is subjective?
A mixture of projection, stupidity and ignorance.
We're talking about people whose view of reality is determined by what
their religion says rather than finding out how reality works.
this is priceless. might you then
explain to us how reality works?
Idiot.
.
|
|
|
| User: "buddhapest" |
|
| Title: Re: working Views (was Re: Antitheism) |
06 Jan 2007 10:58:45 AM |
|
|
"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:rrkvp29qhua5g54ui0c4t5q0o9tq546s0p@4ax.com...
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 16:26:29 GMT, "buddhapest"
<pestaroonie@netzero.com> wrote:
"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:kpgvp2tqro55gimdmi3nah0i0rsdfu9ree@4ax.com...
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 09:38:16 -0600, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 10:22:31 -0500, in alt.atheism
Tang Huyen <tanghuyen{delete}@gmail.com[remove]> wrote in
<12pvflnj9bspp30@news.supernews.com>:
"Christopher A.Lee" wrote:
Tang Huyen:
"Christopher A.Lee":
So many of these loonies imagine that everything revolves around
the
hypothetical object of their religious belief and are too stupid
to
accept that it doesn't for people outside their religion.
That's what the Buddha says about rigidly sticking to views.
Not just theism of any type, but also scientistic-physicalism.
I'm not certain what you are trying to get at here. What does
scientistic-physicalism mean? It could not have anything to do with
modern science, since the Buddha had never seen how modern science
works. It hadn't been invented yet. If it is simple as 'accepting
reality' then I don't see any reason to accept your interpretation of
this. If he is pointing out that any method of understanding can be
misused if it is used in an inappriate venue, I agree completely, but
not with the conclusion you appear to have drawn beyond that.
Such views are purely subjective, strictly sentimental, a
revenge of mind over matter, especially as they are used as
ultimate boxes into which to fit everything, without mercy.
Why would you claim that science is subjective?
A mixture of projection, stupidity and ignorance.
We're talking about people whose view of reality is determined by what
their religion says rather than finding out how reality works.
this is priceless. might you then
explain to us how reality works?
Idiot.
still waiting for the explanation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: working Views (was Re: Antitheism) |
06 Jan 2007 09:33:17 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 16:58:45 GMT, "buddhapest"
<pestaroonie@netzero.com> wrote:
- Refer: <9zQnh.8120$w91.4423@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>
"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:rrkvp29qhua5g54ui0c4t5q0o9tq546s0p@4ax.com...
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 16:26:29 GMT, "buddhapest"
<pestaroonie@netzero.com> wrote:
"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:kpgvp2tqro55gimdmi3nah0i0rsdfu9ree@4ax.com...
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 09:38:16 -0600, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 10:22:31 -0500, in alt.atheism
Tang Huyen <tanghuyen{delete}@gmail.com[remove]> wrote in
<12pvflnj9bspp30@news.supernews.com>:
"Christopher A.Lee" wrote:
Tang Huyen:
"Christopher A.Lee":
So many of these loonies imagine that everything revolves around
the
hypothetical object of their religious belief and are too stupid
to
accept that it doesn't for people outside their religion.
That's what the Buddha says about rigidly sticking to views.
Not just theism of any type, but also scientistic-physicalism.
I'm not certain what you are trying to get at here. What does
scientistic-physicalism mean? It could not have anything to do with
modern science, since the Buddha had never seen how modern science
works. It hadn't been invented yet. If it is simple as 'accepting
reality' then I don't see any reason to accept your interpretation of
this. If he is pointing out that any method of understanding can be
misused if it is used in an inappriate venue, I agree completely, but
not with the conclusion you appear to have drawn beyond that.
Such views are purely subjective, strictly sentimental, a
revenge of mind over matter, especially as they are used as
ultimate boxes into which to fit everything, without mercy.
Why would you claim that science is subjective?
A mixture of projection, stupidity and ignorance.
We're talking about people whose view of reality is determined by what
their religion says rather than finding out how reality works.
this is priceless. might you then
explain to us how reality works?
Idiot.
still waiting for the explanation.
So, you NEED an explanation of how reality works?
You ARE an idiot.
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "buddhapest" |
|
| Title: Re: working Views (was Re: Antitheism) |
06 Jan 2007 10:06:45 PM |
|
|
"Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:5fq0q2him5st2jjlnd1d54kkgi8aun71iv@4ax.com...
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 16:58:45 GMT, "buddhapest"
<pestaroonie@netzero.com> wrote:
- Refer: <9zQnh.8120$w91.4423@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>
"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:rrkvp29qhua5g54ui0c4t5q0o9tq546s0p@4ax.com...
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 16:26:29 GMT, "buddhapest"
<pestaroonie@netzero.com> wrote:
"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:kpgvp2tqro55gimdmi3nah0i0rsdfu9ree@4ax.com...
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 09:38:16 -0600, Free Lunch
<lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 10:22:31 -0500, in alt.atheism
Tang Huyen <tanghuyen{delete}@gmail.com[remove]> wrote in
<12pvflnj9bspp30@news.supernews.com>:
"Christopher A.Lee" wrote:
Tang Huyen:
"Christopher A.Lee":
So many of these loonies imagine that everything revolves
around
the
hypothetical object of their religious belief and are too
stupid
to
accept that it doesn't for people outside their religion.
That's what the Buddha says about rigidly sticking to views.
Not just theism of any type, but also scientistic-physicalism.
I'm not certain what you are trying to get at here. What does
scientistic-physicalism mean? It could not have anything to do with
modern science, since the Buddha had never seen how modern science
works. It hadn't been invented yet. If it is simple as 'accepting
reality' then I don't see any reason to accept your interpretation
of
this. If he is pointing out that any method of understanding can be
misused if it is used in an inappriate venue, I agree completely,
but
not with the conclusion you appear to have drawn beyond that.
Such views are purely subjective, strictly sentimental, a
revenge of mind over matter, especially as they are used as
ultimate boxes into which to fit everything, without mercy.
Why would you claim that science is subjective?
A mixture of projection, stupidity and ignorance.
We're talking about people whose view of reality is determined by
what
their religion says rather than finding out how reality works.
this is priceless. might you then
explain to us how reality works?
Idiot.
still waiting for the explanation.
So, you NEED an explanation of how reality works?
You ARE an idiot.
need is your word. i said waiting,
which i'm still doing. you seem to
really like the word idiot too.
don't feel bad that you can't give
an explanation. it's to be expected.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: working Views (was Re: Antitheism) |
07 Jan 2007 04:45:35 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 04:06:45 GMT, "buddhapest"
<pestaroonie@netzero.com> wrote:
- Refer: <pl_nh.8056$yx6.1379@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>
"Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:5fq0q2him5st2jjlnd1d54kkgi8aun71iv@4ax.com...
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 16:58:45 GMT, "buddhapest"
<pestaroonie@netzero.com> wrote:
- Refer: <9zQnh.8120$w91.4423@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>
"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:rrkvp29qhua5g54ui0c4t5q0o9tq546s0p@4ax.com...
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 16:26:29 GMT, "buddhapest"
<pestaroonie@netzero.com> wrote:
"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:kpgvp2tqro55gimdmi3nah0i0rsdfu9ree@4ax.com...
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 09:38:16 -0600, Free Lunch
<lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 10:22:31 -0500, in alt.atheism
Tang Huyen <tanghuyen{delete}@gmail.com[remove]> wrote in
<12pvflnj9bspp30@news.supernews.com>:
"Christopher A.Lee" wrote:
Tang Huyen:
"Christopher A.Lee":
So many of these loonies imagine that everything revolves
around
the
hypothetical object of their religious belief and are too
stupid
to
accept that it doesn't for people outside their religion.
That's what the Buddha says about rigidly sticking to views.
Not just theism of any type, but also scientistic-physicalism.
I'm not certain what you are trying to get at here. What does
scientistic-physicalism mean? It could not have anything to do with
modern science, since the Buddha had never seen how modern science
works. It hadn't been invented yet. If it is simple as 'accepting
reality' then I don't see any reason to accept your interpretation
of
this. If he is pointing out that any method of understanding can be
misused if it is used in an inappriate venue, I agree completely,
but
not with the conclusion you appear to have drawn beyond that.
Such views are purely subjective, strictly sentimental, a
revenge of mind over matter, especially as they are used as
ultimate boxes into which to fit everything, without mercy.
Why would you claim that science is subjective?
A mixture of projection, stupidity and ignorance.
We're talking about people whose view of reality is determined by
what
their religion says rather than finding out how reality works.
this is priceless. might you then
explain to us how reality works?
Idiot.
still waiting for the explanation.
So, you NEED an explanation of how reality works?
You ARE an idiot.
need is your word. i said waiting,
which i'm still doing. you seem to
really like the word idiot too.
Do you see a PATTERN here???
You have been labelled as an idiot by several people, and I do not
expect that the trend will abate.
don't feel bad that you can't give
an explanation. it's to be expected.
What the ***** are you on?
Stupid pills?
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "buddhapest" |
|
| Title: Re: working Views (was Re: Antitheism) |
07 Jan 2007 09:31:35 AM |
|
|
"Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:qmj1q2lrvjfdlg30qfm1eiqmf1d3ilbkan@4ax.com...
On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 04:06:45 GMT, "buddhapest"
<pestaroonie@netzero.com> wrote:
- Refer: <pl_nh.8056$yx6.1379@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>
"Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:5fq0q2him5st2jjlnd1d54kkgi8aun71iv@4ax.com...
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 16:58:45 GMT, "buddhapest"
<pestaroonie@netzero.com> wrote:
- Refer: <9zQnh.8120$w91.4423@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>
"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:rrkvp29qhua5g54ui0c4t5q0o9tq546s0p@4ax.com...
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 16:26:29 GMT, "buddhapest"
<pestaroonie@netzero.com> wrote:
"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:kpgvp2tqro55gimdmi3nah0i0rsdfu9ree@4ax.com...
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 09:38:16 -0600, Free Lunch
<lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 10:22:31 -0500, in alt.atheism
Tang Huyen <tanghuyen{delete}@gmail.com[remove]> wrote in
<12pvflnj9bspp30@news.supernews.com>:
"Christopher A.Lee" wrote:
Tang Huyen:
"Christopher A.Lee":
So many of these loonies imagine that everything revolves
around
the
hypothetical object of their religious belief and are too
stupid
to
accept that it doesn't for people outside their religion.
That's what the Buddha says about rigidly sticking to views.
Not just theism of any type, but also
scientistic-physicalism.
I'm not certain what you are trying to get at here. What does
scientistic-physicalism mean? It could not have anything to do
with
modern science, since the Buddha had never seen how modern
science
works. It hadn't been invented yet. If it is simple as
'accepting
reality' then I don't see any reason to accept your
interpretation
of
this. If he is pointing out that any method of understanding can
be
misused if it is used in an inappriate venue, I agree
completely,
but
not with the conclusion you appear to have drawn beyond that.
Such views are purely subjective, strictly sentimental, a
revenge of mind over matter, especially as they are used as
ultimate boxes into which to fit everything, without mercy.
Why would you claim that science is subjective?
A mixture of projection, stupidity and ignorance.
We're talking about people whose view of reality is determined by
what
their religion says rather than finding out how reality works.
this is priceless. might you then
explain to us how reality works?
Idiot.
still waiting for the explanation.
So, you NEED an explanation of how reality works?
You ARE an idiot.
need is your word. i said waiting,
which i'm still doing. you seem to
really like the word idiot too.
Do you see a PATTERN here???
you mean the inability of people
to back up their claims when
confronted?
You have been labelled as an idiot by several people, and I do not
expect that the trend will abate.
tribal herding strategies are such
a sordid affair.
don't feel bad that you can't give
an explanation. it's to be expected.
What the ***** are you on?
Stupid pills?
still no explanation but the tribe has
branded me the idiot. [ chuckle]
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "chazwin" |
|
| Title: Re: working Views (was Re: Antitheism) |
07 Jan 2007 04:02:42 AM |
|
|
Michael Gray wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 16:58:45 GMT, "buddhapest"
<pestaroonie@netzero.com> wrote:
- Refer: <9zQnh.8120$w91.4423@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>
"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:rrkvp29qhua5g54ui0c4t5q0o9tq546s0p@4ax.com...
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 16:26:29 GMT, "buddhapest"
<pestaroonie@netzero.com> wrote:
"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:kpgvp2tqro55gimdmi3nah0i0rsdfu9ree@4ax.com...
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 09:38:16 -0600, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 10:22:31 -0500, in alt.atheism
Tang Huyen <tanghuyen{delete}@gmail.com[remove]> wrote in
<12pvflnj9bspp30@news.supernews.com>:
"Christopher A.Lee" wrote:
Tang Huyen:
"Christopher A.Lee":
So many of these loonies imagine that everything revolves around
the
hypothetical object of their religious belief and are too stupid
to
accept that it doesn't for people outside their religion.
That's what the Buddha says about rigidly sticking to views.
Not just theism of any type, but also scientistic-physicalism.
I'm not certain what you are trying to get at here. What does
scientistic-physicalism mean? It could not have anything to do with
modern science, since the Buddha had never seen how modern science
works. It hadn't been invented yet. If it is simple as 'accepting
reality' then I don't see any reason to accept your interpretation of
this. If he is pointing out that any method of understanding can be
misused if it is used in an inappriate venue, I agree completely, but
not with the conclusion you appear to have drawn beyond that.
Such views are purely subjective, strictly sentimental, a
revenge of mind over matter, especially as they are used as
ultimate boxes into which to fit everything, without mercy.
Why would you claim that science is subjective?
A mixture of projection, stupidity and ignorance.
We're talking about people whose view of reality is determined by what
their religion says rather than finding out how reality works.
this is priceless. might you then
explain to us how reality works?
Idiot.
still waiting for the explanation.
So, you NEED an explanation of how reality works?
You ARE an idiot.
WHy don't you help us all out if you think it is so unproblematic??
Come ON - let's hear it!!!!
Chazwin
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: working Views (was Re: Antitheism) |
07 Jan 2007 05:58:12 AM |
|
|
On 7 Jan 2007 02:02:42 -0800, "chazwin" <chazwyman@yahoo.com> wrote:
- Refer: <1168164162.337788.311750@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com>
Michael Gray wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 16:58:45 GMT, "buddhapest"
<pestaroonie@netzero.com> wrote:
- Refer: <9zQnh.8120$w91.4423@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>
"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:rrkvp29qhua5g54ui0c4t5q0o9tq546s0p@4ax.com...
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 16:26:29 GMT, "buddhapest"
<pestaroonie@netzero.com> wrote:
"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:kpgvp2tqro55gimdmi3nah0i0rsdfu9ree@4ax.com...
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 09:38:16 -0600, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 10:22:31 -0500, in alt.atheism
Tang Huyen <tanghuyen{delete}@gmail.com[remove]> wrote in
<12pvflnj9bspp30@news.supernews.com>:
"Christopher A.Lee" wrote:
Tang Huyen:
"Christopher A.Lee":
So many of these loonies imagine that everything revolves around
the
hypothetical object of their religious belief and are too stupid
to
accept that it doesn't for people outside their religion.
That's what the Buddha says about rigidly sticking to views.
Not just theism of any type, but also scientistic-physicalism.
I'm not certain what you are trying to get at here. What does
scientistic-physicalism mean? It could not have anything to do with
modern science, since the Buddha had never seen how modern science
works. It hadn't been invented yet. If it is simple as 'accepting
reality' then I don't see any reason to accept your interpretation of
this. If he is pointing out that any method of understanding can be
misused if it is used in an inappriate venue, I agree completely, but
not with the conclusion you appear to have drawn beyond that.
Such views are purely subjective, strictly sentimental, a
revenge of mind over matter, especially as they are used as
ultimate boxes into which to fit everything, without mercy.
Why would you claim that science is subjective?
A mixture of projection, stupidity and ignorance.
We're talking about people whose view of reality is determined by what
their religion says rather than finding out how reality works.
this is priceless. might you then
explain to us how reality works?
Idiot.
still waiting for the explanation.
So, you NEED an explanation of how reality works?
You ARE an idiot.
WHy don't you help us all out if you think it is so unproblematic??
Come ON - let's hear it!!!!
Chazwin
So, if I cannot tell you EXACLTY how reality "works", that makes the
judeo-christian god real?
Is that the laughable illogical option?!?
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "buddhapest" |
|
| Title: Re: working Views (was Re: Antitheism) |
07 Jan 2007 09:33:53 AM |
|
|
"Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:gvn1q2hk0l6int4s6bva3ri2shjom70bvr@4ax.com...
On 7 Jan 2007 02:02:42 -0800, "chazwin" <chazwyman@yahoo.com> wrote:
- Refer: <1168164162.337788.311750@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com>
Michael Gray wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 16:58:45 GMT, "buddhapest"
<pestaroonie@netzero.com> wrote:
- Refer: <9zQnh.8120$w91.4423@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>
"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:rrkvp29qhua5g54ui0c4t5q0o9tq546s0p@4ax.com...
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 16:26:29 GMT, "buddhapest"
<pestaroonie@netzero.com> wrote:
"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:kpgvp2tqro55gimdmi3nah0i0rsdfu9ree@4ax.com...
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 09:38:16 -0600, Free Lunch
<lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 10:22:31 -0500, in alt.atheism
Tang Huyen <tanghuyen{delete}@gmail.com[remove]> wrote in
<12pvflnj9bspp30@news.supernews.com>:
"Christopher A.Lee" wrote:
Tang Huyen:
"Christopher A.Lee":
So many of these loonies imagine that everything revolves
around
the
hypothetical object of their religious belief and are too
stupid
to
accept that it doesn't for people outside their religion.
That's what the Buddha says about rigidly sticking to views.
Not just theism of any type, but also
scientistic-physicalism.
I'm not certain what you are trying to get at here. What does
scientistic-physicalism mean? It could not have anything to do
with
modern science, since the Buddha had never seen how modern
science
works. It hadn't been invented yet. If it is simple as
'accepting
reality' then I don't see any reason to accept your
interpretation of
this. If he is pointing out that any method of understanding can
be
misused if it is used in an inappriate venue, I agree
completely, but
not with the conclusion you appear to have drawn beyond that.
Such views are purely subjective, strictly sentimental, a
revenge of mind over matter, especially as they are used as
ultimate boxes into which to fit everything, without mercy.
Why would you claim that science is subjective?
A mixture of projection, stupidity and ignorance.
We're talking about people whose view of reality is determined by
what
their religion says rather than finding out how reality works.
this is priceless. might you then
explain to us how reality works?
Idiot.
still waiting for the explanation.
So, you NEED an explanation of how reality works?
You ARE an idiot.
WHy don't you help us all out if you think it is so unproblematic??
Come ON - let's hear it!!!!
Chazwin
So, if I cannot tell you EXACLTY how reality "works", that makes the
judeo-christian god real?
Is that the laughable illogical option?!?
the claim was implied that without religous
input there was a knowing of how reality
works.
i'm still waiting to hear how reality works
among all of this reptilian defensive posturings,
denial, avoidance and everyone telling me
how stupid i am for merely asking people
to back up their claims.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: working Views (was Re: Antitheism) |
07 Jan 2007 05:26:40 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 15:33:53 GMT, "buddhapest"
<pestaroonie@netzero.com> wrote:
- Refer: <Bp8oh.11661$X72.2254@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>
"Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:gvn1q2hk0l6int4s6bva3ri2shjom70bvr@4ax.com...
On 7 Jan 2007 02:02:42 -0800, "chazwin" <chazwyman@yahoo.com> wrote:
- Refer: <1168164162.337788.311750@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com>
Michael Gray wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 16:58:45 GMT, "buddhapest"
<pestaroonie@netzero.com> wrote:
- Refer: <9zQnh.8120$w91.4423@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>
"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:rrkvp29qhua5g54ui0c4t5q0o9tq546s0p@4ax.com...
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 16:26:29 GMT, "buddhapest"
<pestaroonie@netzero.com> wrote:
"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:kpgvp2tqro55gimdmi3nah0i0rsdfu9ree@4ax.com...
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 09:38:16 -0600, Free Lunch
<lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 10:22:31 -0500, in alt.atheism
Tang Huyen <tanghuyen{delete}@gmail.com[remove]> wrote in
<12pvflnj9bspp30@news.supernews.com>:
"Christopher A.Lee" wrote:
Tang Huyen:
"Christopher A.Lee":
So many of these loonies imagine that everything revolves
around
the
hypothetical object of their religious belief and are too
stupid
to
accept that it doesn't for people outside their religion.
That's what the Buddha says about rigidly sticking to views.
Not just theism of any type, but also
scientistic-physicalism.
I'm not certain what you are trying to get at here. What does
scientistic-physicalism mean? It could not have anything to do
with
modern science, since the Buddha had never seen how modern
science
works. It hadn't been invented yet. If it is simple as
'accepting
reality' then I don't see any reason to accept your
interpretation of
this. If he is pointing out that any method of understanding can
be
misused if it is used in an inappriate venue, I agree
completely, but
not with the conclusion you appear to have drawn beyond that.
Such views are purely subjective, strictly sentimental, a
revenge of mind over matter, especially as they are used as
ultimate boxes into which to fit everything, without mercy.
Why would you claim that science is subjective?
A mixture of projection, stupidity and ignorance.
We're talking about people whose view of reality is determined by
what
their religion says rather than finding out how reality works.
this is priceless. might you then
explain to us how reality works?
Idiot.
still waiting for the explanation.
So, you NEED an explanation of how reality works?
You ARE an idiot.
WHy don't you help us all out if you think it is so unproblematic??
Come ON - let's hear it!!!!
Chazwin
So, if I cannot tell you EXACLTY how reality "works", that makes the
judeo-christian god real?
Is that the laughable illogical option?!?
the claim was implied that without religous
input there was a knowing of how reality
works.
i'm still waiting to hear how reality works
among all of this reptilian defensive posturings,
denial, avoidance and everyone telling me
how stupid i am for merely asking people
to back up their claims.
I am able to do so, but it would involve effort on my behalf, with a
detailed understanding of quantum physics on behalf of my
interlocutor.
It seems that have a reputation for gain-saying input to merely evoke
a knee-jerk reaction.
(Indeed, I have seen nothing else from you to date)
I will need assurances that you will not waste my time by reactively
dismissing what I propose.
How do we go about that?
--
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Weasel" |
|
| Title: Re: working Views (was Re: Antitheism) |
07 Jan 2007 10:07:06 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 7 Jan 2007 10:33:53 -0500, buddhapest wrote
(in message <Bp8oh.11661$X72.2254@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>):
So, if I cannot tell you EXACLTY how reality "works", that makes the
judeo-christian god real?
Is that the laughable illogical option?!?
Any critique or exploration of a stance uttered by atheists is a defense of
the reality of the Judaeo-Christian God? Perhaps you make the arena too
small.
I respectfully suggest the reading of this essay below, and the comments that
follow. Might save a lot of time, whether you agree with her or not.
http://www.mahablog.com/2007/01/04/richard-dawkins-and-fundamentalist-
atheism/
or
http://tinyurl.com/yhjomy
the claim was implied that without religous
input there was a knowing of how reality
works.
i'm still waiting to hear how reality works
among all of this reptilian defensive posturings,
denial, avoidance and everyone telling me
how stupid i am for merely asking people
to back up their claims.
I know you're having fun, but question whether anything more than that comes
out of your dance in this environment.
Not that I'm asking you to do any particular thing.
---Uncle Weasel
--
You seem to be forgetting the original mind.
and you seem to need to use the
word 'seem' incessantly. can you
even imagine the possibility that
at least one thing may be what it
actually is?
---Frank from Flint
.
|
|
|
| User: "buddhapest" |
|
| Title: Re: working Views (was Re: Antitheism) |
07 Jan 2007 11:11:46 AM |
|
|
"Uncle Weasel" <xin@woc.org> wrote in message
news:0001HW.C1C684DA000F6146F03055B0@News.Individual.NET...
On Sun, 7 Jan 2007 10:33:53 -0500, buddhapest wrote
(in message <Bp8oh.11661$X72.2254@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>):
So, if I cannot tell you EXACLTY how reality "works", that makes the
judeo-christian god real?
Is that the laughable illogical option?!?
Any critique or exploration of a stance uttered by atheists is a defense
of
the reality of the Judaeo-Christian God? Perhaps you make the arena too
small.
I respectfully suggest the reading of this essay below, and the comments
that
follow. Might save a lot of time, whether you agree with her or not.
http://www.mahablog.com/2007/01/04/richard-dawkins-and-fundamentalist-
atheism/
or
http://tinyurl.com/yhjomy
the claim was implied that without religous
input there was a knowing of how reality
works.
i'm still waiting to hear how reality works
among all of this reptilian defensive posturings,
denial, avoidance and everyone telling me
how stupid i am for merely asking people
to back up their claims.
I know you're having fun, but question whether anything more than that
comes
out of your dance in this environment.
i'm not dancing, i'm the one
shooting at their feet.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: working Views (was Re: Antitheism) |
07 Jan 2007 05:27:12 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 17:11:46 GMT, "buddhapest"
<pestaroonie@netzero.com> wrote:
- Refer: <mR9oh.7486$pQ3.1796@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>
"Uncle Weasel" <xin@woc.org> wrote in message
news:0001HW.C1C684DA000F6146F03055B0@News.Individual.NET...
On Sun, 7 Jan 2007 10:33:53 -0500, buddhapest wrote
(in message <Bp8oh.11661$X72.2254@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>):
So, if I cannot tell you EXACLTY how reality "works", that makes the
judeo-christian god real?
Is that the laughable illogical option?!?
Any critique or exploration of a stance uttered by atheists is a defense
of
the reality of the Judaeo-Christian God? Perhaps you make the arena too
small.
I respectfully suggest the reading of this essay below, and the comments
that
follow. Might save a lot of time, whether you agree with her or not.
http://www.mahablog.com/2007/01/04/richard-dawkins-and-fundamentalist-
atheism/
or
http://tinyurl.com/yhjomy
the claim was implied that without religous
input there was a knowing of how reality
works.
i'm still waiting to hear how reality works
among all of this reptilian defensive posturings,
denial, avoidance and everyone telling me
how stupid i am for merely asking people
to back up their claims.
I know you're having fun, but question whether anything more than that
comes
out of your dance in this environment.
i'm not dancing, i'm the one
shooting at their feet.
So you admit to being a pest, for amusement?
--
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "chazwin" |
|
| Title: Re: working Views (was Re: Antitheism) |
07 Jan 2007 05:20:56 PM |
|
|
buddhapest wrote:
"Uncle Weasel" <xin@woc.org> wrote in message
news:0001HW.C1C684DA000F6146F03055B0@News.Individual.NET...
On Sun, 7 Jan 2007 10:33:53 -0500, buddhapest wrote
(in message <Bp8oh.11661$X72.2254@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>):
So, if I cannot tell you EXACLTY how reality "works", that makes the
judeo-christian god real?
Is that the laughable illogical option?!?
Any critique or exploration of a stance uttered by atheists is a defense
of
the reality of the Judaeo-Christian God? Perhaps you make the arena too
small.
I respectfully suggest the reading of this essay below, and the comments
that
follow. Might save a lot of time, whether you agree with her or not.
http://www.mahablog.com/2007/01/04/richard-dawkins-and-fundamentalist-
atheism/
or
http://tinyurl.com/yhjomy
the claim was implied that without religous
input there was a knowing of how reality
works.
i'm still waiting to hear how reality works
among all of this reptilian defensive posturings,
denial, avoidance and everyone telling me
how stupid i am for merely asking people
to back up their claims.
I know you're having fun, but question whether anything more than that
comes
out of your dance in this environment.
i'm not dancing, i'm the one
shooting at their feet.
You can't dance becasue your feet were shot to pieces long ago: you do
not have a leg to stand on and your gun is a water pistol.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "chazwin" |
|
| Title: Re: working Views (was Re: Antitheism) |
07 Jan 2007 05:19:06 PM |
|
|
buddhapest wrote:
"Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:gvn1q2hk0l6int4s6bva3ri2shjom70bvr@4ax.com...
On 7 Jan 2007 02:02:42 -0800, "chazwin" <chazwyman@yahoo.com> wrote:
- Refer: <1168164162.337788.311750@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com>
Michael Gray wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 16:58:45 GMT, "buddhapest"
<pestaroonie@netzero.com> wrote:
- Refer: <9zQnh.8120$w91.4423@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>
"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:rrkvp29qhua5g54ui0c4t5q0o9tq546s0p@4ax.com...
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 16:26:29 GMT, "buddhapest"
<pestaroonie@netzero.com> wrote:
"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:kpgvp2tqro55gimdmi3nah0i0rsdfu9ree@4ax.com...
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 09:38:16 -0600, Free Lunch
<lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 10:22:31 -0500, in alt.atheism
Tang Huyen <tanghuyen{delete}@gmail.com[remove]> wrote in
<12pvflnj9bspp30@news.supernews.com>:
"Christopher A.Lee" wrote:
Tang Huyen:
"Christopher A.Lee":
So many of these loonies imagine that everything revolves
around
the
hypothetical object of their religious belief and are too
stupid
to
accept that it doesn't for people outside their religion.
That's what the Buddha says about rigidly sticking to views.
Not just theism of any type, but also
scientistic-physicalism.
I'm not certain what you are trying to get at here. What does
scientistic-physicalism mean? It could not have anything to do
with
modern science, since the Buddha had never seen how modern
science
works. It hadn't been invented yet. If it is simple as
'accepting
reality' then I don't see any reason to accept your
interpretation of
this. If he is pointing out that any method of understanding can
be
misused if it is used in an inappriate venue, I agree
completely, but
not with the conclusion you appear to have drawn beyond that.
Such views are purely subjective, strictly sentimental, a
revenge of mind over matter, especially as they are used as
ultimate boxes into which to fit everything, without mercy.
Why would you claim that science is subjective?
A mixture of projection, stupidity and ignorance.
We're talking about people whose view of reality is determined by
what
their religion says rather than finding out how reality works.
this is priceless. might you then
explain to us how reality works?
Idiot.
still waiting for the explanation.
So, you NEED an explanation of how reality works?
You ARE an idiot.
WHy don't you help us all out if you think it is so unproblematic??
Come ON - let's hear it!!!!
Chazwin
So, if I cannot tell you EXACLTY how reality "works", that makes the
judeo-christian god real?
Is that the laughable illogical option?!?
the claim was implied that without religous
input there was a knowing of how reality
works.
I think we might have4 a much better chance to know how reality works
by making a start in rejecting all axioms. Let's start with the assine
axiom that the humans were created by intelligent design. Here's
another that we might reject: "Allah is all knowing and all powerful".
In fact we can't begin to start on teh topic until such stuff is
rejected.
i'm still waiting to hear how reality works
among all of this reptilian defensive posturings,
denial, avoidance and everyone telling me
how stupid i am for merely asking people
to back up their claims.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave K" |
|
| Title: Re: working Views (was Re: Antitheism) |
07 Jan 2007 05:26:09 PM |
|
|
chazwin wrote:
buddhapest wrote:
"Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:gvn1q2hk0l6int4s6bva3ri2shjom70bvr@4ax.com...
On 7 Jan 2007 02:02:42 -0800, "chazwin" <chazwyman@yahoo.com> wrote:
- Refer: <1168164162.337788.311750@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com>
Michael Gray wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 16:58:45 GMT, "buddhapest"
<pestaroonie@netzero.com> wrote:
- Refer: <9zQnh.8120$w91.4423@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>
"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:rrkvp29qhua5g54ui0c4t5q0o9tq546s0p@4ax.com...
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 16:26:29 GMT, "buddhapest"
<pestaroonie@netzero.com> wrote:
"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:kpgvp2tqro55gimdmi3nah0i0rsdfu9ree@4ax.com...
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 09:38:16 -0600, Free Lunch
<lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 10:22:31 -0500, in alt.atheism
Tang Huyen <tanghuyen{delete}@gmail.com[remove]> wrote in
<12pvflnj9bspp30@news.supernews.com>:
"Christopher A.Lee" wrote:
Tang Huyen:
"Christopher A.Lee":
So many of these loonies imagine that everything revolves
around
the
hypothetical object of their religious belief and are too
stupid
to
accept that it doesn't for people outside their religion.
That's what the Buddha says about rigidly sticking to views.
Not just theism of any type, but also
scientistic-physicalism.
I'm not certain what you are trying to get at here. What does
scientistic-physicalism mean? It could not have anything to do
with
modern science, since the Buddha had never seen how modern
science
works. It hadn't been invented yet. If it is simple as
'accepting
reality' then I don't see any reason to accept your
interpretation of
this. If he is pointing out that any method of understanding can
be
misused if it is used in an inappriate venue, I agree
completely, but
not with the conclusion you appear to have drawn beyond that.
Such views are purely subjective, strictly sentimental, a
revenge of mind over matter, especially as they are used as
ultimate boxes into which to fit everything, without mercy.
Why would you claim that science is subjective?
A mixture of projection, stupidity and ignorance.
We're talking about people whose view of reality is determined by
what
their religion says rather than finding out how reality works.
this is priceless. might you then
explain to us how reality works?
Idiot.
still waiting for the explanation.
So, you NEED an explanation of how reality works?
You ARE an idiot.
WHy don't you help us all out if you think it is so unproblematic??
Come ON - let's hear it!!!!
Chazwin
So, if I cannot tell you EXACLTY how reality "works", that makes the
judeo-christian god real?
Is that the laughable illogical option?!?
the claim was implied that without religous
input there was a knowing of how reality
works.
I think we might have4 a much better chance to know how reality works
by making a start in rejecting all axioms. Let's start with the assine
axiom that the humans were created by intelligent design. Here's
another that we might reject: "Allah is all knowing and all powerful".
In fact we can't begin to start on teh topic until such stuff is
rejected.
Ah, now you're getting somewhere, but too much work. Try focusing on
your breath until it all drops away on it's own. :)
-DaveK
.
|
|
|
| User: "chazwin" |
|
| Title: Re: working Views (was Re: Antitheism) |
07 Jan 2007 05:45:28 PM |
|
|
Dave K wrote:
chazwin wrote:
buddhapest wrote:
"Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:gvn1q2hk0l6int4s6bva3ri2shjom70bvr@4ax.com...
On 7 Jan 2007 02:02:42 -0800, "chazwin" <chazwyman@yahoo.com> wrote:
- Refer: <1168164162.337788.311750@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com>
Michael Gray wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 16:58:45 GMT, "buddhapest"
<pestaroonie@netzero.com> wrote:
- Refer: <9zQnh.8120$w91.4423@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>
"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:rrkvp29qhua5g54ui0c4t5q0o9tq546s0p@4ax.com...
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 16:26:29 GMT, "buddhapest"
<pestaroonie@netzero.com> wrote:
"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:kpgvp2tqro55gimdmi3nah0i0rsdfu9ree@4ax.com...
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 09:38:16 -0600, Free Lunch
<lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 10:22:31 -0500, in alt.atheism
Tang Huyen <tanghuyen{delete}@gmail.com[remove]> wrote in
<12pvflnj9bspp30@news.supernews.com>:
"Christopher A.Lee" wrote:
Tang Huyen:
"Christopher A.Lee":
So many of these loonies imagine that everything revolves
around
the
hypothetical object of their religious belief and are too
stupid
to
accept that it doesn't for people outside their religion.
That's what the Buddha says about rigidly sticking to views.
Not just theism of any type, but also
scientistic-physicalism.
I'm not certain what you are trying to get at here. What does
scientistic-physicalism mean? It could not have anything to do
with
modern science, since the Buddha had never seen how modern
science
works. It hadn't been invented yet. If it is simple as
'accepting
reality' then I don't see any reason to accept your
interpretation of
this. If he is pointing out that any method of understanding can
be
misused if it is used in an inappriate venue, I agree
completely, but
not with the conclusion you appear to have drawn beyond that.
Such views are purely subjective, strictly sentimental, a
revenge of mind over matter, especially as they are used as
ultimate boxes into which to fit everything, without mercy.
Why would you claim that science is subjective?
A mixture of projection, stupidity and ignorance.
We're talking about people whose view of reality is determined by
what
their religion says rather than finding out how reality works.
this is priceless. might you then
explain to us how reality works?
Idiot.
still waiting for the explanation.
So, you NEED an explanation of how reality works?
You ARE an idiot.
WHy don't you help us all out if you think it is so unproblematic??
Come ON - let's hear it!!!!
Chazwin
So, if I cannot tell you EXACLTY how reality "works", that makes the
judeo-christian god real?
Is that the laughable illogical option?!?
the claim was implied that without religous
input there was a knowing of how reality
works.
I think we might have4 a much better chance to know how reality works
by making a start in rejecting all axioms. Let's start with the assine
axiom that the humans were created by intelligent design. Here's
another that we might reject: "Allah is all knowing and all powerful".
In fact we can't begin to start on teh topic until such stuff is
rejected.
Ah, now you're getting somewhere, but too much work. Try focusing on
your breath until it all drops away on it's own. :)
I still want to hear your unproblematic notion of "how reality works"
buddy - but I won't hold my breath because I think you are not
intellectually equipped to begin the discussion.
-DaveK
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave K" |
|
| Title: Re: working Views (was Re: Antitheism) |
07 Jan 2007 05:58:01 PM |
|
|
chazwin wrote:
Dave K wrote:
chazwin wrote:
buddhapest wrote:
"Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:gvn1q2hk0l6int4s6bva3ri2shjom70bvr@4ax.com...
On 7 Jan 2007 02:02:42 -0800, "chazwin" <chazwyman@yahoo.com> wrote:
- Refer: <1168164162.337788.311750@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com>
Michael Gray wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 16:58:45 GMT, "buddhapest"
<pestaroonie@netzero.com> wrote:
- Refer: <9zQnh.8120$w91.4423@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>
"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:rrkvp29qhua5g54ui0c4t5q0o9tq546s0p@4ax.com...
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 16:26:29 GMT, "buddhapest"
<pestaroonie@netzero.com> wrote:
"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:kpgvp2tqro55gimdmi3nah0i0rsdfu9ree@4ax.com...
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 09:38:16 -0600, Free Lunch
<lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 10:22:31 -0500, in alt.atheism
Tang Huyen <tanghuyen{delete}@gmail.com[remove]> wrote in
<12pvflnj9bspp30@news.supernews.com>:
"Christopher A.Lee" wrote:
Tang Huyen:
"Christopher A.Lee":
So many of these loonies imagine that everything revolves
around
the
hypothetical object of their religious belief and are too
stupid
to
accept that it doesn't for people outside their religion.
That's what the Buddha says about rigidly sticking to views.
Not just theism of any type, but also
scientistic-physicalism.
I'm not certain what you are trying to get at here. What does
scientistic-physicalism mean? It could not have anything to do
with
modern science, since the Buddha had never seen how modern
science
works. It hadn't been invented yet. If it is simple as
'accepting
reality' then I don't see any reason to accept your
interpretation of
this. If he is pointing out that any method of understanding can
be
misused if it is used in an inappriate venue, I agree
completely, but
not with the conclusion you appear to have drawn beyond that.
Such views are purely subjective, strictly sentimental, a
revenge of mind over matter, especially as they are used as
ultimate boxes into which to fit everything, without mercy.
Why would you claim that science is subjective?
A mixture of projection, stupidity and ignorance.
We're talking about people whose view of reality is determined by
what
their religion says rather than finding out how reality works.
this is priceless. might you then
explain to us how reality works?
Idiot.
still waiting for the explanation.
So, you NEED an explanation of how reality works?
You ARE an idiot.
WHy don't you help us all out if you think it is so unproblematic??
Come ON - let's hear it!!!!
Chazwin
So, if I cannot tell you EXACLTY how reality "works", that makes the
judeo-christian god real?
Is that the laughable illogical option?!?
the claim was implied that without religous
input there was a knowing of how reality
works.
I think we might have4 a much better chance to know how reality works
by making a start in rejecting all axioms. Let's start with the assine
axiom that the humans were created by intelligent design. Here's
another that we might reject: "Allah is all knowing and all powerful".
In fact we can't begin to start on teh topic until such stuff is
rejected.
Ah, now you're getting somewhere, but too much work. Try focusing on
your breath until it all drops away on it's own. :)
I still want to hear your unproblematic notion of "how reality works"
buddy - but I won't hold my breath because I think you are not
intellectually equipped to begin the discussion.
You have me confused with somebody else. I never offered such a
notion.
-DaveK
.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
