| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"EagleEye" |
| Date: |
23 Nov 2005 09:36:10 AM |
| Object: |
Who am I? |
Who am I?
Does this question have any meaning?
Is there a distinct who?
Furthermore, does the question "why" as it pertains to life, have any
meaning?
Do we have any obligations relative to those around us, and if so, why?
Are we free to choose? And if the freedom to choose may be thought of
as a form of power, from where does that power originate?
Lastly, consider this.
All human beings, all persons who reach adulthood in the world today
are in essence programmed biocomputers. None of us can escape our own
nature as programmable entities. Literally, each of us may be our
programs, nothing more, nothing less.
Despite the great varieties of programs available, most of us have a
limited set of programs. Some of these are built in. In the simpler
forms of life the programs were mostly built in from genetic codes to
fully formed adultly reproducing organisms. The patterns of function,
of actionreaction were determined by necessities of survival, of
adaptation to slow environmental changes and of passing on the code to
descendants.
Eventually the cerebral cortex appeared as an expanding new highlevel
computer controlling the structurally lower levels of the nervous
system, the lower builtin programs. For the first time learning and its
faster adaptation to a rapidly changing environment began to appear.
Further, as this new cortex expanded over several millions of years, a
critical size cortex was reached. At this level of structure, a new
capability emerged: learning to learn.
-John C. Lilly. M.D.
In light of this.
The person (self) that you fundamentally and inherently are for
yourself is not who you really are - "really are" like a set, immutable
self, or at best, a merely add-to-able or changeable self.
You are not limited to the person you wound up being, the person who
you think you are.
You can create a way of being for yourself that currently would be
unrecognizable for you as really being you, and have that way of being
be authentically who you are.
Saying the same thing in another way, who you currently know yourself
to be is not authentically who you are, it is just a way of being.
Whenever you think that who you are being is who you really are, that
is never who you authentically are. When you know that who you are
being is your creation, then who you are being is always authentically
who you are.
Again, the person you currently are is only a way of being. At any
moment, you have a choice about who you are being.
Under any circumstances, you can live with power, freedom, and full
self-expression.
At all times, you can create a way of being that gives you power,
freedom, and full self-expression right now, in the present.
The first step in having the ability to create a way of being that you
have chosen, and have that be authentically who you are is
distinguishing between your Self and IT.
The last step in the process of entering the world of your Self is
being used by the distinction Self and IT. It is one thing to
understand something, and even to be clear about something, but it is
quite another thing to have mastered something. When I truly know
something, I can use it to some extent; when I have mastered something,
I am used by it. It is the difference between being able to think
something because I know it, and thinking from something because I am
it. When you have mastered something, that is to say, when you are used
by something, that something has become self-expression for you, that
is to say, it is natural for you. When you have mastered something,
that something is who you are.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
IT then is the program (brain as recording and predicting machine), and
YOU, are the metaprogrammER! Now all you need to do is to find, and
employ, the tools of programming. What we have here is the key, to
unlocking the secret of transformation as a dynamic of progressive
betterment in the life of the individual and through him/her the world
and history within which he/her (and "it") is emersed as active
participant and free will causal agent by neccessity. After all, what
is power and freedom, if not the power, and the freedom, to choose?
======================================
Question. Can the programmer be *distinguished* from the program? And
if so, by who or what?
Super Free Will: Metaprogramming and Quantum Indeterminism
http://www.futurehi.net/archives/000120.html
Perhaps we can begin, after looking at this, about responsibility and
what we ought to be responsible for, and why..and who says?
And yes, part of this line of questioning, employing the socractic
method, may go on to show how precisely atheism is simply a form of
rebellion against the dispensation of a moral law as a final framework
or boundary of the relativity of human social being, which is an
emergent reality beginning with one's own family of origin, and of
generation throughout every increasing sphere, of influence, whereby
influence is also an inescapable neccessity of life as a social being.
No one can retreat into an isolation chamber of isolate consciousness,
since the reality is that no man (or woman) is an island unto
themselves, having emerged and having been shaped through a family or
origin to begin with.
We will then look at the issue of relationship, in terms of one's own
life, and the life of the individual as framed by history in search of
justice, if there is any to be had.
.
|
|
| User: "Yournameheres personal Cthulhu" |
|
| Title: Re: Who am I? |
23 Nov 2005 10:52:28 AM |
|
|
"EagleEye" <jnewton@globalmanagement.ca> suddenly spluttered:
Who am I?
Does this question have any meaning?
Is there a distinct who?
Furthermore, does the question "why" as it pertains to life, have any
meaning?
Do we have any obligations relative to those around us, and if so, why?
Are we free to choose? And if the freedom to choose may be thought of
as a form of power, from where does that power originate?
Lastly, consider this.
<snip>
This is a question every fifteen year old asks, and the answer, at the
time appears to be 'It's so unfair!!!' - the only intelligible thing
they ever say, but then they turn sixteen, then seventeen and things
start to make sense again as the brain's growth spurt slows down.
Trust me, EagleEye, and just be patient.
------------------------------------------------
Conflict over the exact will/purpose/nature of God cannot ever be
resolved, since there are no facts to go on.
D Silverman FLAHN, SMLAHN
AA #2208
.
|
|
|
| User: "EagleEye" |
|
| Title: Re: Who am I? |
23 Nov 2005 11:05:53 AM |
|
|
So no interst in the discussion then. I asked some questions...nothing.
Fact
I am
This is
You are
We think.
We choose.
Life is.
There is choice, and a reaction response to an occurance, which
operates according to certain principals or rules, and therefore is it
fair.
Anyway, could you respond to the original post?
What are your thoughts?
Don't be afraid.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Yournameheres personal Cthulhu" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Who am I? |
23 Nov 2005 11:30:50 AM |
|
|
"EagleEye" <jnewton@globalmanagement.ca> suddenly spluttered:
So no interst in the discussion then. I asked some questions...nothing.
Fact
I am
This is
You are
We think.
We choose.
Life is.
There is choice, and a reaction response to an occurance, which
operates according to certain principals or rules, and therefore is it
fair.
Anyway, could you respond to the original post?
What are your thoughts?
Don't be afraid.
Don't be patronising. I don't want to respond to you, that is my
choice. It doesn't make you rigght, and anyway, you have brought
nothing of substance to the debate except a lot of adolescent
*****. Learn to understand what people are saying if you want a
meaningful discussion.
------------------------------------------------
Conflict over the exact will/purpose/nature of God cannot ever be
resolved, since there are no facts to go on.
D Silverman FLAHN, SMLAHN
AA #2208
.
|
|
|
| User: "EagleEye" |
|
| Title: Re: Who am I? |
23 Nov 2005 02:01:44 PM |
|
|
adolescent *****.
Oh really, because I asked a fundamental question about a very
mysterious nature of our self aware being and free will. Right. No
discussion. No engagement. No inquiry into the meaning of life or about
what being human really means. Nothing, nada, zip. You are afraid of
where the discussion leads in terms of a rational debate. Can't think
of any other reason.
Atheists afriad to enter into a rational discussion, with a self
professed Christian as to the meaning or lack thereof, of life. That's
very hard to believe.
I am even willing to set certain things aside and give this notion the
benefit of the doubt, and see where it leads.. because I suspect that
it's a proposition which offers something on the flip side of the same
coin and that there may in fact actually be a rational basis for faith
in a higher power, as the very glue which holds us together. I even
tipped my hand, and showed my cards to be "fair". No hold backs.
To begin with, I suppose the point is that the athiest, if he's smart,
is FORCED to argue that there is no "who" at all, and ZERO freedom to
choose, or to respond responsively (and therefore response ably) to the
occurance of life in any way which could be considered meaningful or of
value, and therefore if it cannot be described, or debated, it's
useless, and meaningless.
I was hoping to look at its meaningful aspects, other than what it is
simply against, and I was even prepared to show how in the complete
absence of God, one invariably and inexorably runs headlong into Him
anyway, even rationally.
Adolescent? How ironic. Since one generally thinks of that in terms of
some sort of rebellious teenage angst in wilfull opposition to some
sort of percieved parental authority..
See ya. bu bye.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Yournameheres personal Cthulhu" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Who am I? |
23 Nov 2005 02:27:59 PM |
|
|
"EagleEye" <jnewton@globalmanagement.ca> suddenly spluttered:
Oh really, because I asked a fundamental question about a very
mysterious nature of our self aware being and free will.
Oh! so you find it mysterious. That makes you stupid, and probably
some sort of sociopath. Try talking to a forensic psychologist about
it.
------------------------------------------------
Conflict over the exact will/purpose/nature of God cannot ever be
resolved, since there are no facts to go on.
D Silverman FLAHN, SMLAHN
AA #2208
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Who am I? |
23 Nov 2005 03:33:54 PM |
|
|
"EagleEye" <jnewton@globalmanagement.ca> wrote in message
news:1132754504.483337.10640@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
adolescent *****.
Oh really, because I asked a fundamental question about a very
mysterious nature of our self aware being and free will. Right. No
discussion. No engagement. No inquiry into the meaning of life or about
what being human really means. Nothing, nada, zip. You are afraid of
where the discussion leads in terms of a rational debate. Can't think
of any other reason.
Well, that's just you. You don't think it could be because no one is really
interested in your sanctimonious *****?
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: Who am I? |
23 Nov 2005 02:13:14 PM |
|
|
EagleEye wrote:
adolescent *****.
Oh really, because I asked a fundamental question about a very
mysterious nature of our self aware being and free will. Right. No
discussion. No engagement. No inquiry into the meaning of life or about
what being human really means. Nothing, nada, zip. You are afraid of
where the discussion leads in terms of a rational debate. Can't think
of any other reason.
Atheists afriad to enter into a rational discussion, with a self
professed Christian as to the meaning or lack thereof, of life. That's
very hard to believe.
Oh...that's what you were talking about?
To start with, how about you explain to us why you believe there might
be a meaning to life.
Try to use short words that we can understand.
Jim
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Del" |
|
| Title: Re: Who am I? |
23 Nov 2005 07:45:28 PM |
|
|
EagleEye wrote:
adolescent *****.
Oh really, because I asked a fundamental question about a very
mysterious nature of our self aware being and free will. Right. No
discussion. No engagement. No inquiry into the meaning of life or about
what being human really means. Nothing, nada, zip. You are afraid of
where the discussion leads in terms of a rational debate. Can't think
of any other reason.
Your hostility wasn't far from the surface, was it?
Atheists afriad to enter into a rational discussion, with a self
professed Christian as to the meaning or lack thereof, of life. That's
very hard to believe.
I am even willing to set certain things aside and give this notion the
benefit of the doubt, and see where it leads.. because I suspect that
it's a proposition which offers something on the flip side of the same
coin and that there may in fact actually be a rational basis for faith
in a higher power, as the very glue which holds us together. I even
tipped my hand, and showed my cards to be "fair". No hold backs.
To begin with, I suppose the point is that the athiest, if he's smart,
is FORCED to argue that there is no "who" at all, and ZERO freedom to
choose, or to respond responsively (and therefore response ably) to the
occurance of life in any way which could be considered meaningful or of
value, and therefore if it cannot be described, or debated, it's
useless, and meaningless.
I was hoping to look at its meaningful aspects, other than what it is
simply against,
You didn't even read the FAQ, did you?
and I was even prepared to sh ow how in the complete
absence of God, one invariably and inexorably runs headlong into Him
anyway, even rationally.
Adolescent? How ironic. Since one generally thinks of that in terms of
some sort of rebellious teenage angst in wilfull opposition to some
sort of percieved parental authority..
See ya. bu bye.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Harry F. Leopold" |
|
| Title: Re: Who am I? |
23 Nov 2005 02:21:41 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 08:01:44 -0600, EagleEye wrote
(in article <1132754504.483337.10640@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>):
adolescent *****.
Oh really, because I asked a fundamental question about a very
mysterious nature of our self aware being and free will. Right. No
discussion. No engagement. No inquiry into the meaning of life or about
what being human really means. Nothing, nada, zip. You are afraid of
where the discussion leads in terms of a rational debate. Can't think
of any other reason.
Atheists afriad to enter into a rational discussion, with a self
professed Christian as to the meaning or lack thereof, of life. That's
very hard to believe.
I am even willing to set certain things aside and give this notion the
benefit of the doubt, and see where it leads.. because I suspect that
it's a proposition which offers something on the flip side of the same
coin and that there may in fact actually be a rational basis for faith
in a higher power, as the very glue which holds us together. I even
tipped my hand, and showed my cards to be "fair". No hold backs.
To begin with, I suppose the point is that the athiest, if he's smart,
is FORCED to argue that there is no "who" at all, and ZERO freedom to
choose, or to respond responsively (and therefore response ably) to the
occurance of life in any way which could be considered meaningful or of
value, and therefore if it cannot be described, or debated, it's
useless, and meaningless.
I was hoping to look at its meaningful aspects, other than what it is
simply against, and I was even prepared to show how in the complete
absence of God, one invariably and inexorably runs headlong into Him
anyway, even rationally.
Adolescent? How ironic. Since one generally thinks of that in terms of
some sort of rebellious teenage angst in wilfull opposition to some
sort of percieved parental authority..
See ya. bu bye.
We don't fucking care, this is alt.atheism, it is a place for atheists to
talk to other atheists, it is not a place for insane morons, that would be
yourself, to take pot-shots at us.
Go the ***** away. We have heard/read your silly/insane argument dozens of
times before.
--
Harry F. Leopold
aa #2076
AA/Vet #4
The Prints of Darkness
(remove gene to email)
³The rapture's already happened and Jimmy Hoffa was the only one worthy.³ -
Witziges Rätsel
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Who am I? |
23 Nov 2005 01:56:40 PM |
|
|
Eagle eye is engaging in what I can best describe as intellectual
masturbation.
"<Yournamehere>'s personal Cthulhu" <yournamehere@martyrdom.org> wrote in
message news:nek8o1plqf286ku1g0aqmipta0eh8mqnj6@4ax.com...
"EagleEye" <jnewton@globalmanagement.ca> suddenly spluttered:
So no interst in the discussion then. I asked some questions...nothing.
Fact
I am
This is
You are
We think.
We choose.
Life is.
There is choice, and a reaction response to an occurance, which
operates according to certain principals or rules, and therefore is it
fair.
Anyway, could you respond to the original post?
What are your thoughts?
Don't be afraid.
Don't be patronising. I don't want to respond to you, that is my
choice. It doesn't make you rigght, and anyway, you have brought
nothing of substance to the debate except a lot of adolescent
*****. Learn to understand what people are saying if you want a
meaningful discussion.
------------------------------------------------
Conflict over the exact will/purpose/nature of God cannot ever be
resolved, since there are no facts to go on.
D Silverman FLAHN, SMLAHN
AA #2208
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Who am I? |
23 Nov 2005 03:32:53 PM |
|
|
"Bill" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:ew_gf.15880$s92.13425@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
Eagle eye is engaging in what I can best describe as intellectual
masturbation.
Intellectual? You're very generous ;)
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: Who am I? |
23 Nov 2005 01:58:36 PM |
|
|
Bill wrote:
Eagle eye is engaging in what I can best describe as intellectual
masturbation.
I'd put the word "pseudo" in there somewhere
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Yournameheres personal Cthulhu" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Who am I? |
23 Nov 2005 02:01:22 PM |
|
|
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> suddenly spluttered:
Bill wrote:
Eagle eye is engaging in what I can best describe as intellectual
masturbation.
I'd put the word "pseudo" in there somewhere
Jim
Pseudo-maturbation?
------------------------------------------------
Conflict over the exact will/purpose/nature of God cannot ever be
resolved, since there are no facts to go on.
D Silverman FLAHN, SMLAHN
AA #2208
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Del" |
|
| Title: Re: Who am I? |
23 Nov 2005 07:39:06 PM |
|
|
Bill wrote:
Eagle eye is engaging in what I can best describe as intellectual
masturbation.
More like intellectual abstinence.
"<Yournamehere>'s personal Cthulhu" <yournamehere@martyrdom.org> wrote in
message news:nek8o1plqf286ku1g0aqmipta0eh8mqnj6@4ax.com...
"EagleEye" < jnewton@globalmanagement.ca> suddenly spluttered:
So no interst in the discussion then. I asked some questions...nothing.
Fact
I am
This is
You are
We think.
We choose.
Life is.
There is choice, and a reaction response to an occurance, which
operates according to certain principals or rules, and therefore is it
fair.
Anyway, could you respond to the original post?
What are your thoughts?
Don't be afraid.
Don't be patronising. I don't want to respond to you, that is my
choice. It doesn't make you rigght, and anyway, you have brought
nothing of substance to the debate except a lot of adolescent
*****. Learn to understand what people ar e saying if you want a
meaningful discussion.
------------------------------------------------
Conflict over the exact will/purpose/nature of God cannot ever be
resolved, since there are no facts to go on.
D Silverman FLAHN, SM LAHN
AA #2208
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Del" |
|
| Title: Re: Who am I? |
23 Nov 2005 07:35:03 PM |
|
|
EagleEye wrote:
So no interst in the discussion then. I asked some questions...nothing.
Fact
I am
This is
You are
We think.
We choose.
Life is.
There is choice, and a reaction response to an occurance, which
operates according to certain principals or rules, and therefore is it
fair.
Anyway, could you respond to the original post?
What are your thoughts?
Don't be afraid.
You are projecting.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Yournameheres personal Cthulhu" |
|
| Title: Re: Who am I? |
23 Nov 2005 10:17:02 AM |
|
|
"EagleEye" <jnewton@globalmanagement.ca> suddenly spluttered:
Who am I?
Fuctifino.
------------------------------------------------
Conflict over the exact will/purpose/nature of God cannot ever be
resolved, since there are no facts to go on.
D Silverman FLAHN, SMLAHN
AA #2208
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu the Atheist" |
|
| Title: Re: Who am I? |
23 Nov 2005 02:42:38 PM |
|
|
"EagleEye" <jnewton@globalmanagement.ca> wrote in
news:1132738570.873168.39850@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Who am I?
I know this one! You're an ignorant looser.
Does this question have any meaning?
Not to those who know you're an ignorant looser.
Is there a distinct who?
Yes. There are other people who could ask that question and are not
ignorant loosers.
Furthermore, does the question "why" as it pertains to life, have any
meaning?
"Why" what? Why did the chicken cross the road? What's the actual
question?
Do we have any obligations relative to those around us, and if so, why?
I can't speak for you, but I choose enter a society of reciprocal
obligations.
Are we free to choose? And if the freedom to choose may be thought of
as a form of power, from where does that power originate?
Yep, we seem free to choose. That's what it feels like. (Should I make
waffles for breakfast, or go buy bagels?)
Lastly, consider this.
All human beings, all persons who reach adulthood in the world today
are in essence programmed biocomputers. None of us can escape our own
nature as programmable entities. Literally, each of us may be our
programs, nothing more, nothing less.
You have contradicted yourself. Are we "programmed" or "programmable"?
There is a difference. If we are programmable, then the program can be
altered by circumstance, or even self-modification. And you haven't
justified your statement that we are "biocomputers" or defined how such a
thing is simmilar to a Dell 1100 Inspiron.
Despite the great varieties of programs available, most of us have a
limited set of programs. Some of these are built in. In the simpler
forms of life the programs were mostly built in from genetic codes to
fully formed adultly reproducing organisms. The patterns of function,
of actionreaction were determined by necessities of survival, of
adaptation to slow environmental changes and of passing on the code to
descendants.
You assert that "most of us have a limited set of programs". Why only most
of us? Are some of us exempt from your illogic? Have you evidence that
the rest of us don't have an infinite number of possible behaviors? No?
You're talikg out of your ***** again?
Eventually the cerebral cortex appeared as an expanding new highlevel
computer controlling the structurally lower levels of the nervous
system, the lower builtin programs. For the first time learning and its
faster adaptation to a rapidly changing environment began to appear.
Further, as this new cortex expanded over several millions of years, a
critical size cortex was reached. At this level of structure, a new
capability emerged: learning to learn.
Yeah, *IF* the brain is a computer in the same sense as a Dell 1100
Inspiron, which has not been shown. This is really a load of crap.
-John C. Lilly. M.D.
Glad he isn't my doctor.
In light of this.
You mean "In dark of this."
The person (self) that you fundamentally and inherently are for
yourself is not who you really are - "really are" like a set, immutable
self, or at best, a merely add-to-able or changeable self.
So we are changable, and we don't have a limited set of fixed responses?
You are not limited to the person you wound up being, the person who
you think you are.
So we are not limited, and we do have free will? That's not what your
source above tried to say.
You can create a way of being for yourself that currently would be
unrecognizable for you as really being you, and have that way of being
be authentically who you are.
Huh? Was that English?
Saying the same thing in another way, who you currently know yourself
to be is not authentically who you are, it is just a way of being.
Whenever you think that who you are being is who you really are, that
is never who you authentically are. When you know that who you are
being is your creation, then who you are being is always authentically
who you are.
How many chucks could a woodchuck chuck . . . .
Hakes more sense than your text.
Again, the person you currently are is only a way of being. At any
moment, you have a choice about who you are being.
So, I am not the person I am? And when I'm the person I'm not, then I'll
be the personwho I really am? Just say no, dude.
Under any circumstances, you can live with power, freedom, and full
self-expression.
Gee, thanks.
[snip the rest of the mind-numbing garbage]
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
PGP ID: 0xC4CE8CF0
"I think movies about Jesus are boring no matter who he sleeps with."
* Teller
(02/14/1948 - )
US magician, on "The Last Temptation of Christ"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "kathryn" |
|
| Title: Re: Who am I? |
23 Nov 2005 06:38:58 PM |
|
|
"EagleEye" <jnewton@globalmanagement.ca> wrote in message
news:1132738570.873168.39850@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Who am I?
Steve?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Who am I? |
23 Nov 2005 03:31:07 PM |
|
|
"EagleEye" <jnewton@globalmanagement.ca> wrote in message
news:1132738570.873168.39850@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Who am I?
Sorry, old bean, but I honestly don't give a *****.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "EagleEye" |
|
| Title: Re: Who am I? |
23 Nov 2005 09:52:43 AM |
|
|
Bottom line, it is my contention that self deterministic atheism, when
framed within a social context, leads to a very high state of being and
potential, which, when followed rationally, and followed, step by step,
leads to the doorway of an almost quantum jump into a type of faith, at
least a faith in a higher power, or power greater than one's self, and
of one's own understanding, and yet again, through a wholly rational
basis for accepting a final relativity of human being once again jumps
another notch into increasing faith in a power greater than one's self,
such that the recurrence may take on a certain life of its own in terms
of a relationship, an I-thou relationship, which once entered into can
no longer avoid theological implications.
I am not really looking for an argument here. I am willing to play by
the rules, but I do hope that you will play the game without
retreating.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: Re: Who am I? |
23 Nov 2005 10:39:37 AM |
|
|
On 23 Nov 2005 01:52:43 -0800 in alt.atheism, EagleEye ("EagleEye"
<jnewton@globalmanagement.ca>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
Bottom line, it is my contention that self deterministic atheism,
I don't think I understand what you mean by the term "self
deterministic atheism". Please explain, then perhaps I'll be able to
have a chat about what you say below.
when
framed within a social context, leads to a very high state of being and
potential, which, when followed rationally, and followed, step by step,
leads to the doorway of an almost quantum jump into a type of faith, at
least a faith in a higher power, or power greater than one's self, and
of one's own understanding, and yet again, through a wholly rational
basis for accepting a final relativity of human being once again jumps
another notch into increasing faith in a power greater than one's self,
such that the recurrence may take on a certain life of its own in terms
of a relationship, an I-thou relationship, which once entered into can
no longer avoid theological implications.
I am not really looking for an argument here. I am willing to play by
the rules, but I do hope that you will play the game without
retreating.
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
#442. www.video2cd.co.uk. Your 8mm films on DVD.
.
|
|
|
| User: "EagleEye" |
|
| Title: Re: Who am I? |
23 Nov 2005 10:49:04 AM |
|
|
I don't think I understand what you mean by the term "self
deterministic atheism". Please explain, then perhaps I'll be able to
have a chat about what you say below.
No higher will than self will. No larger purpose, plan or calling. To
each his own. Independant. Captain of one's own ship. Master of your
own fate and destiny. Yet operating relative only to an infinite realm
of an unknown known, uncertain. A universe of one's own making where
all meaning is assigned by yourself, and no larger meaning is assigned,
or may be discerned.
Purely self determined, yet without a relationship with God as higher
power, or higher will, higher fate, destiny and calling, according to a
larger purpose and plan.
Winging it, knowing nothing, or very little, and accepting no
boundaries and no conditions. Unconditioned selfhood relative to an
unknown unknown assigning all meaning and purpose purely according to
one's own free will choices.
Like I said, that's pretty good, and a very high state of being. But I
do happen to believe that it terminates and results in a type of lie
which does not correspond with reality or with the experience of life
on life's terms as it really and truly is.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Yournameheres personal Cthulhu" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Who am I? |
23 Nov 2005 10:55:23 AM |
|
|
"EagleEye" <jnewton@globalmanagement.ca> suddenly spluttered:
I don't think I understand what you mean by the term "self
deterministic atheism". Please explain, then perhaps I'll be able to
have a chat about what you say below.
No higher will than self will. No larger purpose, plan or calling. To
each his own. Independant. Captain of one's own ship. Master of your
own fate and destiny. Yet operating relative only to an infinite realm
of an unknown known, uncertain. A universe of one's own making where
all meaning is assigned by yourself, and no larger meaning is assigned,
or may be discerned.
Purely self determined, yet without a relationship with God as higher
power, or higher will, higher fate, destiny and calling, according to a
larger purpose and plan.
Winging it, knowing nothing, or very little, and accepting no
boundaries and no conditions. Unconditioned selfhood relative to an
unknown unknown assigning all meaning and purpose purely according to
one's own free will choices.
Like I said, that's pretty good, and a very high state of being. But I
do happen to believe that it terminates and results in a type of lie
which does not correspond with reality or with the experience of life
on life's terms as it really and truly is.
Try stating some facts if you want a discussion.
------------------------------------------------
Conflict over the exact will/purpose/nature of God cannot ever be
resolved, since there are no facts to go on.
D Silverman FLAHN, SMLAHN
AA #2208
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Del" |
|
| Title: Re: Who am I? |
23 Nov 2005 07:30:25 PM |
|
|
EagleEye wrote:
I don't think I understand what you mean by the term "self
deterministic atheism". Please explain, then perhaps I'll be able to
have a chat about what you say below.
No higher will than self will. No larger purpose, plan or calling. To
each his own. Independant. Captain of one's own ship. Master of your
own fate and destiny. Yet operating relative only to an infinite realm
of an unknown known, uncertain. A universe of one's own making where
all meaning is assigned by yourself, and no larger meaning is assigned,
or may be discerned.
Purely self determined, yet without a relationship with God as higher
power, or higher will, higher fate, destiny and calling, according to a
larger purpose and plan.
Wi nging it, knowing nothing, or very little, and accepting no
boundaries and no conditions. Unconditioned selfhood relative to an
unknown unknown assigning all meaning and purpose purely according to
one's own free will choices.
Like I said, that's pretty good, and a very high state of being. But I
do happen to believe that it terminates and results in a type of lie
which does not correspond with reality or with the experience of life
on life's terms as it really and truly is.
Do you know the difference between argument and assertion? =B5
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Who am I? |
23 Nov 2005 07:43:12 PM |
|
|
"EagleEye" <jnewton@globalmanagement.ca> wrote in message
news:1132739563.736998.318520@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Bottom line, it is my contention that self deterministic atheism, when
framed within a social context, leads to a very high state of being and
potential, which, when followed rationally, and followed, step by step,
leads to the doorway of an almost quantum jump into a type of faith, at
least a faith in a higher power, or power greater than one's self, and
of one's own understanding, and yet again, through a wholly rational
basis for accepting a final relativity of human being once again jumps
another notch into increasing faith in a power greater than one's self,
such that the recurrence may take on a certain life of its own in terms
of a relationship, an I-thou relationship, which once entered into can
no longer avoid theological implications.
I am not really looking for an argument here. I am willing to play by
the rules, but I do hope that you will play the game without
retreating.
I fail to see how the above makes any sense if the below is true.
All human beings, all persons who reach adulthood in the world today
are in essence programmed biocomputers. None of us can escape our own
nature as programmable entities. Literally, each of us may be our
programs, nothing more, nothing less.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Who am I? |
23 Nov 2005 03:31:46 PM |
|
|
"EagleEye" <jnewton@globalmanagement.ca> wrote in message
news:1132739563.736998.318520@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Bottom line, it is my contention that self deterministic atheism, when
framed within a social context, leads to a very high state of being and
potential, which, when followed rationally, and followed, step by step,
leads to the doorway of an almost quantum jump into a type of faith, at
least a faith in a higher power, or power greater than one's self, and
of one's own understanding, and yet again, through a wholly rational
basis for accepting a final relativity of human being once again jumps
another notch into increasing faith in a power greater than one's self,
such that the recurrence may take on a certain life of its own in terms
of a relationship, an I-thou relationship, which once entered into can
no longer avoid theological implications.
That's nice, deary. Now go tell someone who gives a *****.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Del" |
|
| Title: Re: Who am I? |
23 Nov 2005 07:26:09 PM |
|
|
EagleEye wrote:
And yes, part of this line of questioning, employing the socractic
me thod, may go on to show how precisely atheism is simply a form of
rebellion against the dispensation of a moral law as a final framework
or boundary of the relativity of human social being, which is an
emergent reality beginning with one's own family of origin, and of
generation throughout every increasing sphere, of influence, whereby
influence is also an inescapable neccessity of life as a social being.
You don't know what atheism is, and your writing is
gawd awful (your above run-on sentence is one
particularly atrocious example). Get a copy of Strunk
and White's Elements of Style..
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: Who am I? |
23 Nov 2005 01:50:32 PM |
|
|
EagleEye wrote:
Who am I?
you are one who promulgates psychobabble
Jim
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Josef Balluch" |
|
| Title: Re: Who am I? |
23 Nov 2005 04:59:18 PM |
|
|
In a message sent 'round the world, EagleEye poured fuel on the fire
with the following:
....
The person (self) that you fundamentally and inherently are for
yourself is not who you really are ...
So your "fundamental and inherent" self is not your true self.
Ummmmmmmmm, ...... OK.
....
You can create a way of being for yourself that currently would be
unrecognizable for you as really being you, and have that way of being
be authentically who you are.
So you can switch paradigms, and pretend that this is your "actual"
self.
Ohhhhhh ..... kayyyy.
....
And yes, part of this line of questioning, employing the socractic
method, may go on to show how precisely atheism is simply a form of
rebellion against the dispensation of a moral law ...
And this will be the new paradigm.
yawwwwn
....
Regards,
Josef
Attachment is the great fabricator of illusions; reality can be attained
only by someone who is detached.
-- Simone Weil
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "chibiabos" |
|
| Title: Re: Who am I? |
23 Nov 2005 04:23:17 PM |
|
|
In article <1132738570.873168.39850@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
EagleEye <jnewton@globalmanagement.ca> wrote:
Who am I?
All you're talking about is consciousness.
Consciousness is nothing more than a sense of self.
A sense of self can only occur when an individual recognizes and
acknowledges the existence of others.
I don't see the problem.
-chib
--
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Neil Kelsey" |
|
| Title: Re: Who am I? |
23 Nov 2005 05:35:59 PM |
|
|
John Lilly, the dolphin guy? Is he still alive?
I'm not sure I totally agree with him about us being "programmed
biocomputers." I know what he probably means, in that we are driven to
have sex, eat, sleep, etc. I see us as being more than that because we
are animals, and given to irrational emotional outbursts, joy, pain,
sadness, etc. that computers don't feel. Otherwise, I don't have much
of a problem with what he says even though it's a little New-Agey for
me.
As for you though...
"The person (self) that you fundamentally and inherently are for
yourself is not who you really are - "really are" like a set, immutable
self, or at best, a merely add-to-able or changeable self.
You are not limited to the person you wound up being, the person who
you think you are.
You can create a way of being for yourself that currently would be
unrecognizable for you as really being you, and have that way of being
be authentically who you are."
[You can only be one person. Your mind may evolve as you age but you
are still the same person, only older and wiser. That is all you are
saying, dressed up in New Age gobbledygook. And whatever you are is
your "authentic self." You sure make some wild and pompous assertions.
It was fun for a while, but now I'm getting bored of deciphering your
New Age *****.]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nightshade" |
|
| Title: Re: Who am I? |
25 Nov 2005 10:23:27 PM |
|
|
On 23 Nov 2005 01:36:10 -0800, "EagleEye"
<jnewton@globalmanagement.ca> wrote:
Who am I?
Does this question have any meaning?
Exactly.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Who am I? |
23 Nov 2005 07:26:08 PM |
|
|
On 23 Nov 2005 01:36:10 -0800, "EagleEye"
<jnewton@globalmanagement.ca> wrote:
Who am I?
A drooling idiot. You're welcome.
[]
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
