Total posts: 5,766
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Most of what I said was using my own words, so maybe you should read over it again.
239/324 = 73.7% of the post was you quoting John and Jesus (1) Speaking for yourself was a request not a requirement, but like I said in post 113 I would value your own originality of thought much more than just repeating after things that other people said.
But anyway looking just at the parts of your post that are not taken from others mouths seems to simplify to "I believe in the trinity, which is the belief that God, Jesus, and the holy spirit are the same and seperate. I also believe that the trinity should be worshiped. The proper method of doing this is through a process reffered to as 'purification of the heart'.
The purpose of this summary is to make sure we are on the same page before asking some questions I have. Please confirm.
(1) wordcounter.net
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Do you have any questions about anything I just said?
Would it be possible to explain how you think the world works using only your own words instead of copy-pasting blocks of text?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Reality is one of those things that cannot be disproven. At best, you can prove that how you perceive reality is not real.
Yeah, you and I are probably correct about that. I certainly believe that an objective reality exists and you seem to as well. Whether we are right or not though I don't think going back and forth about something we both agree so strongly on is likely to result in an interesting conversation.
And to maybe jump ahead a bit to further relate this to the Orthodox conception of God as The Trinity, the most perfect image of God is The Truth. The acting force that enlivens everything is The Holy Spirit.
Okay, that explains a very generalized idea of what you believe on one specifc point. The question is where you go from there. Are you going to go into more detail about what you believe in regards to this? Are you going talk about why you believe this, or would you rather go into detail about a different aspect of the theology first?
Created:
Posted in:
Can you agree on this, or do you have any reasonable objections?
Based on what I currently know yes of course I agree that there is no doubt that reality exists. That is why I never expressed any such doubt. I would currently rate my confidence level that reality is real at 100%, which is a position I very rarely take on anything. The idea that there never can be any such doubt... That might very well be the case, I can't say for sure though. Let me explain:
I am unable to imagine any scenario that would convince me that there is no reality. This makes my belief that reality exists almost unique since for most of the rest of my beliefs I can at least imagine a specific piece of evidence that would cause me to discard said belief. As an example I would no longer believe that the person I call father is my father if we arranged a paternity test and the test results showed us to be unrelated.
I believe the person I call father is my father and I do not think that arranging such a test would lead to this result, but I am still able to entertain the hypothetical scenario in my mind. I am able to conceive of this scenario, but it has never happened so I continue to believe that the person I call my father is indeed my father based on the evidence avaliable to me. For the majority of things that I believe there is something I could imagine would hypothetically change my mind and this is a good thing. It helps to avoid mindsets where incorrect things may be believed for incorrect reasons.
UInlike most of my other beliefs I cannot imagine any scenario which would challenge my belief that reality is real. There are numerous possibilities for why this might be the case. Perhaps such a hypothetical scenario that would convince me that there is no reality does not exist even hypothetically, perhaps such a scenario does exist and I have not thought hard enough about it, perhaps such a scenario exists but I am unable to conceive of it due to mental limitations, perhaps something else entirely. I have my own opinion on which of these is most likely but that is not important for this conversation and I cannot say for sure anyway. I can only say that if such a scenario does exist it would involve a lot more than 'sophistry'... The evidence is too concrete for any mere words to convince me otherwise.
No matter which of these explanations is accurate I have looked at the facts of the matter and arrived at the conclusion that reality is real. As mentioned before in previous posts and at the top of this post there is currently no doubt whatsoever in my mind regarding the reality of reality. Maybe in the future such doubt will be possible but if you are going to agree with me that reality is real (which would certainly be a reasonable position to take) then that future will not occur in this conversation, if at all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I am saying there can be no reasonable room for doubt about this. Reality certainly exists. Can we agree on that?
I am highly certain that reality exists. There is a large amount of evidence to support the conclusion that reality exists and none at all (that I am aware of) to say that it does not. That is why I believe reality is... real, for lack of a better term.
As I always have been with with everything else in my life I am willing to change my mind if new information comes to light which contradicts what I believe but as of yet there is no information that I am aware of to suggest that reality does not exist.
If you or anyone else says that they posses such evidence I would of course be willing to hear them out just like if anyone says they think I am wrong about anything else, but if nobody challenges that belief of mine or they do so and I find their reasoning flawed I will continue to believe that reality is real.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
So how can you even entertain the idea that reality might not exist? The fact that you are having an experience at all demonstrates that there is some form of reality. I can't say it makes sense to question the existence of reality.
I already said dozens of times that I believe reality exists/is real. You know this. There is not a single sentence I have said that indicates otherwise. Not one.
I don't think that there is a single entity or force pulling all the strings but obviously I believe reality exists. I could be incorrect on either of those points but if you refuse to say anything more until I proffess to be "More sure of [The ultimate realities] existence than even the existence of [myself]" then I don't understand how you intend to show me that I am.
Created:
Posted in:
I find it hard to believe that someone can honestly say That Which is Truly Real doesn't exist and understand what they are saying.
So god is reality too then? This is a divergence from what you have been saying up to this point. Up until now you have just said he is the ultimate reality. If he is both ultimate reality and reality then you should have said so before.
I already said dozens of times that I believe reality exists/is real. You know this. There is not a single sentence I have said that indicates otherwise. Not one.
I don't think that there is a single entity or force pulling all the strings but obviously I believe reality exists. I could be incorrect on either of those points but if you refuse to say anything more until I proffess to be "More sure of [The ultimate realities] existence than even the existence of [myself]" then I don't understand how you intend to show me that I am.
Created:
Posted in:
If you don't believe The Ultimate Reality exists, you don't actually understand the concept.So you say you accept the definition, but I don't believe you actually understand it properly.
The fact that I disagree with one small part of what you believe automatically means I don't understand your point then? That seems a bit close-minded. Have you considered the possibility that I do understand this point and I am genuinely incorrect? That seems much more likely.
It is hard to say for sure which of those two possibilities are actually the case if you refuse to do anything more than give a basic definition unless I proclaim that I will agree with whatever you say before you say it.
Created:
Posted in:
And as for the rest of your post, there is nothing to address until we settle tgis matter, as I have repeatedly said. And the matter won't be settled until you are more sure of God's existence than even the existence of yourself. If you can't be that certain, YOU DON'T GET IT.
I think if somebody was telling you about (insert literally anything here) and you asked them to go into detail and describe (insert aforementioned anything here) because you wanted to decide whether you agreed with them on that then you would be justifiably unimpressed if they simply gave you a basic definition then said "I cannot go into any more detail until you state that you agree with me regarding this thing."
I will say it a fifth time, I fully accept your definition of God being "The supreme, final, and fundamental power in all reality". Surely there is more about your belief that you could tell me if you so chose to do so beyond a few basic definitions. Saying that you are unable to say anymore until after I agree that everything you say is correct seems a bit absurd.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WisdomofAges
So why did you change your name? I liked 'vi_spex' better.
Created:
Posted in:
And this is what Orthodoxy believes, that God is The Eternally Existing One. You attempting to make this into a semantic argument is vain, because making a straw man god to replace God is not a valid argument. Besides that, it isn't honest because instead of trying to understand what it is you are dismissing, you are simply trying to justify your own rejection of that which you are wholly ignorant of.
Dismissing what? My exact words were:
I fully accept your definition of God and ultimate reality.
This is my fourth time saying it now, I fully and unconditionally accept that your definition of God matches Merriam-Webster's definition of 'ultimate reality'
Now... everyone here can see that I asked in post 113 for you to explain in detail what you believe. If you say that I am "wholly ignorant" of what you believe then that is fine, but would a neutral observer conclude that it is reasonable for me to understand what you have not explained? I think not.
In light of this I am going to ask once again that you respond to post 113. I doubt that you will but please... prove me wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
You denying God amounts to little more than denying reality itself.And I until we get this straight, there is not much else to discuss,
Reality itself? Did you mean to say ultimate reality? You have said so many times that the two are completely different, it would be a shame for you to change your mind on that point so soon after I state that I agree with you on it.
We already got this straight back in post 107 anyway when I fully accepted your definition of God and ultimate reality.
Are you going to actually respond to anything in post 113 or just hope that nobody notices you ignored it completely? One would think that you would jump at the chance to explain your beliefs (since that is what I am asking of you in post 113) after all the dozens of times you have accused people of misunderstanding and misrepresenting you.
My money is on you choosing the 'ignore' option but please... prove me wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
What is the supreme, final, and fundamental power to all reality?The Truth. Existence. Actuality. The way things actually are. Clearly this has the greatest authority in all reality.
Existence itself does not posses 'fundamental power' over itself.
I told you that I accepted "Something that is the supreme, final, and fundamental power in all reality" as your new definition of ultimate reality to replace your old definition of "Something that is neither derivative nor dependent but exists necessarily". By this new definition no, I do not think any 'ultimate reality' exists. I don't think there is any single entity or force with power over all of reality. I think reality is affected by numerous different forces, causes and effects, etc.
All of that is just word play though, which is why you hold on to that and ignore my more important question, which was when I repeatedly ask you to go into detail about what you believe to be the nature of this ultimate reality you speak of.
You avoid doing so because you want to hold on to the argument that everyone here secretly does believe what you are saying but does not want to admit it or somehow doesn't know that they agree with you. If you ever went into any detail about what you believed about the nature of reality and/or your ultimate reality then this would be a claim that could actually be examined, which is something you don't want.
I could go on for hours and hours about minute details on how I think reality works but I choose not to because I know you don't care in the least what I or anyone that disagrees with you thinks about anything so my doing so would be just a huge waste of time.
You have no such excuse however, as I have repeatedly asked you to go into detail about such things numerous times now. Prayer, sin, the afterlife, the beginning of the universe, or even just the supernatural in general are just a few things you could talk about in detail (there are dozens of other things, you could pick anything!) in order to paint a picture of how you see the world beyond simply reiterating "God is ultimate reality, ultimate reality is god, you believe it too if you think about it." That doesn't say anything. Yes I know you believe reality exists, we all do. That does not say anything at all about what you believe about how it works.
Tell us what you think too, not just some copy-paste quote from some person that has been dead for hundreds of years. Even if you agree with that person try to have some originality of thought by putting your ideas into your own words. I care about what some guy that has been dead for hundreds of years thinks about the world as much as you care about what I think about the world... not at all. I would rather hear what you think.
Why would you not want to do so after all this time? The only reason I can think of is because you want to hold on to your proto-ontological apologetics as described above. If this isn't the case then please... prove me wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I will do it for you."Something that is the supreme, final, and fundamental power in all reality"
Okay. I will accept this as your new definition for the ultimate reality.
You have previously said that everyone accepts that the ultimate reality is real but not everyone accepts that the ultimate reality is god. Do you maintain that this is the case?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
You have argued incessantly that the other realities are not your ultimate reality, how many realities do you have? I've only got one and your man made god doesn't exist in it.
Mopac has now stated that Merriam-Webster's is his source for what words mean, thus limiting him to that one source. The word 'reality' has two definitions in there. Mopac has essentially been using the first definition to mean 'reality' and the second definition to mean 'ultimate reality'. In truth the two definitions are different from eachother (a word can have multiple meanings after all) but Merriam-Webster's does also have an entry for 'ultimate reality', and it is in fact a third completely different definition. Go look up 'ultimate reality' in Merriam-Webster's online dictionary and see if you can figure out why I almost died from laughter when I did so given Mopacs assertion that "the ultimate reality must by definition exist"
Edit: when I say "the first definition of reality" I mean definition 2a, when I say "the second definition of reality" I mean definition 2b. I think everyone here agrees that definitions 1 and 3 are not what anyone here is referring to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
So... I looked up 'ultimate reality' in there also. Have you done this too or did you just see the term 'ultimate reality' under the definition for God and stop there?
Created:
Posted in:
Okay, I think I get it. By 'ultimate reality' you mean like something that is neither derivative nor dependent but exists necessarily, is that it?I would not say "something", but other than that little nitpick, yes. The Ultimate Reality is neither derivative nor dependent and certainly exists necessarily.
Okay, I understand and accept that.
The problem is that 'something that is neither derivative nor dependent but exists necessarily' is a direct copy-paste of Merriam-Webster's definition of the word 'reality'
So now we have to decide whether Merriam-Webster's is a reliable source for what words mean. I think it is, what do you think?
Edit: I looked up 'ultimate reality' in there also. Have you done this too or did you just see the term 'ultimate reality' under the definition for God and stop there? You see, there is a reason I have been trying to get you to describe the term with more than saying "that is what God is" and I suspect it is the same reason that you have refused to do so.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Okay, I think I get it. By 'ultimate reality' you mean like something that is neither derivative nor dependent but exists necessarily, is that it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I was born of a woman. This is a reality.
You have a different definition of the word 'reality' than everyone else then. I shouldn't be suprised. The statement quoted above is a statement of fact. It accurately describes reality and is therefore a true statement of fact.
A fact is not a reality onto itself, it is a description of reality. That is just how those words work.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
We are not talking about a reality or realities. We are talking about THE Reality. The very reality that makes any other reality possible. It is a way of identifying the subject matter with precision, not an attempt at woo or confusion....The problem with spirituality in western thinking is that it is more concerned with formulating and getting things down into precise terms, logic, reasoning, etc.. It is a type of attitude that was inherited from Rome. Latins think like engineers.
What other realities? I am only aware of one. What makes you think that multiple realities exist?
Also, reading through your post with special attention to the bolded/underlined portion...
1) I agree with the first bolded/underlined portion in which you imply that "identifying the subject matter with precision" is a good thing.
2) I disagree with the second bolded/underlined poration in which you imply that "identifying the subject matter with precision" is a bad thing.
It is hard to tell whether you think identifying the subject matter with precision" is a good or bad thing. I would guess by the way you usually talk that you think it is a bad thing but the first bolded/underlined portion in the quote above says otherwise. Please clarify.
You can build a tree of logic off of faulty premises and every conclusion you build off of this will technically be logical
This statement is clearly false. If a premise is faulty then the conclusion is faulty by definition. I now believe based on you making this statement that you do not have a complete understanding of how logical reasoning works.
So if I sound different than the Christians you are accustomed to, that is why.
Not really, no. Your apologetics are pretty similar to many others I have heard many times before. Your post-modernist style of thinking is annoying but not unique.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
All theists are murderers. Keep up.
That seems unlikely given how many theists there are in the world. If they were are murderers I doubt society would be able to function at all. Do you have any evidence for that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Lol ok sure
Oh Romeo, oh Romeo, wherefore art thou Romeo?Uhhh... because that is what my parents named me.Oh. I was really expecting something deeper and more romantic.
Sorry to disappoint you. Wanna make a suicide pact? It will be fun.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
i am 21 savageno u r not
Okay, cool. Thanks.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
How does one make the double layered quote box like you have in post 14? I tried pressing the quote button while highlighting text inside a quote box but that just takes that text out of the quote box.
Created:
Posted in:
I already demonstrated how it is meaningful, but like most who have adopted an attitude of being unteachable, you simply ignore what I say and pretend I didn't say anything.
I'm not pretending any such thing.
I remember you claiming that if the term 'ultimate reality' has a different meaning than the term 'reality' then the term can be useful.
I agree with this claim.
The problem is that I also remember several instances of you explaining what the term 'ultimate reality' means (post 64 of this thread is just one example) and it ends up just meaning the same thing as what people usually mean when they say 'reality'.
Rebuking a position before it is understood is foolish.
Obviously I agree with this. Saying anything about an idea that you don't know anything about is pretty dumb. That was the entire point of my example of a conversation in post 42.
So, for a second time, since we both agree on this... Please go into as much detail as possible about where we actually differ. If you need more details from me about what I believe I once again state that I am happy to answer any questions you have for me.
I can already tell you are superstitious concerning God, because you refuse to acknowledge The Ultimate Reality as God, even going so far as to lack belief in God's existence.
Again what this basically translates into is that you think I am wrong. That is fine, I agree that you think I am wrong.
So, for a third time, since we both agree on this... Please go into as much detail as possible about where we actually differ. If you need more details from me about what I believe I once again state that I am happy to answer any questions you have for me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Well it's sad atheists kill off non atheist in regimes all the time but that's ok cause atheists murder is less murdery. I have to wonder about a guy who spends his day online with murders.
I must have missed something. Who here is a murderer?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Lol, I figured it was nicer to tell him now rather than have him unknowingly compliment my manners repeatedly until someone else pointed out what the word actually meant.
That would have been funnier, but would not have been nice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I was going for "student of learning".
The idea I meant to convey was along the lines of a person that admits they do not have all the answers and values the process of acquiring knowledge for its own sake, being willing to discard old ideas if they are shown to be incorrect.
Unfortunately the latin word for learning translates to 'doctrina', which sounds too similar to the English word 'doctrine' for my tastes due to the baggage attached to that word, which also happened to be antithical to what I was going for.
In the end I decided to go for a vaguely latinesque name whose meaning was close enough to what I wanted to convey and hope that anyone that was curious would ask me directly rather than look it up themselves. This has been moderately successful. I have used this name for a bit over 3 years now and many people have asked me to explain it, but you are only the second person to (correctly) point out that it is badly translated trash (though it is nice of you to put it more diplomatically.)
I am definately not learnèd. I'm just a 23 year old middle-class white boy with a highschool diploma and a fondness for certain alcoholic beverages. Hardly a model citizen lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
The Ultimate Reality is Reality as it truly is.
Reality is reality as it truly is. Adding the word ultimate doesn't actually do anything but make your statement sound superficially deep and meaningful.
I would say that you in all likelyhood have superstitious understanding of the supernatural due to your materialistic "education". In other words, how you understand the supernatural is not likely how the church understands the supernatural.
This was the closest you have come to even addressing my question about how you would describe my outlook on the 'ultimate reality'. I want you to actually re-read what you wrote here though. It basically translates as "your outlook is incorrect". In other words, you disagree with me. That is a pretty useless statement because I already knew you disagreed with me. Why not go into detail about what the nature of those disagreements would be?
The phrase 'beyond reproach' definately means something different than what you think it means, by the way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
The Ultimate Reality is not a perception, a conception, or a postulation. It is not an abstraction, but that which is beyond abstraction.
You seem to be implying that I said it was a perception of some kind at some point. You should withdraw that accusation or provide a quote by me where I did so.
The Ultimate Reality is Reality as it truly is, not as it is perceived to be or thought to be.
Reality is reality as it truly is.
In other words, you are trying to justify your willful ignorance and prejudice. You know, I can't help but think you are projecting when you call me passive aggressive and arrogant.
I'll take that as a smart ass "yes", feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
I would say that you in all likelyhood have superstitious understanding of the supernatural due to your materialistic "education". In other words, how you understand the supernatural is not likely how the church understands the supernatural.
Your ideas and theories about it [the 'ultimate reality'] are absolutely not it. Can't be.
That doesn't answer my question. All that says (in one of the most arrogant and passive aggressive ways possible) is that you disagree with me. I don't think it is unreasonable to ask for more details regarding said disagreement.
The Ultimate Reality is not a perception.
You seem to be implying that I said it was a perception of some kind at some point. You should withdraw that accusation or provide a quote by me where I did so.
In fact, the Ultimate Reality is not an abstraction, more accurately, it is the total absence of abstraction, and what you yourself are working with is an abstraction. So you are understanding that which is not abstraction through the medium of an abstraction.
You, not I, are the one that said "Ultimate reality is truth. I am not saying that it is true it exists, I am saying it is literally the same thing as truth."
Truth is an abstract concept.
I already know that your response is going to be by making some different definition for the word truth than what the rest of the world uses that word to mean and saying that is what you meant by truth and you already know that my response is going to be that making up your own meaning for words that already have meanings is stupid because it damages our ability to communicate effectively. Funny how that works.
On that note... are females allowed to be priests in the 'nation of priests' that you have spoken of before? Just a simple yes or no would save both of us lots of time, since I am telling you right now that I don't care about any additional preaching that you attach to the answer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WisdomofAges
Why did you change your name? I liked vi_spex better.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
What kind of answer are you even expecting?
This is so simple a seven year old could understand, and I have already given many examples. Here is yet another example, this one given in the form of an analogy/parable:
--------------------
A: Hey B, we are having a conversation on the topic of 'magic', but since there are so many different ideas about how magic can work in popular culture I have a question to help me understand the version of magic that you are thinking of.
B: OK then A, it is important to be on the same page about something like this. Ask your question.
A: Well, in the type of magic system I was thinking of magical wands are required to use magic and each use of magic drains energy from the wand. How does this compare with your idea of magic?
B: In the version I was thinking of energy is drained, so the ideas in our head match on that point, but in my version the energy is actually drained from the person doing magic. Also, no magical items are required but they do exist.
A: Wow, so you are saying that the idea in my head differs from the idea in your head on the point of magic items being required, but agrees on the point of energy being used?
B: Yes, that is what I said. You layed out a brief description of the idea in your head, then I compared and contrasted it with the idea in my head.
A: Wow. Now that we finally have a basic understanding of the ideas in eachothers heads we can actually have a useful conversation on the topic of magic. We can now talk about what we like and dislike about eachothers magic systems, and even go into more detail such as discussing what is possible in each of our magic systems.
B: Yes, truly such deeper conversations would have been impossible if we had not first layed out the basics. I see now that these deeper conversations and deeper understandings on the topic of magic are the reason you asked that question in the first place. I am glad that I chose to answer your question rather than say something arrogant like "you already know everything about my version of how magic is done because mine is the super-duper ultimate way of doing things"
--------------------
The rest of your post is just you being a smartass. You know that is not what I meant by the word 'relationship' based on reading the wording of the first three times I asked the question (unless you did not read it the first three times I asked, which would explain a lot).
This is me asking for a fifth time...
I believe in some natural things such as toenails and ice cream cones, I do not believe in any supernatural things such as ghosts or abstract concepts creating universes. How, given this information, would you classify how I perceive what you refer to as the 'ultimate reality'
Created:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Have you considered singing alone in the shower for practice?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Funny how many claims of arrogance you throw around given how many people here are willing to talk to you about your worldview on a level which you would not be willing to consider others beliefs because of your presuppositions.You would get a lot more out of our conversation if you weren't rude.
Check the post above yours.
Because it has been a few days with no answer I have to assume (possibly incorrectly, but I think justifiably) that you are implying that post answers your question.
It obviously doesn't...
Fourth time, then. Please tell me my relationship with the 'ultimate reality' given the information I have told you.
Created:
Posted in:
Maybe it would be better if you didn't presume to understand anything and go back to the basics.
Your lack of self-awareness is fascinating.
You know what ultimate reality means.
If that was true I would not be asking. Even if it was true and I asked anyway to be an asshole you could still answer (assuming you actually had a useful definition)
If these answers don't conclusively address your questions, please be considerate of the fact that I only have 15 minute breaks to respond, so being brief would be appreciated.
That is fair, I can wait until you have time. DART is far from the most important thing in my life and it would be stupid for me to expect for it to be the most important thing in yours just because I asked you a question.
Still we both know you have not addressed my question. If you could do so when you have time that would be great.
How - given what I have said about my 'worldview' - do I perceive the 'ultimate reality' you speak so much of?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I would say that it is silly to think that there can be reality at all without Ultimate Reality.
This sentence is meaningless. Without a useful definition of "ultimate reality" nobody can agree or disagree with this statement.
The Ultimate Reality is not a concept, it is what it is. We use concepts to describe it, but what else can we do? We are after all, using the medium of creation to describe the Uncreated.
You don't use anything at all to describe it. Every time someone asks you to explain your "ultimate reality" idea you just say "it is god" or dodge the question, you never actually describe it. The only exception was post 80 of the latest Bible reading thread where you gave a description of the concept of "reality" then heavily implied that this is your conception of "ultimate reality" despite previously claiming the two are seperate.
I have twice asked a question to which the answer is important, and you have twice refused to answer. I will ask again here:
I believe in some natural things such as toenails, plastic bottles, trees, etc. I do not believe in any supernatural things such as the afterlife, heaven, hell, the idea that abstract concepts such as truth are capable of creating universes, etc. It doesn't matter whether you agree that I am correct about this, that is not my question. My question is the same - how would you classify my perception of your "ultimate reality" concept?
I will even simplify it further (it is already so ridiculously simple that this should not be necessary but here goes)
by offering some possibilities:
Does this "worldview" I have described mean that I accept the 'ultimate reality'?
Does it mean that I reject it?
Does it mean that I am indifferent about it?
Does it mean that I am one with it?
Does it mean I am seperate from it?
Does it mean that I AM the 'ultimate reality'?
Does it mean all these things together?
Have I not presented enough information for you to be able to tell? (If so, what else do you need to know? Just ask.)
Does it mean something else entirely?
I look forward to reading your response to this post then asking this same question a fourth time because you refuse to answer it again.
Created:
Posted in:
I admit that proposal 2 was the one I was most concerned about. I accept that it did not go my way because bsh clearly stayed the rules beforehand and the votes did not make the requirements and I believe the mods are honest enough that they would have instituted the log if it had met the requirements, regardless of their personal opinions on the subject.
However I would like to ask whether there are currently any plans on revisiting the issue at a later date. I ask this not because I am disappointed that it did not go my way, but rather because it did recieve a signifigant number of "yes" votes (contrast this with the near-unanimous agreement on proposals 1 and 3) and I cannot be sure what the result would have been if this MEEP thread was more widely advertised and allowed more time for the community to notice its existence and more importantly to discuss the proposals. I personally only noticed this thread by chance as I was browsing through the forum in general and came quite close to not even knowing it existed despite being a relatively active member of the site.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Reality as it actually is. Reality in the truest sense of the world. Eternal unchanging reality. The reality that there is no reality apart from.
So... Reality, then. Yes. I am familiar with the concept.
Contrast that, ultimate reality with the reality of....Toenails.
Toenails are real. I guarantee they are definately 100% super-duper real, I am sure of it. If we were colocated I could prove it to you.
You didn't answer my question though.
Once again the question was this: imagine a person that believes in physical things but does not believe that an afterlife exists and does not believe that abstract concepts are capable of creating universes. How would you characterize that persons view of your "ultimate reality"? How would you characterize that persons view of "reality"?
Created:
-->
@Mopac
You claim that "ultimate reality" is a non-arbitrary, useful term but also that it is a different concept than actual reality (though you intentionally leave any explanation vague besides saying "that's what God is")
So, I believe toenails are real. I don't believe that the afterlife is real or that abstract concepts like "truth" can cause universes to exist. How then would you classify my perception regarding the trinity of the ultimate reality, the super-duper reality, and actual reality?
Created:
I personally prefer the 'super-duper' reality. It is an equally useful term, but sounds 20% more badass (at the expense of also sounding only 0.3% more childish, a fair trade)
In fact, that is how I am going to refer to reality from now on.
Created:
Posted in:
In trying to understand the Biblical teachings for attaining heaven there are several parables supposedly spoken by Jesus on the subject. After reading some of these I have a few questions which seem relevant to the analogies made but do not seem to be answered within the parables themselves.
The first:
"Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind:Which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away.So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just,And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
So the good fish are gathered up and the bad thrown away to die. This does seem like a bad fate which would make one want to avoid being in the category of a bad fish.
Here is my question though... what do fishermen do with the fish that they have collected in containers?
The second:
Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?
But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.
For clarity, "tares" are a type of weed. I could have used a quote from a version of the Bible that used modern english to convey the same exact message with less confusion but there are those that would have thrown a tantrum if I used any version other than the KJV... despite it being the same exact message... Moving on now.
In this parable the weeds are gathered up and burned. Again this is a bad fate, being burned in a fire sounds quite bad indeed.
I need to know, however... what is the fate of the good wheat that was collected in the barn?
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
I disagree with your explanation. Genocide like murder is not simply about people being killed. It requires particular elements to it. One of those is that it is committed by a person; namely a human. Murder cannot be committed by an animal. Animals do kill people, but they cannot be murderers. God is not a human. He cannot commit genocide - even if he kills the entire planet and everything on it. I am not talking morals here - I am talking definitions and concepts.
Genocide (v.) - The deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation.
Nothing about being human there... unless you agree that only humans are capable of doing this, which as far as I know you don't.
It is an absurdity to suggest that God is under the jurisdiction of human thinking. Perhaps your idea of God might be - but the God of the bible is not under such a jurisdiction. I often wonder whether the god you discuss is Aristotle's or Plato's god. A god who is subject to the laws of nature. This notion of god is quite different to the concept in Scripture of Almighty God. Other gods getting a mention in the bible probably fall into the same category as the Greek philosopher's to an extent.
Definately talking about the Bible. The problem isn't your use of the word 'God', the problem is your use of the word 'genocide'.
Hence, I think the discussion about whether God may or may not be morally have justification to commit genocide - presumes much - and I do not concede that point at all. Btw - I think God could kill every human being and be justified. I take the view that he has not killed everyone a supreme example of mercy. Mercy means not getting what is deserved. Grace being its reverse - getting what is not deserved. humanity deserves rightly to be killed by God. The fact that he lets any survive is an act of mercy - and that they receive extended life - supreme grace.
Like I said before I am not the one saying genocide is morally abhorent. That would be your conscience saying that, not me.
You are the one that brought morality into it. Remember that.
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
Atheists sometimes come over as arguing that god exists but is a genocidal maniac, but that isn't what we atheists believe! The god YHWH depicted in he bible is not 'nice'. The ancients did not think of gods as being 'nice' - they were powerful and capricious rulers and had to be constanty placated with flattery and sacrifices. Step 1 is to see that much; step 2 is to see that gods are the imaginings of our superstitious past.No-one is seriously proposing that YHWH is really a genocidal maniac. if he existed as desribed in the text he would be a maniac, but god does not exist in the first place.
Yeah, this is obviously true and is just one of many reasons I have intentionally avoided making any moral judgement regarding the god of the Bible. If you ever notice me slipping out of the mindset of that fair and neutral view please correct me.
Created:
So it is not about what you believe. Most atheists aren't nihilists. Most atheists don't know any better. It is about what your words mean, and when you are in denial of God, you are either saying that you don't believe anything is ultimately real or that there is no ultimate reality.
I believe in toenails. I do not believe in a being that created mankind, nor do I believe in an afterlife. This is a stupid strawman. Please find a better one.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Atheism is nihilism. Your stated belief is that you don't believe anything is ultimately real.
Any definition of the words 'athiest' and 'God'
that leads to the conclusion that I, in your words, "don't believe anything is real" is obviously a stupid definition. I believe toenails are real, for one thing. There are millions of other things too but I need only name one to disprove the notion that I "do not believe in anything".
I doubt that your apologetics match your theology. You would never describe God in this way if you were having an honest conversation about the concept rather than trying to convince people of a point. How transparent.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
I think communication would be easier if you used the same definitions for words that other people use. I have said this before, but really imagine if I took a few words and just made up my own definition for them. People would rightly see me as a fool, even if they would agree with my claims if they used the same definitions as I.
If I said "Witches should be burned at the stake" people would tell me I am an idiot, and they would be right.
If I explained to them that my definition of a witch is "A person that rapes women every chance they get" and my definition of burning at the stake is "locked up in prison" people would tell me I am an idiot, and they would be right.
If I said "A person that rapes women every chance they get should be locked up in prison" people would not tell me I am an idiot, most would agree with me.
Using proper words is important.
Created: