That should be your forum rank.Exi5tentialist wrote: So many unanswered questions.

That should be your forum rank.Exi5tentialist wrote: So many unanswered questions.
"...anyone who says it’s “just the Internet” can. And then when they come back, they can
again." - Tigger
Beyond a second sentence, Zilla can only communicate in pictures, lest he stumble headlong into the quagmire of his own fauxlosophy.Zombie Gawdzilla wrote:
There is an eternity in each moment. Within each division of a measure of time there exists an infinite span. Time is not some particulate conglomerate of matter, it is not made up of protons, neutrons and electrons or quarks. There is an infinite span from one division to the next which cannot be quantified. We impose a measure on time which suits us and our perception of it, but time is not constrained by these measures. Everything is relative. Eternity for one person may well be their life. Is our measure of time a meaningful concept applied in the absence of consciousness? What is time to the universe? The measure is imposed by us. It not an absolute, simply a convenient and subjective way for us to quantify the time passed between one event and another. We often project our subjective quantification far into the future in an attempt to make plans or predict the sequence of events, and it serves us whether our plans do or our predictions are accurate or not. It is, however, an error or misconception of the true nature of time to suggest that 'eternity' is an absolute. That it has any meaning beyond what we are here to impose upon time with it. Thus just as time is fluid, so is are the applications of the concept of eternity. It is not incorrect then to say that "I have always been an atheist", as eternity applies equally well to the span of time that one person has been living as it does to the most infinitesimal measure of time you care to quantify.Exi5tentialist wrote:You only need to mention the last 56 years then. To bring in the whole of eternity and everything that preceded it is not only unnecessary but profoundly religious. But given what you said, I doubt you'd ever understand that.Geoff wrote:Fail. No mention of eternity is necessary. I've been in existence 56 years, and have been an atheist all that time. Therefore I've "never been anything but an atheist".Exi5tentialist wrote: Only God is eternal. To deny something into eternity is to make an alliance with God. Therefore 'never' is a deeply, deeply religious idea. I would never use the word, personally.
You really aren't very good at this, are you?
Don't you think 'suggest' is a better word than 'assume'? Perhaps if you were to say, "you suggest most atheists are really closet believers in the residual cultural ruins of christianity," you might be closer to the mark. But absurd? Surely that's an unnecessary exaggeration?Zombie Gawdzilla wrote:You assume atheists are really closet believers. That's absurd.
You are a believer and a potential priest according to Exi. So there.FBM wrote:I remember the moment I became an atheist. I was in undergrad studying to get into seminary to become an Episcopal priest. From Episcopalianism to atheism isn't that great of a leap, actually.
Do you apply anything resembling the scientific methodology in formulating these ideas? If so then your suggestion may be reclassified as a hypothesis. A hypothesis is created through the application of inductive reasoning to acquired data, or evidence if you like.Exi5tentialist wrote:Don't you think 'suggest' is a better word than 'assume'? Perhaps if you were to say, "you suggest most atheists are really closet believers in the residual cultural ruins of christianity," you might be closer to the mark. But absurd? Surely that's an unnecessary exaggeration?Zombie Gawdzilla wrote:You assume atheists are really closet believers. That's absurd.
But what if I don't believe Exi5? And what if I don't have any urge to rape choirboys? That ought to disqualify me right there.Zombie Rum wrote:You are a believer and a potential priest according to Exi. So there.FBM wrote:I remember the moment I became an atheist. I was in undergrad studying to get into seminary to become an Episcopal priest. From Episcopalianism to atheism isn't that great of a leap, actually.
Does any of that work in Christianity, though? That is after all the cultural root of our civilisation, and it is the cultural overhang of Christianity that I was referring to when I challenged Zilla's supposedly atheist statement, "Never been anything but an atheist. Live with it." By the way, he didn't say, "I have always been an atheist," which I would have agreed might be seen to be more limited to the span of time that one person has been living.PordFrefect wrote:There is an eternity in each moment. Within each division of a measure of time there exists an infinite span. Time is not some particulate conglomerate of matter, it is not made up of protons, neutrons and electrons or quarks. There is an infinite span from one division to the next which cannot be quantified. We impose a measure on time which suits us and our perception of it, but time is not constrained by these measures. Everything is relative. Eternity for one person may well be their life. Is our measure of time a meaningful concept applied in the absence of consciousness? What is time to the universe? The measure is imposed by us. It not an absolute, simply a convenient and subjective way for us to quantify the time passed between one event and another. We often project our subjective quantification far into the future in an attempt to make plans or predict the sequence of events, and it serves us whether our plans do or our predictions are accurate or not. It is, however, an error or misconception of the true nature of time to suggest that 'eternity' is an absolute. That it has any meaning beyond what we are here to impose upon time with it. Thus just as time is fluid, so is are the applications of the concept of eternity. It is not incorrect then to say that "I have always been an atheist", as eternity applies equally well to the span of time that one person has been living as it does to the most infinitesimal measure of time you care to quantify.
With that in mind I could also refute your argument on the basis of the existence of the self - a finite span of time when an arrangement of particles which comes into being and then dissolves. As eternity is not an absolute, but rather a subjective conceptual projection, it applies to this span of time. Furthermore, one could not claim to have always been in existence because, while the particles composing your entire body may have existed for many billions of years, they not before in the configuration which gives you form, function and consciousness. In fact, it is problematic to claim one exists at all as the particles of which you are composed are constantly replaced. So it is that eternity may not only be objectively found in the most infinitesimal measure of time, but also subjectively. The concept of eternity is neither an absolute, nor is it objective nor does is it founded upon a divinity of any sort. Your argument fails.
No, it's a philosophical discussion. Science cannot address such questions.PordFrefect wrote:Do you apply anything resembling the scientific methodology in formulating these ideas?
What exactly is religious about the religious heart? If you approach religion from the angle that it is stuff made up by humans, "religious culture" is no more than a subset of anthropology, history, sociology and perhaps psychology. There is nothing religious about the religious heart.Exi5tentialist wrote:Is a religious culture without a religious heart any different from a religious culture with a religious heart?
It begins, like any journey, with the first step. Lacking a belief in the existence of a supernatural power does not, of course, mean that one has shed all the overburden one's local "religious" institutions has covered one with, but it means one is an atheist in the central meaning of that word. Then one can take another step.Exi5tentialist wrote:When does that hard work begin?
So what, in your opinion, was he, before he existed?Exi5tentialist wrote:
Does any of that work in Christianity, though? That is after all the cultural root of our civilisation, and it is the cultural overhang of Christianity that I was referring to when I challenged Zilla's supposedly atheist statement, "Never been anything but an atheist. Live with it." By the way, he didn't say, "I have always been an atheist," which I would have agreed might be seen to be more limited to the span of time that one person has been living.
"...anyone who says it’s “just the Internet” can. And then when they come back, they can
again." - Tigger
Christianity is itself internally inconsistent and doesn't 'work', but yes it is applicable as a rationalization of their concept of eternity.Exi5tentialist wrote:Does any of that work in Christianity, though?
never been ... is equivalent to I have always been. I guess you missed the point.Exi5tentialist wrote:That is after all the cultural root of our civilisation, and it is the cultural overhang of Christianity that I was referring to when I challenged Zilla's supposedly atheist statement, "Never been anything but an atheist. Live with it." By the way, he didn't say, "I have always been an atheist," which I would have agreed might be seen to be more limited to the span of time that one person has been living.
If he was anything, he wasn't an atheist.Geoff wrote:So what, in your opinion, was he, before he existed?
Nonsense. It can fully address the question of whether atheists are closet believers or not. In fact it can do so far better than philosophy.Exi5tentialist wrote:No, it's a philosophical discussion. Science cannot address such questions.PordFrefect wrote:Do you apply anything resembling the scientific methodology in formulating these ideas?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests