the preamble...
The next post will be my final one (or it won't be) on the topic of "what's wrong with atheists."
It occurred to me after reading the responses to the most recent two [1] [2] items on this subject that we need to cover some basic ground first. Establish foundations, so to speak.
The first foundation stone then is the subject of definitions. The first law of philosophy is 'define your terms'. Nowhere does it say that you have to agree with a definition. All it says is that this is the definition used within the boundaries of this work and as such that's where it ends. If you want to have a debate about my definitions be aware that I do not have to accept your definition any more than you have to accept mine and therefore why bother.
All a definition does is to provide a means of trying to understand what the writer is trying to say. A definition sets boundaries for understanding meaning. It does not pretend to be the bees knees of definitions. I'll leave the study of Superior Meanings to the Meaning Fascists. They can be found soaring the upper altitudes of the blogostratosphere. This plane don't fly that high... Nor do we want sudden and catastrophic depressurisation due to a smashed windscreen caused by birdstrike... Save the Philosophic Vultures , I say....
The second foundation stone is "Don't ever, EVER, forget the first foundation stone."
So, before we get going in a day or two, let's use this preamble to get all of the cat-calls out of the way. Got problems? Speak now, or forever hold your piece [sic]...
It occurred to me after reading the responses to the most recent two [1] [2] items on this subject that we need to cover some basic ground first. Establish foundations, so to speak.
The first foundation stone then is the subject of definitions. The first law of philosophy is 'define your terms'. Nowhere does it say that you have to agree with a definition. All it says is that this is the definition used within the boundaries of this work and as such that's where it ends. If you want to have a debate about my definitions be aware that I do not have to accept your definition any more than you have to accept mine and therefore why bother.
All a definition does is to provide a means of trying to understand what the writer is trying to say. A definition sets boundaries for understanding meaning. It does not pretend to be the bees knees of definitions. I'll leave the study of Superior Meanings to the Meaning Fascists. They can be found soaring the upper altitudes of the blogostratosphere. This plane don't fly that high... Nor do we want sudden and catastrophic depressurisation due to a smashed windscreen caused by birdstrike... Save the Philosophic Vultures , I say....
The second foundation stone is "Don't ever, EVER, forget the first foundation stone."
So, before we get going in a day or two, let's use this preamble to get all of the cat-calls out of the way. Got problems? Speak now, or forever hold your piece [sic]...
posted by The Editor at
12:39 PM
17 Comments:
"Nothing in this blog can be believed." ;P
I had this revelation the other night. While I was praying, I discovered that I was talking to myself.
Oh, Mike, you can believe it, so long as you use ANOTHER source as your primary source... And then you can tack on the comment "Gerry agrees with (primary source) and see how much extra credibility you harvest by doing that... ;-P
Don't like your chances though... :-)
I guess it depends on whether human beings decide whether they want to live in analogue .. or digital time.
Self has yet to escape analogue, but has fun with digital.
Stuff atheists, stuff agnostics, stuff religion, stuff gods of all description, stuff philosophy, stuff misogynists, stuff misandrists, stuff Howard, stuff ASIO and that ought to make the world bearable.
There was a time in history when the atom was considered the smallest indivisible particle. The Manhattan Project proved otherwise. From my point of view "god" (for want of a better word) is the sum total of all the energy available in the universe. Sort of undefinable and not quantifiable. All quibbles about which "god" is strongest is a sort of democratic, political human endeavour. ("Hey, my god is the best, rally to this side, we need the troops.")
On the other hand, if all is pure energy, why is it that when i bang my head on the desk in sheer philosophical frustration, I bleed. Curious.
My god give out free sunlight .. from whence all lollypops come .. heh. Doh. (bangs head on desk yet again. There is no hope for some people. ;-))
JahTeh, Not sure what you're getting at there... But maybe I do... If it will ease yours and others' minds, I plan soon to put this blog into suspended animation and exit the blogosphere. I just need to say a few more things to round off some rough edges. Then I will leave it up as a testament to my insanity, to remain hanging there, in limbo, till all Blogger blogs instantly evaporate with a flick of Google's corporate switch.
Bluey, I agree with P1, P2, and the possibility that the universes are just part of one humungous fractal.
"I have never understood the veracity of 'angels on a pinhead' discussions about religion, God, universal beliefs etc."
It just goes to show that any conversation quickly degenrates into obfuscation, equivocation and other sinfully sophist behaviour. As I'll point out in my next post, Atheists are experts at this too.
"It is only when one person's beliefs interferes with that of another, does it become an issue. And that is an issue of Conflict Resolution, not of philosophy or religion."
Now you're talking! I've never heard it put that way before! That's excellent! Do you include Atheists slagging off at religions in that pardigm?
"One way may be to teach him how to create his own guardian monster, stronger and better than any other"
Very similar to the dream work the Senoi tribe use to teach their kids.
Also similar to the primary operating principle used when one is doing (Spiritualist - for want of a better term) exorcisms. Nothing to do wit the way the Catholics do it.
"If the pattern of God is in the universe, then it is also within us."
As a metaphor I like the fractal thing, but as a mathematical equation, well, what's the equation for God? What are the variables?
What was Tesla working on? What was Reich working on? Were they the same thing? And why don't we crash the global economy by putting that information on the net? Forgive this last, I just couldn't help getting a bit impish...
Forgive me if I cannot follow along with much of this discussion in the detailed, philosophical, and adversarial vein in which you seem to be proceeding, but can't much of this discussion be simplified into a few statements? I'll try here.
Humans are social animals. It's simply human nature to want to belong to a group, a tribe, a community, a pack--whatever. Very very few of us are happy being entirely alone. It's simple human nature to want to be accepted by others with similar interests and values and beliefs, and then (to a lesser extent) influence others to come into the fold.
Some people believe in God, some don't.
Be it right or wrong, those who do believe in God have allied themselves into different groups (religions, faiths, even nations-- whatever). The next natural step is to try to influence governments, policies, and society to be sympathetic to their beliefs and motives.
What's so odd about those who don't believe in God wishing to come together as well, especially (for example) when the religious interests start meddling with government and policy (as they are doing in the USA with science education)?
Sorry, Gerry, maybe this wasn't the place for this comment, but I wasn't sure where that place is. Delete it if you will if it's off-topic.
The Bear's a mind reader now.
If you quit I'll form a hunting party. We'll follow the trail of dismembered atheists.
There's nothing wrong, imho, in admitting that you don't know. I don't, but I'm also bloody sure that I don't want someone else selling me their particular version of reality. I got tricked - yes, tricked once into signing up, when I was but a wee tacker, and after that I decided never again, if they have to descend to that level. Picking on innocent kids.
I'm perfectly happy with the notion of energy, provide some total stranger doesn't accost me and try to convince me that "Energy says you should do this, Energy says do not do that, etc etc."
Gerry, I can understand - sort of, I know I really don't, but I'm locked into social norms - if you want to give it away. But I'll miss your particular view on this life. If you trurn in a different guise, do let me know.
"If you return..."
stupid fingers, stupid keys....
Hooley dooley!!! Ok, I'll try and respond...
Bluey: About fractals, I'm no higher level mathematician but as understand it, a fractals are generally two dimensional, multi coloured representations of AN EQUATION. (Hey, that probably means that they COULD also be represented in THREE dimensions - wow, that would be mind-blowingly cool.)
But... As I understand it, they are still REPRESENTATIONS of a mathematical equation, not the other way around.
Therefore, if the universe is a fractal, there MUST be an equation for it. And if you now wish to postulate that God is in there too, then that equation is also the equation for God. A very bold hypothesis indeed. And scientifically verifyable... Let me know when they crack that equation... In the meantime... Waiting is...
About atheists, you nicley pre-empted much of what I'll be addressing (and even adding more colour to it) in the next post, which I will now delay for a bit longer till this beautiful thread runs its course.
And I don't care what you say, I believe I'm an imp. Maybe an imp who occasionally dons bovver boots, but an imp... :-)
Kurt: Yes, I often tend to adversarial. Do you know many Vietnam vets who suffer from PTSD? How many of them are calm, placid, non-adversarial Ghandi-like gurus? I've put up a fair disclaimer on this blog, those who have a problem with my imperfect character are always free to stop coming here. Please don't explode a blood vessel, old Kurt, but if my nature is intolerable to you, or a vexation to your spiritual equilibrium, then you need to take the appropriate action. And you know what that is.
The rest of your comment is absolutely fine by me, Kurt. I'm even in total agreement with all of it. But I will not deal with it here because this is merely the preamble. I will, however, refer to it (via link-back) when I do that post.
All I'm doing here is saying (for VERY good reason, that the ONLY definitions within which I will debate what I say in that post, will be the definitions as I define them in that post. About this, we could have a debate here if anyone has problems with this idea (because they sure did before!!!) :-)
JahTeh:
[1] Nothing in this blog can be believed...
[2] Abandon all hope ye who enter here...
[3] If I kept blogging, it would always be to rant about five or six major issues over and over and over and over again... I feel I've (nearly) said enough about them.
[4] I never said I would't start a completely different flavour of blog elsewhere. But if I did, it would be anonymous and no one from here (or anywhere else) would know about it unless they stumbled across it themselves. Sorry if this is unacceptable... Oh, and there would be absolutley NO links given or invited, or even condoned. Such a blog would only ever have a very select and very tiny readership. To spare the rest of the world...
Double hooley dooley! Phil entered the fray whilst I was typing the previous.
Thanks for the vote of confidence, Phil, but even I can only rage against the machine for so long. It's like the whole human race has lost the plot. Of course the truth is, it's me who's lost the plot. One more reason to stop boring people or providing silly entertainment along the lines of "watch the fool."
And yes, as I said to JahTeh, I do have another idea for a blog but I doubt anyone from here would ever stumble across it, and even if they did they wouldn't know it was me. And I would deny all knowledge of me. It would be 100% anonymous.
Sorry...
Bluey: You're not posting too much. Relax. This blog (generally) works on the basis that too many posts are bearly enough... ;-)
If a particular commment is utter crap I'll either ignore it or delete it. But none of yours have even gone close. And you don't strike me as a crap-commenter. Now I AM a crap commenter - just ask the other bloggers...:-(
So, back to fractals.
Am I not correct in saying that if the universe/god is a fractal, there has to be an equation for this?
Thanks for the 3D fractal info. But we're still locked into equations here. All software can do is process equations and commands. So back to the fractal universe now: I assert that if the universe/God is a fractal, then there must be an equation. If there is an equation then we will be able to create software to duplicate/manipulate the universe/God thingie. Neat trick if you can pull it off... What would Father Bob think of that one? :-)
And no, I don't think I'd like to be thought of as Loki. He was a shyster by all accounts.
Bluey said: "I should probably point out some time that in none of these posts, am I debating from a particular stance or religious positioning. I am neither postulating for or against 'thesim of any flavour."
Neither am I old son, neither am I.
Second World: Interesting. Maybe I should go live there. I have too much trouble with the real world.
Synchronisity at work. Just before I logged on here I posted about Second Life but I wasn't looking at Father Bob or religion.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
==========
<<<<< Home
==========