Ethical Atheist vs believer in God

[Postmaster]

I'd like to hear this reasoning if you care to explain, please.

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Postmaster

Does anyone sometimes feel like there heads going to explode? lol I'm starting to theorise that we need ignorance to protect our minds of the infinite constant rays of information we receive and we need philosophy to put everything we learn in dynamic order. Maybe Philosophy + Ignorance = Religion

There's probably more to what you say here than many would be comfortable with realizing...

But then, I can't help but think that ignorance is a necessary operating parameter of any meme...

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

There's probably more to what you say here than many would be comfortable with realizing...

But then, I can't help but think that ignorance is a necessary operating parameter of any meme...

Now if I said that !

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Now if I said that !

Ah, but did you catch the gist?...it includes *all* memes...including the scientific one. It was pointed as much at you as at any / every one else...including myself.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Ah, but did you catch the gist?...it includes *all* memes...including the scientific one. It was pointed as much at you as at any / every one else...including myself.

I feel the same way. I just disagree that a meme has to have anything to do with 'faith' of any kind. But at the end of the day we are all going to live out our own realities regardless of what we say here. It doesnt matter as soon as we charge the post button and move on. The things we discuss are a part of our living realities and how lucky amongst all the people who ever lived that we have the luxury of having time to think and throw our thoughts back and forth at each other. Sometimes I can succumb to the streak of real cynicism that runs through me about the value of any word I type. Not because I doubt the philosophy I espouse but I feel like "who gives a t055". So I love and appreciate you guys, you help keep me thinking - as you will all know this is a double-edged sword in itself, but none of it changes anything really. Fundamental preconceptions are not going to move. There is no winning an argument here and there cannot be as we share different definitions of reasoning. And the biggest truth of all is that we are all wrong. Except me of course

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

And the biggest truth of all is that we are all wrong. Especially me of course

Truer words were never spoken.

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Not sure either - to be honest, not sure panentheists are sure either.

I think a key problem is that as humans we try and understand existence in human terms, when the universe is larger than that. It's kind of like an amoeba trying to explain existence in amoeboid terms - it may make sense ot other amoeba, but does it really understand anything fundamentally?

Yep. Of course, that's kinda hard to get this idea across to anybody who is certain they already have it figured out. In amoeboid terms they might have it figured out, but as for any actual understanding they are limited by their place in reality. Ego of course would never allow them to realize their limitations, even in those rare brief moments when they can be shown the factual limitations.

Alas, what's a philosopher to do?

[Postmaster]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

I feel the same way. I just disagree that a meme has to have anything to do with 'faith' of any kind. But at the end of the day we are all going to live out our own realities regardless of what we say here.

I disagree with this. Something I've spent alot of time the past year is thinking about how we as humans interact socially. I knew there was interesting things going on with human interaction. So I started to read books by Derren Brown see if I could get any hints and later other (more informative) books. And started to try understand charisma, which later got thinking about Cassanova and Rasputin. Think I made a nice disocovery.

Here's an interesting concept for you.

calibrate - make fine adjustments or divide into marked intervals for optimal measuring; "calibrate an instrument"; "graduate a cylinder"

It’s not easy for people to make huge calibration (adjustments) to the way they think and behave but we are constantly micro-calibrating with the way we think and behave to our surroundings, our environment and social interactions. To speed up and make larger calibrations we need to throw and push ourselves there where the adjustments need. Here's an example I remember when I first joined this forum, my spellings were terrible, my writing and explanations were even worse, my ideas were standard, the way I debated was aggressive. But a couple of years down the line with persistence and effort I fine tuned myself or better calibrated myself for this forum and thus my value in the forum has increased. And I think even if people are not making huge calibrations whether they like it or not they are still micro calibrating. To make huge calibrations you need to learn off someone who has more value then you and for this to happen they need to be quite open with you and attempt to teach you, or even as something as spending time effort with you. If you are then teaching or giving value to help someone calibrate more you hold the charisma.

I like to think that truth is shattered into countless pieces and that each person holds a piece of this truth. Through your social interactions you slowly discover these pieces of truth either through effort or simply circumstances.

For example a beautiful lady is more likely to get more approaches by people then your average guy. And people will be more willing to help her and teach her then say your average looking bloke. Therefore by time she is 30 her social intuition/calibration is more likely to be higher then the average bloke who is 30.


I probably haven't explained this properly but it makes sense to me

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Postmaster

I disagree with this. Something I've spent alot of time the past year is thinking about how we as humans interact socially. I knew there was interesting things going on with human interaction. So I started to read books by Derren Brown see if I could get any hints and later other (more informative) books. And started to try understand charisma, which later got thinking about Cassanova and Rasputin. Think I made a nice disocovery.

Here's an interesting concept for you.

calibrate - make fine adjustments or divide into marked intervals for optimal measuring; "calibrate an instrument"; "graduate a cylinder"

It’s not easy for people to make huge calibration (adjustments) to the way they think and behave but we are constantly micro-calibrating with the way we think and behave to our surroundings, our environment and social interactions. To speed up and make larger calibrations we need to throw and push ourselves there where the adjustments need. Here's an example I remember when I first joined this forum, my spellings were terrible, my writing and explanations were even worse, my ideas were standard, the way I debated was aggressive. But a couple of years down the line with persistence and effort I fine tuned myself or better calibrated myself for this forum and thus my value in the forum has increased. And I think even if people are not making huge calibrations whether they like it or not they are still micro calibrating. To make huge calibrations you need to learn off someone who has more value then you and for this to happen they need to be quite open with you and attempt to teach you, or even as something as spending time effort with you. If you are then teaching or giving value to help someone calibrate more you hold the charisma.

I like to think that truth is shattered into countless pieces and that each person holds a piece of this truth. Through your social interactions you slowly discover these pieces of truth either through effort or simply circumstances.

For example a beautiful lady is more likely to get more approaches by people then your average guy. And people will be more willing to help her and teach her then say your average looking bloke. Therefore by time she is 30 her social intuition/calibration is more likely to be higher then the average bloke who is 30.


I probably haven't explained this properly but it makes sense to me

There has been a lot of research into what types of men different types of women are attracted to. Beautiful women seem to choose handsome men who are displaying similar or greater affluence than themselves. A good looking self-successful women is very unlikely to date a acne covered unemployed guy with low intelligence. Mostly people choose a partner that is more or less like them. Unless you want to get into the small percentage of women who are highly promiscuous or those searching for genetic variety women almost always choose someone from their own social background or slightly above.
Women have clearly been demonstrated to be more receptive to prospective partners when they are ovulating and such women are quite easy to spot. In fact many women unconsciously time their nights out to coincide with their peek points of fertility. I have also found women especially receptive as they approach menopause, though I presume this to be a psychological as much as a chemical causation at work.
But all women are different. I have had opportunistic encounters where hardly a word was exchanged, chat is not always required. Indeed just listening and prompting is a highly successful strategy. Casanova and Rasputin also carefully nurtured their reputation which in extended social groups is an excellent, if sometimes dangerous, strategy. Women hate to feel they are missing out on something and reputation alone can give you access to women that are not naturally promiscuous. But what works best of all is persistence. Riding the law of averages the more you try the more you get. Many men fear the rejection of a "no" or a "get lost" as though it would somehow terminate their lives. Where in truth even the no's become fun. It is all a big game really. And if you can laugh at the no maybe next time you ask the no will not be so firm, and the next might be a smile....
A lot depends on what you are looking for. I am basing this all on the promiscuous characters you mention. Looking for a long term relationship can be quite different. But if sex is important to you being as promiscuous as possible between them will soon show you the type of woman that suits you. I know I could not endure a faithful long term relationship with a woman I did not have a naturally electric sex life with. But after 19 years in comitted relationships I have now enjoyed 6 years of uncommitted bachelorhood... and I am enjoying it far too much to give it up

[c0de]

Originally Posted by Postmaster

I'd like to hear this reasoning if you care to explain, please.

It's actually pretty simple, and I have
already outlined the thesis itself.

Step#1

"Knowledge=Objectivity vs Man=Subjectivity
Therefore: Knowledge > Philosophy"

This much is almost undisputed ever since Kant's
Critique of Pure Reason. However, Kierkegaard
takes this one step further but this is only
applicable to some who want to take this step.
However, those that do take this step can easily
defend it based on the reasoning from Step#1
and just following it along to its conclusion.

Step #2

"God=Objectivity vs Philosophy=Subjectivity
Therefore: Revelation > Human Morality"

[Postmaster]

Casanova and Rasputin also carefully nurtured their reputation which in extended social groups is an excellent, if sometimes dangerous, strategy. Women hate to feel they are missing out on something and reputation alone can give you access to women that are not naturally promiscuous.

Women like alot of other animals even many kinds of birds, have a pre-selection attraction switch hardwired into there brains. You could probably get there neurons shooting on a scare crow if there was another women interested in it. Body language gives away lack of or full of expereince of women too so that could alter there attraction for you aswell.

[Postmaster]

Originally Posted by c0de

It's actually pretty simple, and I have
already outlined the thesis itself.

Step#1

"Knowledge=Objectivity vs Man=Subjectivity
Therefore: Knowledge > Philosophy"

This much is almost undisputed ever since Kant's
Critique of Pure Reason. However, Kierkegaard
takes this one step further but this is only
applicable to some who want to take this step.
However, those that do take this step can easily
defend it based on the reasoning from Step#1
and just following it along to its conclusion.

Step #2

"God=Objectivity vs Philosophy=Subjectivity
Therefore: Revelation > Human Morality"

Thanks, this line of thought I'm still considering to be fair. I got things like evolution blocking my full faith in Abrehamic faiths. I think the wonders of logical thought for medicine that is then used to cure millions of people and relief there suffering is miraculous. Evolution is used to understand why we behave the way we do and is an important part of biology. But evolution contradicts the way people of Abrehamic faiths are suppose to believe how creation happened. You can thank people like Leonardo Di Vinci for being the brainchild of some medical advancements we even use till today, an Atheist.

[c0de]

Originally Posted by Postmaster

Thanks, this line of thought I'm still considering to be fair. I got things like evolution blocking my full faith in Abrehamic faiths. I think the wonders of logical thought for medicine that is then used to cure millions of people and relief there suffering is miraculous. Evolution is used to understand why we behave the way we do and is an important part of biology. But evolution contradicts the way people of Abrehamic faiths are suppose to believe how creation happened. You can thank people like Leonardo Di Vinci for being the brainchild of some medical advancements we even use till today, an Atheist.

Well, as far as evolution goes, it only contradicts a literal reading
of the Biblical scriptures, and does not contradict the Quran at all.

and Da Vinci was Catholic btw

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by c0de

Well, as far as evolution goes, it only contradicts a literal reading
of the Biblical scriptures, and does not contradict the Quran at all.

and Da Vinci was Catholic btw

Not from a Catholic perspective, it doesn't. You see, one can not expect the first book to be literal, yet allow the last book to be symbolic in its representation (e.g. the world was made in six- 24 hour days as noted from an earthly perspective in the book of Genesis, yet the statue of Daniel is a symbol of eras of kingdoms, as is the seven headed beast of Revelation).

Ironic, that Leonardo Da Vinci, Galileo Galilei, Nicolas Copernicus, Isaac Newton, Louis Pasteur, Antoine Lavoisier, Erwin Schrodinger, Andreas Vesalius, Marie Currie, Gregor Mendel, to name a few, were all Catholics, yet had no trouble embracing science, including for many that understood, the concept of evolution.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Not from a Catholic perspective, it doesn't. You see, one can not expect the first book to be literal, yet allow the last book to be symbolic in its representation (e.g. the world was made in six- 24 hour days as noted from an earthly perspective in the book of Genesis, yet the statue of Daniel is a symbol of eras of kingdoms, as is the seven headed beast of Revelation).

Ironic, that Leonardo Da Vinci, Galileo Galilei, Nicolas Copernicus, Isaac Newton, Louis Pasteur, Antoine Lavoisier, Erwin Schrodinger, Andreas Vesalius, Marie Currie, Gregor Mendel, to name a few, were all Catholics, yet had no trouble embracing science, including for many that understood, the concept of evolution.

All born in geographically catholic regions making the claim meaningless.