“Your statement that you "Unite" the two makes no sense to me so I ask for enlightenment.” – clog
Thank you for the question clog. While much that I say or don’t say may appear as avoidance and/or non-sense, in fact if examined, the cause is more that there is no function for saying more/less here at this time. The result would be more confusion. Having said this and, since I’m not sure whether I’ve ever done a quick overview of my screen name in this conference, I’ll do that now. While I don’t expect in any way to impart ‘enlightenment’ by doing this [to expect that from text in an email group is, well, rather unrealistic], I will say it as it is. Quick overview of philosophy: 3 ‘minds’ 1. relative/subjective mind = words/concepts This way of intellection is quite common and well known by us all. One thinks, has concepts, beliefs etc. 2. absolute/objective mind = that which has no components This for some reason is less often known. It is just as commonly experienced but, perhaps just not realized for what it is. 3. ornamental mind = the union of relative and absolute, consubstantially Also, there does exist a coherent praxis for achieving the last. I hope this helps but have no expectation either way. On Oct 30, 7:15 am, Clogtowner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi y'all - as I've just risen after only one night from my beauty > sleep, I'll answer both of your last posts together. > An axiom is not required for freethought. Freethinkers are quite happy > (as you know) to start from nothing and find their own evidence which > they assemble via critical thinking (rejecting some) and reason, to > arrive at their substantiated conclusion, or to find no conclusion and > delay their decision. > I don't feel that I have too many qualifiers for a god. It must have > the 3 Os and therefore powers that seem magical to us without > limitation. > You are correct in your assumption that I am not a Gnostic but you > can't dodge the issue on this board quite so easily. The situation is > not moot. I am an atheist - I have no belief in the supernatural. > Gnostics (correct me if I'm wrong) believe in the Pleroma, the > Pneumatic and the Demiurge. Your statement that you "Unite" the two > makes no sense to me so I ask for enlightenment. > > On Oct 30, 12:00 am, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Clog, you seem to have a plethora of god views! One for almost every > > occasion, eh? : - ) > > > Too many qualifiers for a true deity as far as my taste goes. So, I > > guess we won’t be able to continue our discussion about god, sorry. > > > “I'm aware of gnosticism and atheism - show me how to combine the > > two.” – clog > > > Clog, it is my understanding that you are not a gnostic, is this > > correct? IF it is, revelation won’t help. IF it is NOT correct, you > > already know. Either way, the situation is moot. > > > On Oct 29, 7:24 pm, Clogtowner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hi y'all - my statement was that having seen an alleged god with > > > magical powers etc. my first thought would be of someone from an > > > advanced civilization - that doesn't discount totally such a god. > > > Indeed the magical powers etc are a necessary part. The divinity of it > > > would depend primarily on limitations. If there were none and the > > > "being" satisfied the 3 Os then I would start to assume a certain > > > godliness. I'd ask it if it created the universe and can it do it > > > again etc. I'd summon the assistance of Stem Cell to examine it and > > > report back. > > > > Sometimes my humor........ how many times have I had to say that? My > > > comment on not having access to god was a joke about christians. Do I > > > have to spell it out? > > > > Now it is my turn: "Gnostic, from the Greek, gnosis, to know. Gnostic, > > > one who knows. > > > > > Atheist, one with no beliefs of god. Unite the two." > > > > I'm aware of gnosticism and atheism - show me how to combine the two. > > > > On Oct 29, 8:37 pm, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > “So, apparently god, for you, can not be an anthropomorphic god nor > > > > one with magical powers etc.” – old Orn > > > > > “Why not?” – clog > > > > > Because you earlier said: “If someone were to present themselves to > > > > the world as a god, throw themselves open to analysis and demonstrate > > > > magical powers, my freethinking would lead me to the probable > > > > conclusion that they were from another more advanced civilization and > > > > had some limitations on their power.” > > > > The above does not appear to meet the requirements of a god since you > > > > assume limitations. Thus, anyone who appears as this and says they are > > > > god you would make the above assumption. At least, that is the > > > > conclusion I came to when reading your words. > > > > > “…if I were to accept a god that could not be accessed, I'd be a > > > > christian.” – clog > > > > > So, when I asked you about your requirement about a description of > > > > god, you now equate that to the ability to be accessed? … and then > > > > make the link to being a christian? You do know that many systems, > > > > philosophies and theologies use negative theology and are not > > > > ‘christian’ don’t you? > > > > > Gnostic, from the Greek, gnosis, to know. Gnostic, one who knows. > > > > Atheist, one with no beliefs of god. Unite the two. > > > > > On Oct 29, 4:10 pm, Clogtowner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Hi y'all: > > > > > So, apparently god, for you, can not be an anthropomorphic god nor > > > > > one > > > > > with magical powers etc. > > > > > > Why not? > > > > > > Further, it appears that god must be definable for you in order to be > > > > > > > considered, right? > > > > > > Of course, if I were to accept a god that could not be accessed, I'd > > > > > be a christian. > > > > > > Interesting and apparently resistive response! Question, just how > > > > > > > remote is remote in this context? :-D > > > > > > It is as small as I can make it. > > > > > > At this point, the entire question about belief/non-belief is almost > > > > > > > pointless to me. In cases like this, I just say I’m a > > > > > > gnostic/atheist. > > > > > > That's because you don't live here. I'd love a definition of gnostic/ > > > > > atheist. > > > > > > On Oct 29, 5:47 pm, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > “If someone were to present themselves to the world as a god…” – > > > > > > clog > > > > > > > So, apparently god, for you, can not be an anthropomorphic god nor > > > > > > one > > > > > > with magical powers etc. > > > > > > > “The last straw would be for me to accept a god, and you'd have to > > > > > > define that god before I'd could consider it.” – clog > > > > > > > Further, it appears that god must be definable for you in order to > > > > > > be > > > > > > considered, right? > > > > > > > “Nevertheless freethought makes that a future possiblity, however > > > > > > remote.” – clog > > > > > > > Interesting and apparently resistive response! Question, just how > > > > > > remote is remote in this context? :-D > > > > > > > “How would you answer the question?” - clog > > > > > > > At this point, the entire question about belief/non-belief is almost > > > > > > pointless to me. In cases like this, I just say I’m a > > > > > > gnostic/atheist. > > > > > > I don’t know now how beliefs would make any difference to me in the > > > > > > future, so, to even attempt to project into the future seems a > > > > > > strange > > > > > > exercise. So, I too would use the term remote. > > > > > > > On Oct 29, 3:33 pm, Clogtowner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi y'all - that's quite a hypothetical one. If someone were to > > > > > > > present > > > > > > > themselves to the world as a god, throw themselves open to > > > > > > > analysis > > > > > > > and demonstrate magical powers, my freethinking would lead me to > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > probable conclusion that they were from another more advanced > > > > > > > civilization and had some limitations on their power. We enter the > > > > > > > realm of science fiction at this point. One of the few TV programs > > > > > > > that I have seen is Star Trek. The "being" Q would not be a god. > > > > > > > The last straw would be for me to accept a god, and you'd have to > > > > > > > define that god before I'd could consider it. If you define it as > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > god of the 3 Os, it would be the planck length of the last straw. > > > > > > > Nevertheless freethought makes that a future possiblity, however > > > > > > > remote. > > > > > > > How would you answer the question? > > > > > > > > On Oct 29, 5:08 pm, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > "Hi y'all - I'm saying (yet again) that the process of > > > > > > > > freethought > > > > > > > > cannot lead to theism. For me the process of freethought led to > > > > > > > > atheism but I accept that it leads elsewhere for others." - clog > > > > > > > > > Do you further reject the possibility that, at some time in the > > > > > > > > future, you could not use the process of freethought to accept > > > > > > > > theism? > > > > > > > > > On Oct 29, 2:08 pm, Clogtowner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi y'all - I'm saying (yet again) that the process of > > > > > > > > > freethought > > > > > > > > > cannot lead to theism. For me the process of freethought led > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > atheism but I accept that it leads elsewhere for others. > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 29, 2:26 pm, stem cell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > So Clog. are you saying that a theist is a > > > > > > > > > > freethinker...just someone > > > > > > > > > > you disagree with? My point is that a theist is one who > > > > > > > > > > believe in > > > > > > > > > > the theology that lead them to conclude that here is > > > > > > > > > > absolutly a > > > > > > > > > > god...of their theism. At that point, once they have made > > > > > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > > > conclusion, whether or not it is right, then they are no > > > > > > > > > > longer using > > > > > > > > > > the process of freethinking and thus not a freethinker...on > > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > particular issue...which is what we are discussing aren't > > > > > > > > > > we? > > > > > > > > > > > stemcell > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 29, 2:04 pm, Clogtowner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi y'all (again) your phrase ""A freethinker uses X to > > > > > > > > > > > arrive at his > > > > > > > > > > > beliefs, but only if he arrives at nontheism." > > > > > > > > > > > I patently disagree. As I've said before X doesn't lead > > > > > > > > > > > to theism and > > > > > > > > > > > neither does it lead to nontheism. It has lead me > > > > > > > > > > > personally to > > > > > > > > > > > nontheism, but I'm happy to concede that it has led many > > > > > > > > > > > others to > > > > > > > > > > > (almost as) valid conclusions. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 29, 1:58 pm, Aaron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't want to get sidetracked, Taylor. We can talk > > > > > > > > > > > > about the > > > > > > > > > > > > practical conclusions later. Right now, I'm not even > > > > > > > > > > > > sure that > > > > > > > > > > > > everyone is following the simple logic. Assume we agree > > > > > > > > > > > > on the > > > > > > > > > > > > specifics X. We then have: > > > > > > > > > > > > > A freethinker uses X to arrive at his beliefs. > > > > > > > > > > > > Han Solo used X to arrive at his theism (or any belief > > > > > > > > > > > > Y). > > > > > > > > > > > > Therefore, Han Solo is a > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
