Hi y'all - " the cause is more that there is no function for saying more/less here at this time. The result would be more confusion"
If that is your objective, you have successfully achieved it. "to expect that from text in an email group is, well, rather > unrealistic" Are you saying that you find it difficult to communicate using the regular technique, or are you suggesting another form of communication? I take your definition to mean that your relative mind and your objective mind are conjoined. As we have only one mind, and it consists of different parts, I would agree with that - it is of one substance. However, this doesn't address the conjoining of gnosticism and atheism unless.... On Oct 30, 11:53 am, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > “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 > > ... > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
