I teach them how ideology works to mystify reality and feed us all sorts of lies and distortions about what's what. That's the short version; — god must be atheist

This is no version; it does not address my question at all.

When they excel in the subject matter (in the Humanities), they earn As. I tell them, It doesn't matter if you never use this subject matter again in your life, because you've gotten better at learning, which is the skill you want to strengthen all your life. — uncanni

This ain't an answer either. If the kid does not question you, obviously he ought to get a failing mark. If the kid questions you, then obviously his only thesis coudl be that he rejects the notion that he must question authority, and therefore he did not internalize the subject matter.

In any way, this is a great way to give all students always a failing mark.

Ya da man.

It's a challenge not to assume that one knows exactly what someone means when one might not really understand where the other is coming from without further clarification. — uncanni

This could lead only to two different responses: all communication would stop, or ELSE, all communication would explode into an infinite series of questioning
A: "What do you mean when you wrote..."
B: "What do you mean with your question?"
A: "Why do you ask that question?"
B: "What is the reason behind your asking that question?"
ETC.

In my opinion assume we must, and if it's really off the mark by a long shot, it will come out in the wash.

I teach students to question authority — uncanni

What do you answer when the kids ask you, "Why ought we question authority?"

And what do you answer, when the kids don't question you?

And what mark does a kid get who does not question you, but answers all questions on his test the precise way you taught him to answer them?

some irate parent can sue you, or the gov. (If you teach hate.) If you teach evolution, you may get shot through your car window if you live in Texas or Georgia someplace. If you teach that the earth is round, you will be shot through your kitchen window by some Fundamentalist.

I saw this joke by JIm Unger. It's a drawn comic. A teacher is pinned down on his desk by a painful stranglehold by an irate parent, and it is obvious to the viewer that the teacher's arm can be broken in an iunstant. The kid is standing ildly by. The parent asks the teacher, "Did you, or did you not teach my kid that I'm a 'homo sapien'?"

The novel existed in it's entirety prior to the first report of it.
— creativesoul

:rofl:

It's not possible for anyone to have an entire novel of that size in their head! Your title is spot on.

(And no, a rough outline or collection of ideas is not an entire novel). — S

Hold on. The novel existed before the first REPORT of it. That is, if you consider a school report, or a critical analysis, or even a library index card as REPORT, then the statement can't be criticized. The book, whether in manuscript form or in printed form, existed before anyone could report it.

There is no contradiction here at all what I can see.

So, what exactly did not exist - in it's entirety - prior to the first report of it?
— creativesoul

That what they will measure, does not exist, until they measure it. — alcontali

When they measure it, it exists. THEN they report it. Therefore the thing exists before it is reported.

647

"In order to truly hate others, you must first learn to hate thy own self."
— god must be atheist

This cannot happen till one learns to love himself. In that sense, I agree with you. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Oh. I just meant it as a sarcastic expression of criticizing the parallel one about love that has been going around for a long time, for its own stupidity.

Sure you can love others without first learning how to love your own self. This type of unfounded, unintuitive psychobabble bullshit really irritates me.

I don't understand this atheistic existential horror at the concept of religious faith. It's almost like you lot are ashamed that you possess it. — Noble Dust

No, we are not ashamed because we don't possess it. We are insulted when someone suggests that atheism is a god-fearing belief system.

Whereas (some) god-fearing people are unable to conceptualize that a belief system is void of god.

It is your ineptitude, the religious', not ours, the atheists'. We can't be blamed for our faith, but you can be blamed for not accepting that our faith does not involve a god.

"When the student is ready, the teacher will appear." It is also true that "When the teacher is ready, the student will appear." This latter means that if a person in a community gains knowledge far beyond the practice and common knowledge of the community, he or she will be in a position to teach that community.

Historically, the teachers who so developed, had no chance, they were burnt on the stake most commonly, and / or given hamlock to drink, and / or criticized by the peer reviewers mercilessly.

Ironically, people have always been keen to listen to a rabbi, a teacher, a wise person, but when the teacher's tuition turned against accepted, strong beliefs, he or she was burnt, mutilated, hanged, quoartered and cut into many little pieces.

But no, every belief system has a god figure. — Noble Dust

This is a statement with no support and I challenge you to explain it.

First off, of course, we have to define the god concept.

God is supernatural, and that is an undeniable characteristic of god. And atheists and secular thinkers deny the presence of supernatural in our universe. So when you say every belief system has a god figure, secularists may have some aspects of a god god figure in their belief system (for instance, worship; some people wroship money) but other aspects of essential god features are missing in their belief systems. Therefore it is false to claim that each belief system has a god figure. Another essential feature of god in every conceivable and historically or presently prominent religions is that god can create matter. In polytheisms, at least one god can create matter. Secularists, however, deny that matter can be created. They are adamant that matter and energy is a constant given, they can morph into the other, but never disappear and never get created.

So no, it is not true that all belief systems have a god figure. I daresay that you just haven't met in your small Georgean village or Texas community any persons whose world view could have affected or broadened your knowledge of what is available in human concepts in the world.

Maybe you have, but your preachers advised you to consider them evil, the spawns of Satan, and therefore you must disregard everything they say? Possible. (I am just conjecturizing here. I don't know your background, or what experiences you've had. All I go by is the opinions you express.)

I am an artist (painter, some sculpture) and I find your idea here very bizarre. Hygiene?! What?! You are going to have to explain that one to me.

Do you respond to visual art at all aesthetically? — petrichor

I don't know what it means to respond to visual art aesthetically. I like to look at pretty pictures, but my preference in visual arts is huge landscapes, such a the view of Budapest from the top of the Citadella, or from Halaszbastya. (You can see these, too, if you use Google maps, to hover over Budapest, and the descend and focus in on the spots I mentioned, and then take a "satellite" view, then a street view.) I like maps, they give me special joy to look at, especially Stieler's maps from the 19th century, and Coronelli maps from the seventeenth. I like some sculptures, such as Rodin's, and some from the Greek masters, Michelangelo's David, and the Pieta by da Vinci. But I like these sculptures for what they represent, the idea, the feeling, the emotion and the philosophy behind them. (Even if they are not something I could describe to.) I liked two movies ESPECIALLY for the visual effects, and for their treatment of philosophical topics: "2001" and "A Clockwork Orange".

As to hygiene: I believe it's a rudimentary art form to make a messy house and clean it up, and put everything in its place, and thus make the living space clutter-free, smelling nice, and clean. I like when I do it in my home. This is both, to me, an artistic expression (rudimentary, not complex, and not symbolic at all... just making something beautiful) and an act of hygiene. I imagine the caveman (for lack of a better expression) kept animal remains in his cave, which would start to stink after a while, and he or his wife would take the trouble of taking the old bones and rotting meat out of the cave, and dispose of them, maybe sweep up, put the rudimentary pottery and tools neatly on ledges, and the not-used hides that served as garments. I can see that happen, and how much better they would feel, since the air quality would improve, and by association, they enjoyed the CLEANLINESS and the LOOK of the place at the same time, and eventually the two feelings became unseparable, and thus the art form of house cleaning would be borne -- this was the first art, I believe.

Then came the depiction of hunger and sex, which was evident in hunting scenes and in sculpting fat, hardly human-shaped, overweight women, which modern anthropologists call "Venuses", since the anthropologists figure that these figures were depictions of very fertile women.

How do you explain then the atheist movement, the secular movement, the agnostic movement
— god must be atheist

Religions, all of them. Like I said, maybe a new word is in order...or maybe not. What religion does for people is a function which survives the apparent death of "religion" proper. Ideology is a loaded word as well, so maybe also not the best choice. — Noble Dust

I would use the word "belief system". Religions necessarily involve a god figure, and the supernatural; atheism does not. That's a HUGE difference.

But both are beliefs, inasmuch as there is no proof for the existence, or for the non-existence of god. Whether you accept that there are supernatural forces acting in the world (which the religious do) or reject the possibility of supernatural forces acting in the world, you act on faith.

But please don't make the mistake of taking "faith" in the general sense to mean "faith" in the religious sense.

Also want to add there is a significant difference (for me anyway), between reading, interpreting and still not understanding and not reading/not listening AND not interpreting, then not understanding. The former signifies clarification or alternative explanation, the other signifies ending of discussion. — Swan

I concur. My posts are normally short and sweet, and people still (on another site, not here) only respond to the meaning covered in half of my sentences, completely altering the meaning I meant, since the second half of the sentence qualifies the first half.

This is a better site for that, and there are much fewer crazy people, although this site is also fully peppered by religious thinkers. Not that the religious would be crazy, craziness is randomly (or proportionally) distributed among the religious and the atheists. The only problem with the religious is that they don't have a healthy concept of science, they would rather believe their pastor or preacher than the current scientific findings. Or even well-established, historical ones.

I was talking in real life -- but I digress. I shall stop now.

Transliterated from the actual Greek work αλήθεια. — aletheist

Whew! What a relief. Thanks. You have a nice n superb command of English. And you know how to use a computer for more things than the mainstream. I mean, to get to the Greek keyboard and type actual words is a bit more complex than sending cute cat pictures on the Internet (by females) or sending magnificent pictures of people's own genitals (by males).

You made me think. Truth as such can take some differing forms: 1. logical truhts, math truths, 2. empirical truths (finding real material world as it is), and there may be some others that are so true I don't even know abou them.

Funny thing is humans first envisioned they have the truth about the material world, but solipsism and many of its sub branches destroyed that hypothesis. So the first one we took for granted was the first one we took as unprovable.

The second thing we envisioned as being true are tautisms, logical proofs, math proofs. Then we realized they rest on axioms and have nothing to do with the physical world, despite math's and logic's original uses, that made the physical world be understood better.

Then came quantum mechanics that destroyed by stating counter examples to them, our faith in the tenets of intuitive logic.

So now we are here, not trusting our senses, not trusting our sensibilities, not trusting our intuition.

Transliterated or translated?

Noble conviction you have.

Now, go out and find it!!!

(Hehehe)

No, it is called a theorem because Gödel provided a proof — aletheist

Oops, I screwed up big time. I was sure theorems were unproven theories. My ignorance. Totally.

But now I KNOW the meaning of the expression "Theorem".

Thanks, @aletheist.

By-the-by: what does your moniker mean?

In a way, this theorem by Godel is recursive, or self-reiterating.

"I can't prove this, but you can accept it as truth, that things can be accepted as truth without a supporting proof."

There, you have it. If you accept it, you accept all similarly stated truths; if you don't accept it, then it is self-evident that it isn't true. But acceptance and non- both depend on an individual's autonomous choice, as the theorem is still a theorem, no proof or counter-example has been presented yet.

@TheMadFool (et al) this is a theorem by Godel, not a proof.

So it stands to be proven or to find counter-examples that prove it wrong.

Therefore your objection or criticism (how can you know what's not proven) hinges upon the truth of Godel's theorem, which FIRST needs to be proven or else counter examples need to be found to disprove it, BEFORE your criticism could find validation.

It's short for Aswang. — Shamshir

How do I parse that? "A swang", or "Ass wang"? Latter by pronunciation, not by spelling.

I'm always dismissive. It's kind of my thing. It's her thing, too. But I'm better at it. — S

Okay, never mind. Carry on.

If you read the text (which is also Cohen's problem), you could figure that out on your own. — Swan

Guilty as charged. I can't read. I have a real serious problem with ADD or ADHD. I can't read long texts, and can't read anything that tires me out and I need to spend energy to keep my focus on it.

That said, it is not important that I understand your stand, @Swan. It is important that @Coben understands you. My participation here is now reduced to confuse both of you, while the original intention was to bring the two of you on the same denominator, without my getting involved in the discussion or my making judgment or my taking sides.

I am sorry, but what you said ("she is feisty") sounds dismissive of Swan's worth. She may be passionate about her ideas, but so am I, and you, and most everyone here. Her gender ought not to influence our thinking, and her picture, absolutely not. (Actually, both do, and I am the first to admit. But we must behave as if they did not. Out of respect.)

There are only two paragraphs in her last post. Which do you consider "middle"?

it's likely going to be my last response here — Swan

I hope you are only talking about the thread, not the site, when you say "last post here". I would be sad to see you go.

He did not say the following, but I think it is a fair read:

You religious people who divide the world into us and them and blame others are being bad. — Coben

I hear ya.

The world consists of two types of people: the righteous and the great unwashed. And it's always the righteous who do the dividing. -- A great quote I heard in the nineteen-seventies.

trying to explain to him what you think he does not understand? — god must be atheist

A mutual misunderstanding is a double-edged sword. Person A thinks person B misundersands concept Z; but Person B is clear what concpet Z is, but in his response to Person A he uses or introduces concept Y which apparently Person A: Either understands but ignores or does not understand.

The un-understanding, misunderstanding and ignoring of points can escalate to heights where communication breakdown can't come too soon.

This happened between me and my wife, many times.

There is a significant difference between we disagree and you aren't understanding what I am saying. — Coben

Absolutely.

By-the-by: @Swan, is your post above mine a response to Coben trying to explain to him what you think he does not understand? If yes, maybe you should expressly specify that, instead of leaving it as a new chapter of exchange of mutually misunderstood ideas.

Clintons... could they be related to the race Clingons? From StarTrek. If anyone remembers that show. There is a strong resemblance in facial features, especially around the left eye, and the attitude is uncannily similar.

If someone can find a solid reference to this, then I'll start to understand the state the world is in today.

It just expresses a different ideology. — Noble Dust

Absolutely. An ideology which is different in being devoid of religion or god(s). I know that it's not the case in your little world, but it is the case in the world you never cared to learn about.

the religious is an inseparable aspect of the human — Noble Dust

How do you explain then the atheist movement, the secular movement, the agnostic movement, and the fact that 200 years ago everyone was religious, with a few exceptions, but in today's world 1/4 roughly (between one and two billion people) are not religious, and don't even think of religion or god?

Your statement is clearly wrong. Religions and beliefs in god(s) ARE separable from humans. I am sure about that, and I won't be swayed from it. Unless there is reason to.

This is a valid question, Coben, but she may want to reply with reiterating what she said to you in her last post to you here.

Aside from that, if you don't understand what you don't understand, then it's hard to make you understand the very thing your arguing opponent wants you to understand. I have been down that path many times, the latest with @Bartricks. It is a Sysiphusian (sp?) work, and it's simply not worth the effort. I gave up on the argument with @Bartricks for this very reason; @Swan may want to give up the debate with you, as she can see (Please note: I am not taking sides, and I assert that I don't know if she is right or not in this) that you don't read what she wrote, at least not in the sense of understanding it.

There is no use in flogging a dead horse. I someone has to ask how much it costs, he can't afford it. If someone has to ask "what it is that I don't understand?" then he can't understand it.

you see theists as tending towards evil? — Coben

I promised I won't jump in, but yet I jump in. I reason on my defence that my promise has concerned the core argument.

Here, I just wish to interject that there is no difference between "bad" and "evil", other than the religions connotation. The first one, "bad", has none, the second, tons.

So, @Coben, you may want to view that @A Gnostic Agnostic did not depict a picture of evil, as you claim, but a picture of being bad.

@A Gnostic Agnostic did use the word evil, but it was in reference of a mock-up of usage by the religious. But it does not mean at all that @A Gnostic Agnostic refers to the human subjects of his post as evil. He may refer, and he does, since he rejects the notion of evil, to being simply bad people.

This is NOT to condone that I agree with @A Gnostic Agnostic with what he says in this post. All I want to point out is that we must not jump into conclusions and create Strawmans via imagined equivocation.

An angry, insulting, patronizing participant has nothing to teach me. — uncanni

In this case you can become the teacher.

I'm not letting a few warty, bilious, infantile trolls chase me away. I just wish they would play nice. — uncanni

How could I put it. How can we agree with your points (not a specific one, but any one of them) while disagreeing with them?

We need a sample text. Or some guidelines.

I figure your text reflects what you consider "playing nice". For references, please see your quote leading this post of mine.

Reason has no gender. It's not a she or a he. It is an it.

Where did you get the idea that Reason is female? Because you keep fucking it? (Sorry about the pun, :-) I could not resist it.)

o ask is "is something morally valuable because Reason values it, or does she value it because it is morally valuable? — Bartricks

Who is she?

"War is the ultimate diplomacy."

Reparations are made when the victors feel like it. This is not ethical, or just, or right, it ONLY IS SO.

Much like you breathe in billions of microbes with the air, and some you kill, some kill you, but it has nothing to do with justice, with what's right and or ethical. It only has to do how IT IS.

A lot of history is interwoven with justifying this or that, whereas the forces of historical politics are not justice, fairness or ethics, but greed, force, and survivalism. The most common misinterpretation of wars and genocide by both the religious and the secular atheists (is this a redundant expression?) is that they blame the other for huge obliterations of masses of people. It never is about religion or lack of conscience. It is always about women, gold, oil, arable land.

There is nothing we can do about it. There were no wars stopped due to ethical reasons, no land was ever given back to their previous owners, no reparations were ever made by the victors.

This is how it IS. If anyone wants to change this, they have an enormous task on their hands.

I agree. If you value your car, it is not necessarily morally valuable. — Bartricks

Not only is the car not necessarily morally valuable, but the evaluator -- who is a subject -- is not making a moral valuation.

Do you agree with that, @Bartricks?

In reality anyone can value anything without making it morally valuable.
— god must be atheist

@Bartricks, I challenge you to show me where my claim is wrong.

In particular, if I value a car, to be worth $5000, I claim I am not making a moral valuation.

Please prove me wrong and I shut up.

In reality anyone can value anything without making it morally valuable. — god must be atheist

@Bartricks, I challenge you to show me where my claim is wrong.

In particular, if I value a car, to be worth $5000, I claim I am not making a moral valuation.

Please prove me wrong and I shut up.