arealists?
Dan Fake
Would not all departing from that state of being
be accurately known as arealists?
Really, you're born, you're fed, clothed, nurtured,
and protected from harm, girded in that which is
the nature of being ...
And as you mature ...
The questions begin to arise ...
Where did I come from, why am I here, who am I,
where am I going, what's life all about, what's the
meaning of life ...?
And from a realistic viewpoint, the naturalistic answers
are your mom & dad, a result of sexual activity, a being,
unknown, life is what you make it, and the meaning of
life is to find the meaning of life ...
And in all of that, pray tell, would not realism be present?
Now, interject the supernatural, and what do you have but
arealism ...
So, henceforth and forevermore, alt.atheism shall be known
as alt.realism, atheists shall be known as realists, and all the
deviations from realism shall be referred to as arealism ...
What do you think? Isn't life all about what you think about
it rather than de facto acceptance of the way those before
you thought about it? If so, if life is all about what you think
about it, why not think about it in a different way? Why not
realism and arealism, for a change, for a clearer and more
accurate way of viewing our one and only sure chance on
earth?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-Dan Fake, Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
http://home.att.net/~danfake
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dan Fake
Would not all departing from that state of being
be accurately known as arealists?
Really, you're born, you're fed, clothed, nurtured,
and protected from harm, girded in that which is
the nature of being ...
And as you mature ...
The questions begin to arise ...
Where did I come from, why am I here, who am I,
where am I going, what's life all about, what's the
meaning of life ...?
And from a realistic viewpoint, the naturalistic answers
are your mom & dad, a result of sexual activity, a being,
unknown, life is what you make it, and the meaning of
life is to find the meaning of life ...
And in all of that, pray tell, would not realism be present?
Now, interject the supernatural, and what do you have but
arealism ...
So, henceforth and forevermore, atheists shall be known as
realists, and all the deviations from realism shall be referred
to as arealism ...
What do you think? Isn't life all about what you think about
it rather than de facto acceptance of the way those before
you thought about it? If so, if life is all about what you think
about it, why not think about it in a different way? Why not
realism and arealism, for a change, for a clearer and more
accurate way of viewing our one and only sure chance on
earth?
- - -
Some/many arealists make many claims about and attacks
upon realists via the venue of arealism or anti-realism or
arealist constructs which label realism and realists as evil
or in league with the devil, lost souls doomed to lives of
futility and despair, destined for immortal torment or
oblivion.
Some/many arealists use God as "the one and only" a priori
answer for all unknowns, and on that basis alone, attack
realism and realists from a position that realists lack that
answer for all unknowns. To those types of arealists, the fact
that their answer for all unknowns is 'make believe' or merely
convenient and presumptive and non-evidential makes no
difference. They have "the one and only" a priori answer
for all unknowns, and by God, they're bound and determined
to hold that over realists' heads.
Some/many arealists use God as the equivalent of good, and
on that basis alone attack realism and realists from a posi-
tion that realists lack that good known as God.
Some/many arealists use God as requisite for immortality,
attacking realists and realism because there is no immortality
construct tied into realism.
I could continue, but suffice to say, some/many arealists find
plenty of grounds for using their arealism against realism and
realists.
To put it plainly and simply, if an arealist views God and all
associated beliefs as 1 and Truth (optimum good) and all
beliefs opposite their optimum good as -1 and sinful and false
(optimum bad), therein resides their methodology for trying to
associate realists/realism with evil/untruth, rejecting realism on
that basis alone.
As for arealism promising immortality, is that playing
fair? After all, realists have nothing but reality to offer, but
most arealists assert that there is heaven awaiting if ______
[fill in claims here].
Also, speaking of playing fair, many arealists assert that there
is eternal damnation awaiting if ________ [fill in claims here],
and you better ________ [fill in claims here] or else.
Most arealists assert that they've got a friendly buddy one
can talk to (via prayer) and that buddy just happens to be
the supreme be-all end-all of the entire universe and all
realists have to offer is reality and human companionship,
so ...
To best achieve edification and enlightenment, perhaps it
would be well-advised for arealists to consider dismissing
their claimed Truths and promises and claims of answers
for all unknowns and their efforts to brainwash/indoctrinate
their children (and every child they can get their hands on)
into God fear/belief, valuing the advantages and veritability
of realism over the imaginations and deceit required for
arealism ...
- - -
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dan Fake, Pro-Humanist #1, FREELOVER #1,
who cares deeply about truth, freedom, and maxing
out this one and only experience we all know and
share, on this earth, at this time, in this life.
http://home.att.net/~danfake/prohumanism.htm
http://home.att.net/~danfake/freelover.htm
FREELOVER? Freethinking Realist Exploring Expressive
Liberty, Openness, Verity, Enlightenment, & Rationality
(also, pro-love, free from state and church authorities)
Origins: http://home.att.net/~danfake/origins.htm
Top Posts: http://home.att.net/~danfake/top_posts.htm
Books: http://home.att.net/~danfake/books_index.htm
Webpedia: http://home.att.net/~danfake/webpedia.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ScottF
"Dan Fake" <dan...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:8%O67.15738$gj1.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> IF the default state of being is realism ...
>
> Would not all departing from that state of being
> be accurately known as arealists?
>
> Really, you're born, you're fed, clothed, nurtured,
> and protected from harm, girded in that which is
> the nature of being ...
>
> And as you mature ...
>
> The questions begin to arise ...
>
> Where did I come from, why am I here, who am I,
> where am I going, what's life all about, what's the
> meaning of life ...?
>
> And from a realistic viewpoint, the naturalistic answers
> are your mom & dad, a result of sexual activity, a being,
> unknown, life is what you make it, and the meaning of
> life is to find the meaning of life ...
>
> And in all of that, pray tell, would not realism be present?
>
> Now, interject the supernatural, and what do you have but
> arealism ...
>
> So, henceforth and forevermore, atheists shall be known as
> realists, and all the deviations from realism shall be referred
> to as arealism ...
>
> What do you think?
I think you've once again exposed your ignorance, Dan. Your whole argument
presuposes you know what reality is. Consider:
http://www.openthought.org/ismbook/
Realism (Principle and Tradition in philosophy) — The word realism in
philosophy has many senses, and this fact can lead to confusion. The idea
that we can and do possess reliable knowledge, both perceptual and
conceptual, about reality is known as epistemological realism (obviously a
kind of optimism about the possibility of knowledge). In the psychology and
philosophy of perception, realism comes in two flavors: direct and indirect
(direct realism being the truly realistic position — namely that we perceive
the actually existing physical world — whereas indirect realism is often a
form of representationalism). Confusingly, realism with regard to the arts
is often called representationalism. There is also the metaphysical realism
(or objectivism) of most forms of Aristotelianism: the idea that reality is
what it is and possesses an independent identity, regardless of the beliefs
of the observer. However, sometimes when people talk about realism in
philosophy or metaphysics they are really talking about what I define as
intrinsicism, since historically realism was often contrasted with
nominalism and was equated with idealism and intrinsicism. Popularly,
realism refers to a healthy skepticism about what can be achieved through
action or sometimes to a lack of ideals or principles (see pragmatism).
[References from Aristotelianism, formalism, intentionalism, objectivism,
and representationalism.]
You think you're a good philosopher? Debate someone who actually is:
http://www.radicalacademy.com/doesgodexist.htm
http://www.messiah.edu/hpages/facstaff/rcollins/Yale.htm
http://www.origins.org/aip/docs/corey.html
[...]
The final reason why I believe that the concept of supernatural agency
should be returned to the scientific enterprise has to do with the holistic
nature of the universe itself. For with the advent of quantum mechanics in
this century, we’ve learned that our entire universe, like a hologram, is
actually a complete, undivided whole. This cosmic holism is one of the chief
unifying principles in modern science, as the physicist David Bohm and many
others have pointed out.{95} This means, amongst other things, that each of
the universe’s constituent parts is somehow causally interconnected with all
the other parts, so that there are no truly isolated segments of the cosmos.
But if this is so (and a large body of experimental evidence suggests that
it is), then this means that the universe doesn’t reflect the same
disconnectedness and compartmentalization that is so characteristic of our
scientific understanding of the natural world. It is, instead, a pulsating,
interconnected gestalt of mutually interdependent particles and energy
fields, all working together to produce a single, coherent universe that is
fit for life.
What this means is that there is no one-to-one correspondence between the
underlying nature of the universe and our own epistemological divisions and
distinctions (which are largely arbitrary). Put another way, there is no
such thing as biology, chemistry, and physics per se in the real world.
There is, instead, a single universal reality that happens to manifest
itself to our distinction-seeking minds as separate intellectual
disciplines. The upshot of this realization is that we are only deceiving
ourselves if we believe that the physical universe can somehow be divided up
into neat little categories of causal phenomena for our own explanatory
convenience, some of which are appropriate for scientific explanations and
others which are not. The real world simply does not operate this way. To
the contrary, each and every segment of cosmic reality is causally
interconnected, in a holistic manner, with all the other parts, in a single,
undivided whole.{96}
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/holo/
http://www.keelynet.com/biology/reality.htm
http://www.crystalinks.com/holographic.html
So what is reality, Dan?
Scott
Atheists are closed minded. If they weren't they'd be agnostic. -- unknown
ScottF
"Dan Fake" <dan...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:8%O67.15738$gj1.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
btw are memes real?
ScottF
news:8%O67.15738$gj1.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> Would not all departing from that state of being
> be accurately known as arealists?
>
> Really, you're born, you're fed, clothed, nurtured,
> and protected from harm, girded in that which is
> the nature of being ...
>
> And as you mature ...
>
> The questions begin to arise ...
>
> Where did I come from, why am I here, who am I,
> where am I going, what's life all about, what's the
> meaning of life ...?
>
> And from a realistic viewpoint, the naturalistic answers
> are your mom & dad, a result of sexual activity, a being,
> unknown, life is what you make it, and the meaning of
> life is to find the meaning of life ...
>
> And in all of that, pray tell, would not realism be present?
>
> Now, interject the supernatural, and what do you have but
> arealism ...
>
> So, henceforth and forevermore, atheists shall be known as
> realists, and all the deviations from realism shall be referred
> to as arealism ...
>
> What do you think?
I think you've once again exposed your ignorance, Dan. Your whole argument
presuposes you know what reality is. Consider:
http://www.openthought.org/ismbook/
Realism (Principle and Tradition in philosophy) - The word realism in
philosophy has many senses, and this fact can lead to confusion. The idea
that we can and do possess reliable knowledge, both perceptual and
conceptual, about reality is known as epistemological realism (obviously a
kind of optimism about the possibility of knowledge). In the psychology and
philosophy of perception, realism comes in two flavors: direct and indirect
(direct realism being the truly realistic position - namely that we perceive
the actually existing physical world - whereas indirect realism is often a
Dan Fake
Look in the mirror. Slap yourself, oh I dunno, a couple
of times. That's reality. Take a cold shower. That's
reality. Any questions?
>
> Scott
>
> Atheists are closed minded. If they weren't they'd be agnostic. -- unknown
Atheists are open minded. If they weren't, they'd be theists. --me
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-Dan Fake, Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
http://home.att.net/~danfake
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dan Fake
They're really memes. (-:
William
wrote:
>Dan Fake" <dan...@worldnet.att.net>wrote
>
>> IF the default state of being is realism ...
>> Would not all departing from that state of being
>> be accurately known as arealists?
[large snip]
>So what is reality, Dan?
Reality is not being able to walk through a brick wall whether you
wish to be able to or not; and whether the universe is a holistic
interconnected entity or not.
William
ScottF
didn't digest any of those ulrs, did ya, Dan?
how about a partial from one's conclusion?
Sir Fred Hoyle—the pioneering astrophysicist who discovered the fascinating
connection between stellar nuclear resonances and the process of carbon
formation—has even gone so far as to make the following assertion:
I do not believe that any scientist who examined the evidence would fail to
draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately
designed with regard to the consequences they produce inside the stars. If
this is so, then my apparently random quirks have become part of a deep-laid
scheme. If not then we are back again at a monstrous sequence of
accidents.{93}
Hoyle—who began his career as an atheist—came to this momentous conclusion
after discovering the remarkable degree of fine-tuning inside carbon and
oxygen nuclei, which together made it possible for carbon to be synthesized
in sufficient quantities to allow for the eventual rise of carbon-based
life-forms on this planet. In reference to the precise positioning of these
nuclear resonances, Hoyle has stated that:
If you wanted to produce carbon and oxygen in roughly equal quantities by
stellar nucleosynthesis, these are the two levels you would have to fix, and
your fixing would have to be just about where these levels are actually
found to be. Would you not say to yourself, "Some supercalculating intellect
must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chances
of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be
utterly miniscule"? Of course you would...A common sense interpretation of
the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well
as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth
speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to
me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question
(emphasis mine).{94}
Now, if Hoyle’s assertion is correct—namely that "a commonsense
interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with
physics, as well as with chemistry and biology"—then the concept of
supernatural agency should indeed be a part of our modern scientific
enterprise, precisely because it provides the best explanation for the
current data at hand. This is why the idea of a theistic science is
particularly tantalizing to increasing numbers of scientists and
philosophers: because a theistically-oriented science is inherently better
equipped—given the inherent persuasiveness of the evidence itself—to
decipher the underlying truth of our own origins than its atheistic
counterpart, since it, by definition, is open to the very possibility of
intelligent design
Scott
Dan Fake
>
> "Dan Fake" <dan...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:z0177.16361$gj1.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > > So what is reality, Dan?
> >
> > Look in the mirror. Slap yourself, oh I dunno, a couple
> > of times. That's reality. Take a cold shower. That's
> > reality. Any questions?
> >
> > >
> > > Scott
> > >
> > > Atheists are closed minded. If they weren't they'd be agnostic. --
> > > unknown
> >
> > Atheists are open minded. If they weren't, they'd be theists. --me
> >
>
> didn't digest any of those ulrs, did ya, Dan?
Your focus is your burden, not mind, my friend.
Arealism.
Arealistically oriented pseudo-science expositions are equipped
for nothing better than delusion and fantasy, catering to the whims
and desires of those steeped in ancient myths. Realism focuses
on that which is and that which can be explored, not that which
can be fantasized as if some hyberglobin used its nebulark to
spank the multiverse into phasefunk ...
Clue ... your ancient gods/devils/demons/angels/spirits/christs/
heavens/hells are nothing more than ancient myths. Deal with it,
honestly, rather than trying to desperately grasp at straws and
magnify the pontifications regarding unknowns as if they had
any value apart from 'make believe' ... the hyperglobin will smile
upon your honesty regarding your ignorance pertaining to that
which is unknown and, perhaps, unknowable ...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-Dan Fake, Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
http://home.att.net/~danfake
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
> Scott
ScottF
"William" <ta...@mail.clara.net> wrote in message
news:3b5ce0df...@news.clara.net...
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0671728415/102-5617186-8388115
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/holo/
next I guess you'll tell us what consciousness is.
http://www.acsa2000.net/bcngroup/jponkp/
Scott
William
wrote:
>"Dan Fake" <dan...@worldnet.att.net> wrote
>> "ScottF" <sc...@nomorespam.net> wrote in message
>>
>> > Atheists are closed minded. If they weren't they'd be agnostic. --
>> > unknown
>>
>> Atheists are open minded. If they weren't, they'd be theists. --me
>
>didn't digest any of those ulrs, did ya, Dan?
>
>how about a partial from one's conclusion?
>
>Sir Fred Hoyle—the pioneering astrophysicist who discovered the fascinating
>connection between stellar nuclear resonances and the process of carbon
>formation—has even gone so far as to make the following assertion:
>
>I do not believe that any scientist who examined the evidence would fail to
>draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately
>designed with regard to the consequences they produce inside the stars. If
>this is so, then my apparently random quirks have become part of a deep-laid
>scheme. If not then we are back again at a monstrous sequence of
>accidents.{93}
Firstly, the 'fine tuning' argument doesn't work since it is arguing
statistical probability from a sample of one (namely the universe we
happen to occupy). Even Hoyle (who once made the ridiculous error of
comparing evolution to a hurricane creating a Jumbo Jet from a scrap
yard) would have known that.
Secondly, the argument requires showing that the constants of nature
could have been different - ie that the 'creator' had a choice; no-one
has yet shown this.
Thirdly, explaining a complexity by invoking a greater complexity
doesn't explain anything - it simply leads to infinity or requires
drawing an arbitrary limit. Neither has any value in explaining what
is observed.
William
ScottF
> "ScottF" <sc...@nomorespam.net> wrote in message
news:_H677.193$eJ4.1...@nnrp2.sbc.net...
> >
> > "Dan Fake" <dan...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> > news:z0177.16361$gj1.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > > [skip]
> > > > So what is reality, Dan?
> > >
> > > Look in the mirror. Slap yourself, oh I dunno, a couple
> > > of times. That's reality. Take a cold shower. That's
> > > reality. Any questions?
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Scott
> > > >
> > > > Atheists are closed minded. If they weren't they'd be agnostic. --
> > > > unknown
> > >
> > > Atheists are open minded. If they weren't, they'd be theists. --me
> > >
> >
> > didn't digest any of those ulrs, did ya, Dan?
>
> Your focus is your burden, not mind, my friend.
Just as I said, closed minded. You didn't read them because the subject
matter didn't relate to *your* atheistic world view so you dismiss them out
of hand. An agnostic would more likely give such matters an open-minded
questioning.
Scott
Ğr. Worm
<schnip>
> Look in the mirror. Slap yourself, oh I dunno, a couple
> of times. That's reality. Take a cold shower. That's
> reality. Any questions?
Yes - do I *have* to slap myself??
> Atheists are open minded. If they weren't, they'd be theists. --me
Unless the very cause of their atheism is a complete closed mindedness to
theism...
--
Ğr. Worm
---------------
Now Playing: Tricky - Maxinquaye
Ğr. Worm
> So what is reality, Dan?
Slapping yourself in the face after showering it seems.
> Atheists are closed minded. If they weren't they'd be agnostic. -- unknown
The very same can be said for theists I'd have to say...
Ğr. Worm
<schnip>
>Arealism.
>
> Arealistically oriented pseudo-science expositions are equipped
> for nothing better than delusion and fantasy, catering to the whims
> and desires of those steeped in ancient myths. Realism focuses
> on that which is and that which can be explored, not that which
> can be fantasized as if some hyberglobin used its nebulark to
> spank the multiverse into phasefunk ...
>
> Clue ... your ancient gods/devils/demons/angels/spirits/christs/
> heavens/hells are nothing more than ancient myths. Deal with it,
> honestly, rather than trying to desperately grasp at straws and
> magnify the pontifications regarding unknowns as if they had
> any value apart from 'make believe' ... the hyperglobin will smile
> upon your honesty regarding your ignorance pertaining to that
> which is unknown and, perhaps, unknowable ...
Dan,
You would come across far more favourably if you weren't so headstrong.
No one who holds theist values is going to drop them simply by your
assertion that they are myths and to deal with it.
To you that *is* right, sure, but to them it's just the ramblings of another
atheist nutter telling them they're brainwashed.
If you want your point heard and absorbed, telling your audience they are
idiots doesn't help your cause, and it's not just this post it's the bulk
them that I've read.
Can I suggest that you take a more sociable approach in spreading what you
have to say?
Because at the moment you just sound like your run of the mill theist
zealot, only on the other side of the fence.
peace.
--
Ğr. Worm
---------------
Now Playing: Source Direct - Exorcise the Demons
ScottF
"Ğr. Worm" <dr.worm@(ask me for my address).com> wrote in message
news:9jj61c$eeb$1...@bugstomper.ihug.com.au...
>
> Dan Fake <dan...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:c2777.4676$LP2.4...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> <schnip>
>
> >Arealism.
> >
> > Arealistically oriented pseudo-science expositions are equipped
> > for nothing better than delusion and fantasy, catering to the whims
> > and desires of those steeped in ancient myths. Realism focuses
> > on that which is and that which can be explored, not that which
> > can be fantasized as if some hyberglobin used its nebulark to
> > spank the multiverse into phasefunk ...
> >
> > Clue ... your ancient gods/devils/demons/angels/spirits/christs/
> > heavens/hells are nothing more than ancient myths. Deal with it,
> > honestly, rather than trying to desperately grasp at straws and
> > magnify the pontifications regarding unknowns as if they had
> > any value apart from 'make believe' ... the hyperglobin will smile
> > upon your honesty regarding your ignorance pertaining to that
> > which is unknown and, perhaps, unknowable ...
>
> Dan,
> You would come across far more favourably if you weren't so headstrong.
Translation. "Closed minded".
> No one who holds theist values is going to drop them simply by your
> assertion that they are myths and to deal with it.
> To you that *is* right, sure, but to them it's just the ramblings of
another
> atheist nutter telling them they're brainwashed.
> If you want your point heard and absorbed, telling your audience they are
> idiots doesn't help your cause, and it's not just this post it's the bulk
> them that I've read.
> Can I suggest that you take a more sociable approach in spreading what you
> have to say?
> Because at the moment you just sound like your run of the mill theist
> zealot, only on the other side of the fence.
>
> peace.
> --
> Ğr. Worm
What he said, Dan!!!
Scott
ScottF
"Ğr. Worm" <dr.worm@(ask me for my address).com> wrote in message
>
> ScottF <sc...@nomorespam.net> wrote in message
> news:8j_67.20$y73....@nnrp1.sbc.net...
>
> > So what is reality, Dan?
>
> Slapping yourself in the face after showering it seems.
>
> > Atheists are closed minded. If they weren't they'd be agnostic. --
unknown
>
> The very same can be said for theists I'd have to say...
...Unless that theist has flirted with agnosticism.
"Do I have doubts? You bet I have doubts." -- Thomas Merton
Scott
ScottF
"Ğr. Worm" <dr.worm@(ask me for my address).com> wrote in message
BTW would you care to wager he doesn't take your advice? The odds are in my
favor, though. I've seen atheists telling him the vary same thing from
several years ago up to the present.
I went from attempting to reason with him to being openly, and admittedly,
an a**whole to him.
Scott
ScottF
Dan Fake
Your post was read and responded to. The remainder
of the post and your lack of a response follow (as of
yet) follow ...
Dan Fake
>
> Dan Fake <dan...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:z0177.16361$gj1.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> <schnip>
> > Look in the mirror. Slap yourself, oh I dunno, a couple
> > of times. That's reality. Take a cold shower. That's
> > reality. Any questions?
>
> Yes - do I *have* to slap myself??
>
> > Atheists are open minded. If they weren't, they'd be theists. --me
>
> Unless the very cause of their atheism is a complete closed mindedness to
> theism...
Close mindedness to 'make believe'? Surely, you
can do better than that. Evidence for magic beings?
Please, speak freely.
Dan Fake
>
> [skip pitch for temidity]
Into "I dunnoism", are you?
Dan Fake
>
Into "I dunnoism", are you?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dan Fake
>
> The state of being is simply the state of being. Calling
> it "realism" is confusing, since the word "realism"
> already has other meanings.
Concern for fact or reality and rejection of the
impractical and the visionary seems straight
forward.
>
> >
> >Would not all departing from that state of being
> >be accurately known as arealists?
>
> All departing from that state of being are entering
> the state of non-being. They are accurately "known"
> as things that used to exist but no longer exist.
No, folks that depart reality are arealists, as is the
case with the supernatural enthusiasts.
>
> >
> >Really, you're born, you're fed, clothed, nurtured,
> >and protected from harm, girded in that which is
> >the nature of being ...
>
> Oh, now the nature of being is clothes?! LOL!
No, clearly the being fed, clothed, nurtured, and
protected from harm, girded in that which is the
nature of being, is that which is the common
human experience.
>
> Weird. A irrational fideist atheist.
No, a realist.
>
> Yeah, your faith must be the truth, because you
> believe in it so strongly. Uh huh...
Verity is. Faith in Pro-Humanism is worthy.
Dan Fake
>
> [skip]
Why so anti-human, Scott? Why do you
hate so? Is your desperate desire for an
almighty authority (magic being/ultimate
answer) so intense that underlying your
hate is your deep fear that your ultimate
answer does not, in fact, exist? Please, do
speak freely and honestly regarding your
fear and your unwillingness/reticence to
accept a natural fate in a natural world ...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-Dan Fake, Pro-Humanism FREELOVER
http://home.att.net/~danfake
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Scott
Ğr. Worm
> "Đr. Worm" <dr.worm@(ask me for my address).com> wrote in message
news:9jj61c$eeb$1...@bugstomper.ihug.com.au...
> >
> > [skip pitch for temidity]
>
> Into "I dunnoism", are you?
If by that you mean basic civility then yes.
You claim love for humanity - yet you are aggressive to your fellow man.
Ğr. Worm
> "Đr. Worm" <dr.worm@(ask me for my address).com> wrote in message
news:9jj537$e1k$1...@bugstomper.ihug.com.au...
> >
> > Dan Fake <dan...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> > news:z0177.16361$gj1.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > <schnip>
> > > Look in the mirror. Slap yourself, oh I dunno, a couple
> > > of times. That's reality. Take a cold shower. That's
> > > reality. Any questions?
> >
> > Yes - do I *have* to slap myself??
> >
> > > Atheists are open minded. If they weren't, they'd be theists. --me
> >
> > Unless the very cause of their atheism is a complete closed mindedness
to
> > theism...
>
> Close mindedness to 'make believe'? Surely, you
> can do better than that. Evidence for magic beings?
> Please, speak freely.
I have no desire to prove the existance of "magic" beings.
I was raised an atheist and still am, but now it is based on my conclusions
of the validity of religion.
I have theist friends who have done the same, finding out about the other
side of the fence and indeed other religions.
They have stayed strong in their faith just as I in my non-faith, while
being open to many different theistic and atheistic ideologies.
I would consider them open minded theists, and myself an open minded
atheist.
Yet I also have friends who are both atheistic and theistic while flatly
refusing to investigate other ways.
I would consider them closed minded theists and atheists.
See how atheist and open-minded are not necessarily one and the same? While
theism and closed mindedness also are not necessarily one and the same.
I have no problem with my theist friends, and no urge as you have to preach,
as it were, about atheism or pro-humanism, and call them stupid for not
thinking the same way as I do. Sure, I challenge their faith by discussing
different aspects of it (which is just as much a learning experience for me)
just as they will challenge my atheism in the same manner.
However I don't see anything wrong with their theist beliefs. If they are
doing no harm, and it is beneficial for them, then what do you care what
someone thinks?
I would have assumed that someone who claims a love of humanity would
encourage anything that provides happiness to their fellow man. Instead you
contradict yourself and antogonise them for the very root of their
happiness.
Ğr. Worm
>
> "Ðr. Worm" <dr.worm@(ask me for my address).com> wrote in message
> news:9jj53n$e1k$2...@bugstomper.ihug.com.au...
> >
> > ScottF <sc...@nomorespam.net> wrote in message
> > news:8j_67.20$y73....@nnrp1.sbc.net...
> >
> > > So what is reality, Dan?
> >
> > Slapping yourself in the face after showering it seems.
> >
> > > Atheists are closed minded. If they weren't they'd be agnostic. --
> unknown
> >
> > The very same can be said for theists I'd have to say...
>
> ...Unless that theist has flirted with agnosticism.
And what of the atheist that has done the same?
Dan Fake
>
> Dan Fake <dan...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:%Wh77.17513$gj1.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> news:9jj61c$eeb$1...@bugstomper.ihug.com.au...
> > >
> > > [skip pitch for temidity]
> >
> > Into "I dunnoism", are you?
>
> If by that you mean basic civility then yes.
> You claim love for humanity - yet you are aggressive to your fellow man.
No, I oppose delusion in a manner which does not
cater to anti-humanism. You accept anti-humanism
as if by being silent when folks threaten to throw
children into hellfire for eternity is a saintly stance,
rather than standing up for human rights and taking
a stand against such anti-human insanity. Your pas-
sivity is your shame, and you would be well-served
to ponder the consequences of your acquiescence
to the way things are.
Dan Fake
>
> Dan Fake <dan...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:JSh77.17510$gj1.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
You are apart from respect for verity. As for your admiration
for theism, you are an atheist who sucks the teat of religion
while disclaiming it. As for the actual nature of religion and
the horror it has brought to humankind, I suggest you study
the following and reconsider your admiration for that which
is the nature/history of religions ...
http://home.att.net/~danfake/history
-Dan Fake, Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
Ğr. Worm
<schnip>
> You are apart from respect for verity. As for your admiration
> for theism, you are an atheist who sucks the teat of religion
> while disclaiming it. As for the actual nature of religion and
> the horror it has brought to humankind, I suggest you study
> the following and reconsider your admiration for that which
> is the nature/history of religions ...
I'm perfectly aware of the evil brought to the world throught religion, and
this I am deeply against. But you must realise, that a lot if not all is
fault of human failings justified by a misrepresented religious ideal. For
example the modern day Muslims and the extremist groups who take the concept
of Jihad (holy war), which by the Koran is purely defensive, and use it to
justify terrorism and pollitical upheaval. This is merely one example.
Admiration is not the word I would use so much as interest. And I do find it
deeply interesting, in regard to finding out how people tick, so to speak. I
am totally secure in my atheism to to suggest that I "suck the teat" of
religion is way off base, my interest is purely academic.
You should also realise that your verity is another man's fiction.
In regard to your other post (no sense in two threads really) I put it to
you that the major religions of the world are infact intended as benevolent,
passive codes to live by. The injustice and disregard for human rights is a
human corruption of those codes and not necessarily the fault of the
religion.
Yes I'm passive in regard to dictating what direction people should take in
their faith, but make a stand when that faith or aspects of contradict the
greater good (if you'll pardon the cliche)
I agree mostly with what you have to say but the way you say it does nothing
for promoting its content.
P.S.
The background image on your site is cool.
Dan Fake
Hi. Thanks for that input and for the suggestion to moderate
my enthusiasm for freedom from faith. One link from the
history site might persuade you that my approach is more
moderate than it might seem to those who are inclined to
view religion, despite its shortcomings, as a net good for
humankind.
If you use your empathy skills and try to put yourself in the
position of the individual documented in the following post,
you may, to some degree, understand why I (raised in a man-
ner not all that dissimilar from the individual in the post)
view religion in a less-than-impressed manner and why, even
though most are mum these days about the downsides of
religion, there are those who are more than willing to attempt
to direct human energies towards more worthwhile and
pro-human endeavors, on this earth, at this time, in this life...
Robert G. Ingersoll (062701)
http://home.att.net/~danfake/history/robert_g_ingersoll.htm
"American politician and orator known
as 'the great agnostic' who popularized
the higher criticism of the Bible, as well
as a humanistic philosophy and a scientific
rationalism...."
William
wrote:
>"William" <ta...@mail.clara.net> wrote
>> "ScottF" <sc...@nomorespam.net>wrote:
>>
>> >So what is reality, Dan?
>>
>> Reality is not being able to walk through a brick wall whether you
>> wish to be able to or not; and whether the universe is a holistic
>> interconnected entity or not.
>
>http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0671728415/102-5617186-8388115
>http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/
>http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/holo/
You should know by now that it is considered bad NG manners to post
raw URLs as a response to posts.
>next I guess you'll tell us what consciousness is.
Having read your guesswork on science and philosophy it's not
surprising that your guesswork on what I'll do next is equally screwed
up
William
ScottF
ScottF
> "ScottF" <sc...@nomorespam.net> wrote in message
news:n5g77.223$y73....@nnrp1.sbc.net...
> >
> > [skip]
>
> Why so anti-human, Scott? Why do you
> hate so? Is your desperate desire for an
> almighty authority (magic being/ultimate
> answer) so intense that underlying your
> hate is your deep fear that your ultimate
> answer does not, in fact, exist? Please, do
> speak freely and honestly regarding your
> fear and your unwillingness/reticence to
> accept a natural fate in a natural world ...
This from the guy who decides human is based on the nervous system. Get a
clue, Dan, my dislike for you does not equal "anti-human". Your attempt to
hide your contempt in geniality only fools you.
Scott
ScottF
> "Đr. Worm" <dr.worm@(ask me for my address).com> wrote in message
news:9jlpe0$s4i$1...@bugstomper.ihug.com.au...
> >
> > Dan Fake <dan...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> > news:%Wh77.17513$gj1.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > news:9jj61c$eeb$1...@bugstomper.ihug.com.au...
> > > >
> > > > [skip pitch for temidity]
> > >
> > > Into "I dunnoism", are you?
> >
> > If by that you mean basic civility then yes.
> > You claim love for humanity - yet you are aggressive to your fellow man.
>
> No, I oppose delusion in a manner which does not
> cater to anti-humanism. You accept anti-humanism
> as if by being silent when folks threaten to throw
> children into hellfire for eternity is a saintly stance,
> rather than standing up for human rights and taking
> a stand against such anti-human insanity.
Most atheist assume morals are arbitrary. I recall you considering yourself
among them.
In a world were morals are deemed arbitrary there are no supreme moral
behaviors and therefore human rights are what ever the majority of society
says they are. As I pointed out to your before Jeffrey Dalmer could've been
a great man in the backwoods of New Guinea.
Put it this way, Dan, if you believe morals are arbitrary then any set of
morals is no better or worse than another so why not take the pope's moral
software, plug it into your noggin and run it.
Scott
ScottF
"Ğr. Worm" <dr.worm@(ask me for my address).com> wrote in message
news:9jlqnh$sqt$1...@bugstomper.ihug.com.au...> > "Ğr. Worm" <dr.worm@(ask me for my address).com> wrote in message
> > news:9jj53n$e1k$2...@bugstomper.ihug.com.au...
> > >
> > > ScottF <sc...@nomorespam.net> wrote in message
> > > news:8j_67.20$y73....@nnrp1.sbc.net...
> > >
> > > > So what is reality, Dan?
> > >
> > > Slapping yourself in the face after showering it seems.
> > >
> > > > Atheists are closed minded. If they weren't they'd be agnostic. --
> > unknown
> > >
> > > The very same can be said for theists I'd have to say...
> >
> > ...Unless that theist has flirted with agnosticism.
>
> And what of the atheist that has done the same?
Ok I'll admit to talking out of turn. It was a jig at Dan. Not all atheist
are closed minded. After reading your exchange with Dan, I have to say
you're not closed minded.
Scott
Ğr. Worm
<schnip>
> > > ...Unless that theist has flirted with agnosticism.
> >
> > And what of the atheist that has done the same?
>
> Ok I'll admit to talking out of turn. It was a jig at Dan. Not all atheist
> are closed minded. After reading your exchange with Dan, I have to say
> you're not closed minded.
heheh, no prob - I was just being difficult :o)
peace.
--
Ğr. Worm
---------------
Now Playing: nuthin.
Dan Fake
You're claiming your "dislike" for me is not anti-human?
Interesting, please elaborate for us. By the by, you do
realize that I love you, don't you?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-Dan Fake, Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
http://home.att.net/~danfake
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Scott
Dan Fake
>
> "Dan Fake" <dan...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:hru77.5946$LP2.6...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> news:9jlpe0$s4i$1...@bugstomper.ihug.com.au...
> > >
> > > Dan Fake <dan...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> > > news:%Wh77.17513$gj1.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > > news:9jj61c$eeb$1...@bugstomper.ihug.com.au...
> > > > >
> > > > > [skip pitch for temidity]
> > > >
> > > > Into "I dunnoism", are you?
> > >
> > > If by that you mean basic civility then yes.
> > > You claim love for humanity - yet you are aggressive to your fellow man.
> >
> > No, I oppose delusion in a manner which does not
> > cater to anti-humanism. You accept anti-humanism
> > as if by being silent when folks threaten to throw
> > children into hellfire for eternity is a saintly stance,
> > rather than standing up for human rights and taking
> > a stand against such anti-human insanity.
>
> Most atheist assume morals are arbitrary. I recall you considering yourself
> among them.
>
> In a world were morals are deemed arbitrary there are no supreme moral
> behaviors and therefore human rights are what ever the majority of society
> says they are. As I pointed out to your before Jeffrey Dalmer could've been
> a great man in the backwoods of New Guinea.
>
> Put it this way, Dan, if you believe morals are arbitrary then any set of
> morals is no better or worse than another so why not take the pope's moral
> software, plug it into your noggin and run it.
Morals are as specified in the following. Don't you agree?
Circle of All That Is (051801)
http://home.att.net/~danfake/philosophy_freelover/circle_of_all_that_is.htm
"... Persons of faith use a magic being world
(some struggling against naturalism, others
willing to accept naturalism as being at play
in varying degrees) to describe all that is. ...
Persons of non-faith comprehend a natural
world as explaining all that is, with mystery
and unknowns dealt with in varied ways ... "
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dan Fake, Pro-Humanist #1, FREELOVER #1,
who cares deeply about truth, freedom, and maxing
out this one and only experience we all know and
share, on this earth, at this time, in this life.
http://home.att.net/~danfake/prohumanism.htm
http://home.att.net/~danfake/freelover.htm
FREELOVER? Freethinking Realist Exploring Expressive
Liberty, Openness, Verity, Enlightenment, & Rationality
(also, pro-love, free from state and church authorities)
Origins: http://home.att.net/~danfake/origins.htm
Top Posts: http://home.att.net/~danfake/top_posts.htm
Books: http://home.att.net/~danfake/books_index.htm
Webpedia: http://home.att.net/~danfake/webpedia.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Scott
ScottF
> "ScottF" <sc...@nomorespam.net> wrote in message
news:iuN77.280$_q3.1...@nnrp3.sbc.net...
> >
> > "Dan Fake" <dan...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> > news:hru77.5946$LP2.6...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > news:9jlpe0$s4i$1...@bugstomper.ihug.com.au...
> > > >
> > > > Dan Fake <dan...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:%Wh77.17513$gj1.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Is this quote suppose to mean some thing?
ScottF
> "ScottF" <sc...@nomorespam.net> wrote in message
news:7JM77.235$_q3.1...@nnrp3.sbc.net...
> >
> > "Dan Fake" <dan...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> > news:qTq77.5697$LP2.5...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > > "ScottF" <sc...@nomorespam.net> wrote in message
> > news:n5g77.223$y73....@nnrp1.sbc.net...
> > > >
> > > > [skip]
> > >
> > > Why so anti-human, Scott? Why do you
> > > hate so? Is your desperate desire for an
> > > almighty authority (magic being/ultimate
> > > answer) so intense that underlying your
> > > hate is your deep fear that your ultimate
> > > answer does not, in fact, exist? Please, do
> > > speak freely and honestly regarding your
> > > fear and your unwillingness/reticence to
> > > accept a natural fate in a natural world ...
> >
> > This from the guy who decides human is based on the nervous system. Get
a
> > clue, Dan, my dislike for you does not equal "anti-human". Your attempt
to
> > hide your contempt in geniality only fools you.
>
> You're claiming your "dislike" for me is not anti-human?
> Interesting, please elaborate for us. By the by, you do
> realize that I love you, don't you?
If having a dislike for one person makes them anti-human (what ever the hell
that means, anyway) then normal people are anti-human.
Scott
ScottF
"Ğr. Worm" <dr.worm@(ask me for my address).com> wrote in message
>
> ScottF <sc...@nomorespam.net> wrote in message
> news:ZyN77.285$_q3.1...@nnrp3.sbc.net...
> <schnip>
> > > > ...Unless that theist has flirted with agnosticism.
> > >
> > > And what of the atheist that has done the same?
> >
> > Ok I'll admit to talking out of turn. It was a jig at Dan. Not all
atheist
> > are closed minded. After reading your exchange with Dan, I have to say
> > you're not closed minded.
>
> heheh, no prob - I was just being difficult :o)
>
I enjoy being difficult myself ;)
peace to you too
See, Dan, civility works.
Scott