Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Hi there!
I am just a little bit puzzled at the moment, about something (naturally), let's just say I have this friend, and they are very sure they know what they are talking about, but when I mention a certain subject, let's just say "trees", I can talk about "trees" but I can't talk about "fruit". Now, I'm not saying they are crazy yet (though they obviously are), what I am curious about is what you do when someone has "half a concept".
The reason I ask is that it applies to atheists, as well. I mean, when you say "I don't believe in God" really you are saying "I don't believe in part A, and am saying nothing about part B" where part B is all the good works that is done in the name of part A (I'm not saying part A means you have to do part B, but if you don't like part A, that doesn't automatically mean part B is irrelevant, if you catch my drift). I mean, can you have a philosophy of half a concept?
The point of a philosophy of half a concept, is that you effectively get something done, am I right? You know there is something, but you are not entirely convinced as to what it is, so you investigate, and the investigation produces work and the work produces something, in a best case scenario, right? Only, you have only half a concept, so actually, it doesn't matter whether you produce anything out of your work, because you are only in it for the first half, not the second half. See where it can break down?
I don't know, I'm just curious. I don't know what the rules are. Is it fair to say that everything has a beginning and an end? Does it make sense to say every concept, really comes in two parts? Can you make an end of anything (which does good naturally) if you don't believe in the second part? And as an atheist, are you actually saying you don't believe in the good works, either?
I really don't know how people think about this.
Unfortunately, you do not extend the same grace to God as you do to the universe, merely because you see the universe but you do not see God.
The idea of God is growing, just questioning it is going to leave you behind, nothing else.
Your statement that we already exist in the universe, with the subtext that we do not already exist in God, is presumptive and false.
How can something be better, just because it is without something else?
Hi there!
I am just a little bit puzzled at the moment, about something (naturally), let's just say I have this friend, and they are very sure they know what they are talking about, but when I mention a certain subject, let's just say "trees", I can talk about "trees" but I can't talk about "fruit". Now, I'm not saying they are crazy yet (though they obviously are), what I am curious about is what you do when someone has "half a concept".
The reason I ask is that it applies to atheists, as well. I mean, when you say "I don't believe in God" really you are saying "I don't believe in part A, and am saying nothing about part B" where part B is all the good works that is done in the name of part A (I'm not saying part A means you have to do part B, but if you don't like part A, that doesn't automatically mean part B is irrelevant, if you catch my drift). I mean, can you have a philosophy of half a concept?
The point of a philosophy of half a concept, is that you effectively get something done, am I right? You know there is something, but you are not entirely convinced as to what it is, so you investigate, and the investigation produces work and the work produces something, in a best case scenario, right? Only, you have only half a concept, so actually, it doesn't matter whether you produce anything out of your work, because you are only in it for the first half, not the second half. See where it can break down?
I don't know, I'm just curious. I don't know what the rules are. Is it fair to say that everything has a beginning and an end? Does it make sense to say every concept, really comes in two parts? Can you make an end of anything (which does good naturally) if you don't believe in the second part? And as an atheist, are you actually saying you don't believe in the good works, either?
I really don't know how people think about this.
The reason I ask is that it applies to atheists, as well. I mean, when you say "I don't believe in God" really you are saying "I don't believe in part A, and am saying nothing about part B" where part B is all the good works that is done in the name of part A (I'm not saying part A means you have to do part B, but if you don't like part A, that doesn't automatically mean part B is irrelevant, if you catch my drift). I mean, can you have a philosophy of half a concept?
The point of a philosophy of half a concept, is that you effectively get something done, am I right? You know there is something, but you are not entirely convinced as to what it is, so you investigate, and the investigation produces work and the work produces something, in a best case scenario, right? Only, you have only half a concept, so actually, it doesn't matter whether you produce anything out of your work, because you are only in it for the first half, not the second half. See where it can break down?
I don't know, I'm just curious. I don't know what the rules are. Is it fair to say that everything has a beginning and an end? Does it make sense to say every concept, really comes in two parts? Can you make an end of anything (which does good naturally) if you don't believe in the second part? And as an atheist, are you actually saying you don't believe in the good works, either?
You are describing your point of view accurately; however, one can build nothing from only one point of view. It takes more than one point of view to build even the simplest of things or ideas. The more complicated the thing or idea, the more perspicacity is required.
For example, a perspective 180% from yours is one I treasure like a north star - No creature conceives ideas; they merely perceive concepts eternally existent within their Creator. Therefore, even your friends mis-perceptions are providential.
Or it is well-considered and true.
eudaimonia,
Mark
Simple. My wife's lungs would be better if she went without smoking. Eliminating something toxic is healthy.
"Good people do good things, and bad people do bad things. But for good people to do bad things requires religion."
I am quite capable of believing that people can do good because they are deluded into doing so by religion.
Whether or not a concept is true has little to do with how peoples interpretations of it effect their lives.
No not really. I am quite capable of doing good things without appealing to deities.
They are separate ideas. One is a concept of God, and the other a concept of morality.
You religious types tend to get the metaphysics and the morality all mixed up together because they come in a package deal to you, but I have no such predisposition.
And you don't see that in itself as a delusion, how interesting...
Therefore whether it is true or not is of less importance than the way in which people let it affect them, no?
Oh good! What are they? I have charities.
Accepting this as a challenge lead to inspiration for great idea to do with morality, thank you. You of course did not say what you actually do, as an atheist, you might want to address that.
If it were a package deal, my life would be over.
Hi there!
I am just a little bit puzzled at the moment, about something (naturally), let's just say I have this friend, and they are very sure they know what they are talking about, but when I mention a certain subject, let's just say "trees", I can talk about "trees" but I can't talk about "fruit". Now, I'm not saying they are crazy yet (though they obviously are), what I am curious about is what you do when someone has "half a concept".
The reason I ask is that it applies to atheists, as well. I mean, when you say "I don't believe in God" really you are saying "I don't believe in part A, and am saying nothing about part B" where part B is all the good works that is done in the name of part A (I'm not saying part A means you have to do part B, but if you don't like part A, that doesn't automatically mean part B is irrelevant, if you catch my drift). I mean, can you have a philosophy of half a concept?
The point of a philosophy of half a concept, is that you effectively get something done, am I right? You know there is something, but you are not entirely convinced as to what it is, so you investigate, and the investigation produces work and the work produces something, in a best case scenario, right? Only, you have only half a concept, so actually, it doesn't matter whether you produce anything out of your work, because you are only in it for the first half, not the second half. See where it can break down?
I don't know, I'm just curious. I don't know what the rules are. Is it fair to say that everything has a beginning and an end? Does it make sense to say every concept, really comes in two parts? Can you make an end of anything (which does good naturally) if you don't believe in the second part? And as an atheist, are you actually saying you don't believe in the good works, either?
I really don't know how people think about this.
Do atheists think that though? I'm sure they'd like to.
The point about something true is really what I was trying to get at, actually. Well done! You answered my questioning. I haven't always thought that concepts have to have results (as pragmatism suggests), but something happened recently that led me to question that. Now I see that there is actually a difference of opinion about what a concept is for.
You think a concept is for truth or the discernment thereof, I think a concept is like a beacon or a marker on a map that guide and directs behaviour, like an instruction. There is a big difference! But only if you are actually going somewhere! One will get you there, the other will leave you there (and that's not the way around I had it originally!)
So yes, thankyou, that clears quite a bit up. I don't suppose you can tell me what half a concept is to the truth? Is it half a truth? Is that what is the other side?
This basically answered the root of the problem for me. Thank you. Asking whether something is true or not, is enough for hope of an opinion, nothing more, and half a concept leaves you with hope of a perspective, nothing more. Very true.
I think you set out to address this from a less practical point of view, though, as the reason I introduced a sort geometrical analysis of concepts, as to how much of a shape they are, that is, was that I want to know what happens to the mind when you limit its sphere of understanding to things that it was not designed for. I don't believe half a concept is normal or natural and I think people have a funny idea of the favour they do people when they just refute what is being said or write off a particular way of saying things, AND what has occurred to me is that these two things are not exclusive to theists or atheists, but that actually being left with half a concept is a common occurence where ignorance abounds.
I find this fascinating. Not so much the concept itself, but your way of interpretting it. Would you care to tell me what something is, if it is not an idea? Or how you perceive a concept within someone else, without an idea? I have taken what you have said about friends misperceptions being providential to heart.
I would be extremely wary of anyone using concepts as guideposts without first discovering they are true. Ever hear of eugenics?
Yea...I don't believe in the "good works" either. You see, your part B is a result of part A. You've never shown part A to be real, therefore any discussion of part B is irrelevant. Show me part A exists....then I'll gladly discuss part B all you like.
Not terribly interesting. If I thought my own reasoning was delusional I would probably re-evaluate it.
You can try to convince me if you like.
Some may be terrible people if they are not religious because they can't come up with good reasons for doing good.
On the other hand, I think it is of utmost importance for some because it is quite reasonable that we might need to move beyond religious reasoning for being good.
I am saying that morality has very little to do with metaphysics for me. I have never been able to marry the two.
I don't think the shape of the universe is important to me when deciding what is right.
I do decide what I think is right every day though, in the actions I take and the reasoning behind them.
Why would anyone do something they knew was deluded, for someone else's gain?
I mean wouldn't you make yourself out to be something fantastic, anything, before you used a delusion to help someone else?
That is rather the point. People fail. Religion pads the failure out. People then recover.
You've no idea what your diagnosis is, do you. Your Doctor Judgment Day Asteroids headed for Earth and someone has to be held to Account, diagnosis? The thing you will panic about when the inevitable comes hurtling toward Earth and wants to claim everything you hold dear?
This to me makes a lot of sense - though naturally I need time to think about it - only I don't know why it took so long to share it - though naturally you did and that is more to the point.
If you learn anything about people at all, it is that they resent being opposed for the sake of it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?