How many people would go for this if they could?

dingdong said:

Of course I'm not but a lot will especially in places where Muslims have virtually taken the towns over.

Click to expand...

And what places would those be?

There are plenty of people who will vote BNP all over the place. That's because many of them subscribe to the same unfounded beliefs about Muslims as you appear to.

dingdong said:

Please tell me how I can have an opinion about something that can not be shown to exist? we could be here for days listing the things that we can not show to exist, I asked you about Unicorns and Dragons, do they exist or shall we put them in the 'might' box the 'don't know' box or the 'probably not' box? what we are not allowed to do is put them in the 'no' box because according to you they just might, that is just.....

Click to expand...

Because you have the opinion that A) It does not exist, when there is no evidence of nonexistence, and B) That believing that it does exist is evidence of delusion. See? You have a metaphysical position on deity. You'll say you don't, but basically you're just up in arms about having a metaphysical anything. Atheism is, by default, by being a position on a metaphysical subject, a metaphysical position.

Now then, on your unicorns and dragons question - what do you mean by "existence?"

Do unicorns and dragons exist? Yes, no question.

Do they exist in a literal sense? No, that's ridiculous.

Do they exist in an archetypal sense as representative of our own ideals concerning both that which seeks purity and that which destroys? Yes. And, if you're in Asia, then the dragon also represents wisdom. Hell, even a lot of western dragons are supposed to be highly intelligent.

Do I believe in Jung's theory of the anima mundi and that archetypes may have an existence independent of our own thoughts? Quite possibly.

So, yes, I believe in unicorns and dragons and demons and angels and faeries and gods and werewolves and vampires. Just none of them in the sense that you seem to feel is required for "belief," in that I do not hold to a literal belief in them as some kind of physically manifested beings which can be tested and proved, but as constructs of humanity which may, in some way, predate our own existence as archetypal ideas given names and flesh by human belief. I do not affirm this as a positive, but rather state it as a theoretical reality map for dealing with the world as it currently exists, much like my study of kabbalah and ceremonial magick. Thus far, it allows me to make sense of the world, and also the magickal practices have enhanced my discipline concerning all aspects of life in much the same way as martial arts.

Unfortunately, your metaphysics does not allow for this position, so I must be wrong.

ETA: Just so you know, your metaphysics are not wrong. Your blind insistence that you're correct though, without providing proof, is horribly wrong. Lack of citations makes sad librarian sad.

dingdong said:

So the winkle eyed slurpers of Ragil 4 exist because there is no evidence of nonexistence, now I understand.

Click to expand...

Are you intentionally missing the point? No evidence of non-existence =/= existance and likewise no evidence of existence =/= non-existence.

Have a chat with a doctor or a psychiatrist and hear what they have to say on the subject.

Click to expand...

Yeah these are the insults we're talking about.

Not the words 'unicorns and dragons' the animals.

Do Gods exist in the literal sense?

But only in our imaginations.

Click to expand...

Ooh ooh. Guess what?

[Citation Needed]

No your not wrong I'm just lucky I can see things for what they are without the need to use my imagination.

Click to expand...

I'm not even going to bother telling you what I would type in reply to this. I'm sure you can guess. (Hint: it involves square brackets and has already been used once).

If I think I'm right why shouldn't I say I'm right? after all, you just keep repeating that you believe because no one can prove that what you believe is false, the only difference between us is, I go in through the front door and you sneak in through the back,
with that old nutmeg, 'Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence', what a way to run a life.

Click to expand...

You can say you're right if you want, but we all reserve the right to point and laugh at you when you do. I haven't seen such hypocritical reasoning for a long time.

dingdong said:

So the winkle eyed slurpers of Ragil 4 exist because there is no evidence of nonexistence, now I understand.

Click to expand...

You've completely missed the point. That is not what was said or implied. The point is that the absence of evidence does not actually prove that something doesn't exist. If you take non-existence as a proven fact, you are taking a metaphysical position, as sidhe claimed.

At most, the absence of evidence justifies rejecting such a claim of existence because it is deficient, however, one must understand that this rejection has no power of its own over reality. Such claims may be empty, except as speculation, but they could still turn out to be true with the accumulation of additional evidence.

I'm not at all defending an "anything goes" approach to belief, but I think that a little speculation isn't necessarily a bad thing. There is very little that can be known with full certainty. We all have to manage ambiguity and uncertainty. Some unproven ideas nevertheless have rational plausibility, such as sidhe's ideas regarding archetypes. The more plausibility, the more open the door should be for reasonable speculations. You don't have to agree with those ideas, of course, but they don't merit the scorn deserved by Slurperists (until we explore Ragil 4, of course -- aim at the eyes!)


eudaimonia,

Mark

dingdong said:

I am of course completly wrong about everything, who would have guessed it?

Click to expand...

Isn't that exactly what you are saying about everyone else?

May your Gods or your acceptance that there just might be Gods go with you all.

Click to expand...

Again, you fail to get the point. I'm not saying that there might be Gods. I'm saying that you should be a little more tolerant, and a little more aware when you are overreaching your ability to know things.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Let me clarify my previous post a bit.

I personally hate it when someone says: "Anything is possible."

What is wrong with such a statement? It is possible that not everything is possible.

IOWs, one's own ignorance of what precisely is possible in reality is not itself knowledge that anything at all could actually exist.

So, my answer to the question: "Is it possible that Yahweh exists?" can only be "Not to my knowledge." That doesn't mean I think that it is possible that Yahweh exists, because of course I don't know that such a being is possible.

I make no effort to state with omniscient knowledge and certitude about what "might" exist, and I reserve the right to reject claims made on insufficient evidence.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Of what is written of Yahweh, would he exist, if only One God did?

Joshua_Masquelier said:

Of what is written of Yahweh, would he exist, if only One God did?

Click to expand...

Are you asking this of me?

You are asking to me to speculate about imponderables. I cannot provide an answer to such a question except for one:

The doctrine of the Trinity strikes me as potentially violating the Law of Non-Contradiction, depending on how it is understood. Any God-concept that contains an internal contradiction cannot exist in reality. Such a Yahweh must be regarded as non-existent.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Are you asking this of me?

You are asking to me to speculate about imponderables. I cannot provide an answer to such a question except for one:

The doctrine of the Trinity strikes me as potentially violating the Law of Non-Contradiction, depending on how it is understood. Any God-concept that contains an internal contradiction cannot exist in reality. Such a Yahweh must be regarded as non-existent.

Click to expand...

Excuse me, Yes, I was asking of you. Let's consider Jesus, whom a Christian should say is the Word of God manifest as flesh. When you see this Man with the eyes of your understanding, apart from the question of whether he actually existed historically, do you believe in Him? Belief in a deeper, different way. Again, not a question of historical reality, but do you BELIEVE in Him?

If you are interested, apart from the historical reality, please list the things which would make you believe or not believe in Him. Remember, BELIEVE, not in the sense of did he exist, but belief in His Name, who he is or what he represents.

Joshua_Masquelier said:

When you see [Jesus] with the eyes of your understanding, apart from the question of whether he actually existed historically, do you believe in Him? [...] Remember, BELIEVE, not in the sense of did he exist, but belief in His Name, who he is or what he represents.

Click to expand...

No, Jesus is not any moral ideal for me, nor does he exemplify any personal truths of mine.

If you had asked me, do you BELIEVE in Socrates, or do you BELIEVE in John Galt, I would be far more likely to answer yes.

I'm curious where you are going with this line of discussion.


eudaimonia,

Mark

No, Jesus is not any moral ideal for me, nor does he exemplify any personal truths of mine.

If you had asked me, do you BELIEVE in Socrates, or do you BELIEVE in John Galt, I would be far more likely to answer yes.

Click to expand...

Indeed, for Jesus is against all things of the fleshly nature. The account goes that he had all power and authority to reign over and call down wrath upon a world that despised and rejected Him, yet he laid down his life instead, knowing that some among the crowd witnessing his sufferings, would see with certain eyes, not of flesh, but of the heart, and would believe this is the truth of God. That God has done this for them, and therefore, they also ought to do the same for others.

The Gospel requires of a man a decision, do you see the truth of God in the Man Jesus Christ, in how he has reconciled the alienated (you and I) to Himself, even unto death? The Christian postulate is that if we are to be "of" God, then we must believe in who He is, and belief must lead to action to walk just as he walked, or we are not "of" God.

If a man truly perceives the message of the Cross, and rejects what it represents, history aside, but based upon Spiritual principle, if we consider closely, he has chosen to live in enmity with others, due to fleshly pride and unwillingness to love others to death. Yet the truth remains, that even every one of us, to be reconciled to the Creator of all, require the forgiveness displayed at Calvary. To reject this is to live in darkness of the understanding.

I'm anticipating the usual "atheist" responses, and that's okay. But all should understand that the Christian believes because it is real in his everyday influence of life, a reality established by the Spirit, not of the understanding of the flesh.

Joshua_Masquelier said:

I'm anticipating the usual "atheist" responses, and that's okay.

Click to expand...

No "atheist" response here. Just puzzlement at what your contribution has to do with my philosophical discussion of possibilities. But thank you for sharing.


eudaimonia,

Mark

dingdong said:

So the winkle eyed slurpers of Ragil 4 exist because there is no evidence of nonexistence, now I understand.

Click to expand...

No, they don't necessarily exist, but neither do they necessarily not exist. As there is no planet (to my knowledge) called Ragil 4, I'd go with nonexistent, but the bounds of modern science are unknown. In a quantum system, it is entirely possible that the winkle-eyed slurpers of Ragil 4 exist in a parallel membrane or string to ours.

Have a chat with a doctor or a psychiatrist and hear what they have to say on the subject.

Click to expand...

My old psychotherapist was quite lovely. We discussed Jungian archetypes and yoga. She was quite helpful. Similarly, my old psychiatrist was interested in many of the same concepts. Next?

Not the words 'unicorns and dragons' the animals.

Click to expand...

Answer me whether or not you can locate the thing that is "you" and attest to its existence, and I'll consider answering this.

Do Gods exist in the literal sense?

Click to expand...

Mu.

But only in our imaginations.

Click to expand...

As do such notions as a manned flight to mars, extraterrestrial intelligences, and works of fiction. Doesn't prevent people from pursuing them (see the engraving on Voyager II for the E.T. connection).

So you're really open to anything that's going, that's nice.

Click to expand...

Not at all. The map is not the territory, and if something conflicts with the territory (i.e. "The world was created 6,000 years ago"), then that is dismissed. As you haven't a clue what I believe, nor have any indication of making an effort to understand, you're in no place to make statements.

Again, understanding does not mean agreement.

So it allows you to make sense of the physical world by dreaming about it, that is also nice.

Click to expand...

No, by analyzing it according to a metaphysical framework that allows for connections and categorizations according to archetypal ideas. You, for instance, are rather depressingly tied to malkuth in assiah, and not even in any kind of interesting, hedonistic qliphothic sense, but in a way that reeks of a kind of reverse dualism - that which is "physical" is good, and that which is "spiritual" is bad.

No your not wrong I'm just lucky I can see things for what they are without the need to use my imagination.

Click to expand...

I don't find that lucky. I find a lack of imagination to be rather sad.

If I think I'm right why shouldn't I say I'm right? after all, you just keep repeating that you believe because no one can prove that what you believe is false, the only difference between us is, I go in through the front door and you sneak in through the back,
with that old nutmeg, 'Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence', what a way to run a life.

Click to expand...

1) I haven't stated a thing concerning my actual framework of beliefs, so you cannot make a statement on that except from ignorance. In fact, I haven't even stated that what I believe is true, only that I believe it. I make no claims that it is necessary that you agree with me, which would be difficult to do, as I've made no positive claims concerning what I - in fact - do believe. I have claimed that you behave in a way more like religious fundamentalists than anyone else, and that you are rude and immature in conversation. That, see, can be shown in an objective manner.

2) "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is not a nutmeg, it is a logical paradigm - something cannot be dismissed as nonexistent due to lack of evidence. Rather, one requires positive evidence of nonexistence. In metaphysics (which is what we're discussing here, regardless of your insistence that you're not), it means that things cannot be dismissed out of hand merely due to a lack of evidence. Again, to refer to creationism, there is evidence that the universe is at least 4.7 billion years old, thus refuting the claim that the universe is 6000 years old. However, one can also read Genesis as a parable of the place of humanity - that is, the sole part of creation that directly reflect the divine - and that claim would fall under the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence rule."

If Jesus had all perfection in himself according to all virtue, were he to have judged while in his flesh, it could not have stopped with his immediate accusers. The judgment would have extended to all people, since all fall short of his perfection. All are guilty of being against him in character, and since he also had all authority and power to execute judgment, if he did not turn the other cheek, the only other alternative would have been utterly destroy humanity, without giving anyone time to repent.

If this "Word in the Flesh" is the manifest represtentation of God to the world, this pageantry at Calvary would accurately reflect the real conflict that exists between us and Him, as the postulate of Christianity is that He embodies all virtue, yet continues to interact with unvirtuous creatures.

In this the Christian sees no other possibility, that is, if God exists, and He is Love.

So the message of the cross is that a man must accept that he is in error according to all virtue, but the Man of all virtue has looked past his revilings, and has forgiven, even to the requirement of death. In hearing this message, he should repent of his flawed nature and look to the perfected man of the Spirit. To BELIEVE in Jesus is to believe in His Name, who He is in character. The hope preached is that God in seeing this Belief, will raise his arm to grasp that branch of higher existence that he desires to reach, to become the Man he desires to be, in that day . . .


Ephesians 2:4-7
But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.

Joshua_Masquelier said:

Indeed, for Jesus is against all things of the fleshly nature.

Click to expand...

But why? (For those things are the creation of his own father.)
.

sidhe said:

2) "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is not a nutmeg, it is a logical paradigm - something cannot be dismissed as nonexistent due to lack of evidence.

Click to expand...

Cannot agree.
.
Absence of evidence is certainly not proof of absence. But it sure IS evidence, to be considered alongside any other evidence you may have.
.