How many people would go for this if they could?

[sidhe]

I think we have no choice other than to interpret what we see around us using the data we are given by our senses,
if we start imagining things that do not register with our senses we are only confusing the issue.

Then the question becomes what do you do when what registers with your senses does not match what deductive logic would suggest? That's where the metaphysical construct comes in.

Religion, a philosophy, an ethical system, superstition, moral code, all stem from our minds and our imaginations, they are constructs that serve to organise and help us lead more harmonious lives, developed over many years through interaction with each other the outcome of which has been handed down from generation to generation to help make life a little more comfortable for everyone, we don't need to stop imagining things all we need do is remember they are imaginings and nothing else.

Which is entirely agreeable to me. I'm perfectly content with the idea that I may also be imaginary. One of my favorite quotes is, "Practice being fictional, and you may discover that fictional characters are more real than people you meet."

I am not an academic so all of the above was not very well explained but I hope you understand what I am trying to say.

Certainly - so long as we treat our metaphysical constructs as constructs of our own devising rather than absolute truths, we can get along better. That said, gnostic/hard atheism is as much a metaphysical construct as theism - it is equally a way of categorizing our sensory data.

This might sum it up even better: That that is is that that is not is not is not that it it is.
just add the punctuation and it will make sense.

That that is, is that that is not, is not. Is not that it, it is?

 

[Mobiosity]

Are we talking about the same thing? I think we are, but as I'm woefully decaffeinated from my normal condition I'm not sure.

As nonsensical as it sounds, if you think we're talking about the same thing, then we are.

 

[sidhe]

As nonsensical as it sounds, if you think we're talking about the same thing, then we are.

That's what I thought.

 

[_JJM]

1 John 3:23
And this is His commandment: that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ and love one another, as He gave us commandment.​

 

[dingdong]

That said, gnostic/hard atheism is as much a metaphysical construct as theism - it is equally a way of categorizing our sensory data.

I'm sorry but I can't agree with that, Atheism is not a metaphysical construct any more than not collecting stamps is a metaphysical construct? it may be a reaction to a metaphysical construct?
people constructed Gods and when asked if I also believed in those Gods I said no, is that a metaphysical construct?

That that is, is that that is not, is not. Is not that it, it is?

Try again, with the punctuation in the right places it will make sense, how you did it doesn't.

 

[jpcedotal]

WIKIPEDIA

That that is is that that is not is not is that it it is is an English word sequence demonstrating lexical ambiguity. It is used as an example illustrating the importance of proper punctuation.[1]
The sequence can be understood as four discrete sentences by adding punctuation:

That that is, is. That that is not, is not. Is that it? It is.

​

This relates a simple philosophical proverb in the style of Parmenides that all that is, is, and that anything that does not exist does not. The phrase was first noted in Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable[2] but was popularised when the 1959 short story "Flowers for Algernon" was adapted for the big screen in 1968 as Charly.[3] Garylin noticed this while lying in a meadow picking daisies and talking to himself.
A similar sequence, consisting of only one sentence and no punctuation, is:

That that is is that that is not is not that that is that that is is not true is not true.

​

Meaning: The idea that the statement "what happens to be nonexistent is different from that which does exist" is false, is itself untrue.
Another similar sequence, consisting of three graphic sentences and punctuation:

That "that is" is that "that is not" is not. Is that it? It is.

​

Meaning: Saying that something exists is stating that "that same thing is nonexistent" is false.

 

[sidhe]

I'm sorry but I can't agree with that, Atheism is not a metaphysical construct any more than not collecting stamps is a metaphysical construct? it may be a reaction to a metaphysical construct?
people constructed Gods and when asked if I also believed in those Gods I said no, is that a metaphysical construct?

You miss the point - atheism forms a metastructure which informs your view of physical reality. Thus, atheism is a metaphysical stance. Now, atheism is not a religion (anymore than "theism" is a religion), but it does make a definite metaphysical statement - "Deities do not exist." So, yes, atheism is a metaphysical statement. And, like all metaphysical statements, it is one based on subjective judgment.

Like it or not, you do not have proof that there are no deities, you only believe such based on the information you have available to you. Subjective judgment. Want to test it? Substitute another statement you would accept as metaphysical into a statement similar to the kind you make:

The existence of God as described in the Bible is reality. People who deny the existence of God as described in the Bible are delusional. I find that the longer I speak with them, the less mature the conversation becomes.

That sounds totally insane, doesn't it?

Try again, with the punctuation in the right places it will make sense, how you did it doesn't.

Nope, it makes sense. That that is is the same as that that is not, in that it isn't. Is not that it, that it is?

I think what you were looking for was:

That that is, is. That that is not, is not. Is not that it? It is.

But, see, it can be other things, too:

That that is is that that is. Not is not. Is not that? It! It is!

That! That is! Is that? That is not! Is not? Is not that it? It is!

And if you start rearranging the words...

That that is, is that that is not. Is it not that? It is, and is not.

The world is a strange and terrible place, and limiting yourself to viewing others as delusional because they do not agree with you removes much of the terrible strangeness. I love strangeness.

 

[hikersong]

I love strangeness.

And I love your sense of humour Sidhe.

 

[jpcedotal]

and my head hurts..

 

[_JJM]

1 Corinthians 1:18​

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing,
but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.​

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

Religions do seem to rely on force in numbers don't they, like little gangs that all children want to join,

Red herring. Your opinion does not matter.

but the joke is on you for even thinking about taking it seriously

I don't take anything you say seriously, can you show me a reason why I should? Such as the point behind this thread?

relax not everyone is out to get you.

You seem to think religions are out to get "you".

 

[dingdong]

You miss the point - atheism forms a metastructure which informs your view of physical reality. Thus, atheism is a metaphysical stance. Now, atheism is not a religion (anymore than "theism" is a religion), but it does make a definite metaphysical statement - "Deities do not exist." So, yes, atheism is a metaphysical statement. And, like all metaphysical statements, it is one based on subjective judgment.

Again I must disagree, until I found this forum I don't suppose I had even thought about religion once in ten years, just as I had not thought about the squiks on the planet squiggle, how can I have a stance on wether or not Gods exist? do we take a billion stances on the billions of things that 'Might' exist? where is the sense in that?

Some people might believe Gods exist and that's there choice, away from this forum I don't even give the idea a second thought, do I have an opinion? no more than I have an opinion on any other myth, what's your opinion on Unicorns or Dragons? to me the idea is just foolish.

Like it or not, you do not have proof that there are no deities, you only believe such based on the information you have available to you.

Please see above.

Subjective judgment. Want to test it? Substitute another statement you would accept as metaphysical into a statement similar to the kind you make:

The existence of God as described in the Bible is reality. People who deny the existence of God as described in the Bible are delusional. I find that the longer I speak with them, the less mature the conversation becomes.

That sounds totally insane, doesn't it?

This is where our senses should kick in and not our imaginations, our imaginations are boundless.

Nope, it makes sense. That that is is the same as that that is not, in that it isn't. Is not that it, that it is?

I think what you were looking for was:

That that is, is. That that is not, is not. Is not that it? It is.

But, see, it can be other things, too:

That that is is that that is. Not is not. Is not that? It! It is!

That! That is! Is that? That is not! Is not? Is not that it? It is!

And if you start rearranging the words...

That that is, is that that is not. Is it not that? It is, and is not.

The world is a strange and terrible place, and limiting yourself to viewing others as delusional because they do not agree with you removes much of the terrible strangeness. I love strangeness.

I have made bold the only sentence that makes sense, you have made all of the others make as much sense to you as your God and your religion does, you change it all to suit yourself, good luck to you.

 

[durangodawood]

Hey dongdong! Did you ever answer my question from page one? (Please forgive me that I dont feel like cruising 25 pages to find it.)
.

 

[sidhe]

Again I must disagree, until I found this forum I don't suppose I had even thought about religion once in ten years, just as I had not thought about the squiks on the planet squiggle, how can I have a stance on wether or not Gods exist? do we take a billion stances on the billions of things that 'Might' exist? where is the sense in that?

Hold on...so, you have no opinion on the existence of deities, so you're apathetic towards the subject, but you argue against the existence of deities and affirm - positively - that they do not exist? Your internal logic does not process fully.

Some people might believe Gods exist and that's there choice, away from this forum I don't even give the idea a second thought, do I have an opinion? no more than I have an opinion on any other myth, what's your opinion on Unicorns or Dragons? to me the idea is just foolish.

So, again, you positively attest the nonexistence of deity, but you have no opinion on the subject, but people who do believe in deities are foolish?

And I'm the one who doesn't make sense?

Please see above.

This is where our senses should kick in and not our imaginations, our imaginations are boundless.

Our imaginations are boundless. Why not enjoy them?

"The mantra of fundamentalist materialism is 'It's only a coincidence, it's only a coincidence.' It functions like a traditional Hindu mantra; it calms the body, stills the mind, and ultimately thought stops completely." - Robert Anton Wilson

I have made bold the only sentence that makes sense, you have made all of the others make as much sense to you as your God and your religion does, you change it all to suit yourself, good luck to you.

And you manage to be vocally opposed to something you have no opinion on. Again, you claim that you're making sense, but your internal logic doesn't work. If you have no opinion on theism, religion, etc., then you would not address people as foolish, immature, etc. for not agreeing with your...non-opinion? Really?

The punctuation of the sentences I put together is meant to express statements on the connection between existence and non-existence within a philosophical view.

 

[dingdong]

I dont understand. What do you mean you will "take" my sins with you?
.
Sins are acts or intentions, not things you can "take".

I'm sorry, for a start the OP was never meant to be taken seriously plus there is no such thing as sin, even if there was, me nor anyone else could take it away (not even the Catholic church) the very idea is ridiculous.

Sin is a construct of the people who designed religions, without sin there would be no need for redemption therefore sin was a must, they needed people to constantly be sinning even if they were not, just thinking about sinning was a sin so they had them by the short and curlies and scared stiff, which ever way they turned they were trapped.

Religions are wonderfully thought out ways to contain and control the masses.

 

[The Penitent Man]

For a small fee I will take all of your sins to Hell with me when I die, and I will even let you decide how much you pay me for each sin, what do you think? let me take the wrap, after all what have you got to lose?

I just realized the above proposition is the exact opposite of the Catholic Church's sale of indulgences!

 

[durangodawood]

I'm sorry, for a start the OP was never meant to be taken seriously plus there is no such thing as sin, even if there was, me nor anyone else could take it away (not even the Catholic church) the very idea is ridiculous.

Sin is a construct of the people who designed religions, without sin there would be no need for redemption therefore sin was a must, they needed people to constantly be sinning even if they were not, just thinking about sinning was a sin so they had them by the short and curlies and scared stiff, which ever way they turned they were trapped.

Religions are wonderfully thought out ways to contain and control the masses.

I think thats quite wrong. Sin, I think, was a sort of proto-explanation for our personal failures, as conscious beings, to live up to our ideals. Its essentially an explanation for the tricks of the selfish ego, as opposed to apparently ego-less animals.
.
The vast but vague notion of sin was only later codified by religious institutions. And yes, it was then used. But essentially its a much deeper concept than a mere power-getting contrivance.
.

 

[dingdong]

Hold on...so, you have no opinion on the existence of deities, so you're apathetic towards the subject, but you argue against the existence of deities and affirm - positively - that they do not exist? Your internal logic does not process fully.

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.....

 

[durangodawood]

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.....

Its pretty easy to have opinions about things that have been components of human mythology for millenia.
.
First find out what they mean.
.

 

[dingdong]

I think thats quite wrong. Sin, I think, was a sort of proto-explanation for our personal failures, as conscious beings, to live up to our ideals. Its essentially an explanation for the tricks of the selfish ego, as opposed to apparently ego-less animals.
.
The vast but vague notion of sin was only later codified by religious institutions. And yes, it was then used. But essentially its a much deeper concept than a mere power-getting contrivance.
.

You are of course free to think and believe as you wish.