This is exactly what I was trying to say about other sharing their POV in response to his or at least what we understand of it. It’s not a conversation unless others can contribute their thoughts, just as I did after you quoted the Tao. Hopefully, brmckay1 understands one of us.
1 Like
With me you don’t need imagine I’m suggesting anything magical of supernatural. There is only Nature aka Reality.
When you emphasize our inability to observe the Wholeness of the Universe because of its size, I’m reminded to clarify whether your understanding of that Wholeness includes our sentience. (and that of all living creatures)
Is the Wholeness of the Universe absolutely inclusive? Or, is there something outside of it, or even inside of it but not included?
(I’m assuming that any multiverse scenario is included in the definition of Universe)
Failure to communicate ones thoughts is failure to evangelize? Please explain the thought process you’ve used to exclude yourself from that calculation?
Also, as I recall, the entire comment you are referencing included acknowledgement that I might be talking to “politicians” which would have to be factored into the difficulty I was having.
Do you, or do you not have opinions about theists or theism? (i.e. is your comprehension being affected by that polarization?)
I’ll let your statements highlight the juxtaposition of our efforts. (@lausten, @write4u)
(didn’t realize I needed to bring chain mail and a mace to a conversation)
And that begs the question if the Universe is a “living creature” or has living creatures “emerging” from it. And if it is the latter, is it necessary that the causality is a living creature or that Abiogenesis is sufficient explanation for emergent local qualities.
I also referred you to Set Theory, which explains the paradox you are invoking.
(For one thing, at this point I am doing the thinking for myself. Trying to get y’all to do the same. Thinking of course being defined as reasoning and intuiting.)
The Tao that cannot be named is, to quote you “The Mystery”. The immeasurable aspect of Reality. The infinitude of Everything and Nothing.
The Tao that can be named is the mother of the Ten Thousand Things. i.e. The self referential aspect of existence. Relativity is change, the co-arising opposites of This and That, I and Thou, Here and There.
All phenomena co-arising in synchronistic interdependence. The Whole remaining unchanged.
The paradox of the absolute context.
Note:
The same algorithms that assigned me a new name, now won’t let me post this until somebody else replies to something I’ve said . While I wait, I’ll mention that I’m trying to learn the complexities of your software, and stay true to my principles, sense of quality, and discipline. I’m also fending off an amazing and apparently unstoppable degree of SNARK from multiple parties. I apologize for the times that I may have been snarky back.
I’m also going to have to find a way to extract myself from it. This is bad for my cardio situation, and is not worth dying for.
I’d forgotten about that one. See, that’s how you develop a conversation. If that’s what you want to do, stick around.
The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
The nameless is the beginning of heaven and Earth.
The named is the mother of the ten thousand things.
Ever desireless, one can see the mystery.
Ever desiring, one sees the manifestations.
These two spring from the same source but differ in name; this appears as darkness.
Darkness within darkness.
The gate to all mystery.
I really thought that was you, the way you started off. I said that early on when you generalized about atheists, rather than asking the atheists here about what they thought. Then you kept telling us we were wrong about something. But I’ve never figured out what.
1 Like
I didn’t say you failed to evangelize. I said you are evangelizing. I think you just intentionally misunderstood me. You are failing to communicate, but you’re doing a good job of evangelizing.
We’re not politicians.
I do. However, the title of this thread is “Definition of atheist”. I would assume that was meant to be “Definition of atheism”. Atheism is not a religion and an atheist doesn’t believe in any deities. I’m not even sure how you turned this thread in a thread of trying to convince people your view is right and no one else is suppose to discuss their views. You made that quite clear earlier in the thread. Who’s polarizing who?
It’s not a conversation when no one is to discuss anything but your beliefs and it’s not a conversation when we must use your definition of deity. It’s not a conversation when we can’t respond with our thoughts nor is it a conversation when we’re MUST understand your thinking, which makes no sense to any of us. One must construct a sentence that makes sense to others and not have it be words running together in a nonsensical manner.
That’s not a conversation.
You’re wanting us to think as you do, which is not a conversation. You mentioned Taoism, which is good, but I can’t mention Buddhism and no one else can mention anything either.
You named it, so it’s not the Tao. If you can name it, it’s not the Tao. The phrase states, in this translation:
Blockquote The tao (Text sourced from Tao Te Ching - Lao Tzu) that can be told
is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name.
Blockquote The unnamable is the eternally real.
Naming is (Text sourced from Tao Te Ching - Lao Tzu) the origin
of all particular things.
If you name it, then that’s not it. You named it, so that’s not it.
Here’s another translation and it says the same thing:
Blockquote The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named is not the eternal name
The nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth
I have a good comprehension of other religions, but when you name it, you aren’t following the Tao. You cannot name it and talk about the Tao.
1 Like
That was one of the things that got the most twisted. It was clear to me what you were saying.
As atheist I have one definitive observation.
brmckay is steeped in sophistry and has failed miserably in describing the Universe in any falsifiable manner.
Take all this mysterious stuff away and the Universe remains as a thing.
“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.” - Philip K. Dick.
It isn’t complicated. There is NO “irreducible complexity”!
If you click the arrow that shows what I’m replying to, it should take you to brmckay’s first comment. His account is now split in two accounts, but we know it’s him so it’s not a rule violation.
That first comment has a lot of good questions. Most of them can be found in theist or atheist literature and educational material. But I wouldn’t say any of them have easy answers.
I didn’t read through 400 more comments, so I don’t know how well these were answered, but I’m guessing it was the usual tangents and mish-mash that normal people have when on this topic.
Mike Y tried to summarize this thread at post #210. I give him an A for effort.
Well. At least it has a name. I still don’t know what it means though. The closest thing I could think of would be that we know that we don’t know everything. I don’t see that as a paradox so much as just a condition of being human.
The whole scenario smacks of hubris and elitism.
That which cannot be named rules the Universe? And there are some who know that which cannot be named , but are forbidden to name that which cannot be named?
How convenient is that?
I guess I’m just going to have to trust the person who claims that he knows that which cannot be named.
I’ve a potions I can sell you, it has a powerful effect, but I am forbidden to tell you what it is. But I guarantee, it’ll make you feel much better.
Alrighty then, I’ll drinkghhhhhhhhhh to thtastttttttttt…
.
Exactly…so what has been the problem understanding my posts beyond a prevailing political reflex to counteract? (possibly triggered by my saying I called the Whole shebang God)
I’m speaking to the collective here not just you.
[quote=“brmckay1, post:414, topic:2865”]
Exactly…so what has been the problem understanding my posts beyond a prevailing political reflex to counteract? (possibly triggered by my saying I called the Whole shebang God)
I would say it was triggered by everything you said. You cannot name it because it has no name. If it had a name why should it be “forbidden” to speak of it? Give me a break!
I’m speaking to the collective here not just you
Of course you are, you’re proselytizing and as an atheist, I think you haven’t got a clue as to what you are talking about. Sophistry always deals with mystery and magical goings on.
1 Like
You’re the guy who hasn’t accepted my relying of Reality’s undivided context (the Whole, or Entirety) being apriori. Right?
Everything I’m talking about is built on that foundation. (nothing magical about it)
You seem to have rules about what can, an cannot be talked about, and then call me guilty of sophistry.
As for talking about the un-nameable Tao, I’m perfectly aware that it is just “a finger pointing at the Moon”. I’ve said such over and over again.
All ideas about the absolute are approximate. Reality accommodating it all while remaining unchanged.
Very true. Like gravity, you can’t deny reality exists. I guess one could, but they’d be wrong.
Yes, and that is what causes him to not make any sense.
Most definitely does. I don’t disagree.
There’s something about those who say they know, do not actually know. I forget the actual saying, but it’s somewhere.
There is no politics here on this forum. The problem is, you do not make any sense when you write about your philosophy. None of the posters in this tread understand what you are saying and if they come anywhere close to thinking they possibly comprehend you, you say the person is wrong or say, “We’re talking about my definition/religion/view/understanding/etc not yours.”
It is sophistry. That is how you talk and how you demand others speak, as long as you understand it and no one else. If we spewed back at you what you said, then maybe you’d agree, but I seriously doubt it.
Oh I have accepted that completely. I just do not ascribe any mystical properties to the wholeness other than that it is a dynamic object, which IMO is sufficient for all subsequently emergent phenomena.
I like the hypothesis of Causal Dynamical Triangulation (CDT), which assigns a fractal property to the Wholeness, a theme which is physically expressed almost everywhere we look in the Universe.
This came after David Bohm’s Wholeness, but I am sure he would have been enamored with that model. His Holographic Universe model already predicts fractality.
David Bohm and The Holographic Universe:
Bohm believed that although the universe appears to be solid, it is, in essence, a magnificent hologram. He believed in the “whole in every part” idea, and just like a hologram, each part of physical reality contained information about the whole.
David Bohm’s influence extends beyond physics to embrace philosophy, psychology, religion, art, and linguistics. Interestingly, his ideas have been received more enthusiastically by the arts community than by the scientific establishment. The Tibetan Master Sogyal Rinpoche once remarked that there are striking parallels between Bohm’s model of the universe and the Buddhist bardo teachings, as they both “spring from a vision of wholeness.”
and for the theosophist
1 Like
I’ve been engaging in various forms of this same conversation for nine years on various forums. Christian, atheist, and out in the open antitheist.
And you are by far the least honest reader of another person’s writing that I’ve met yet.
No politics on this forum my ass miriana! You actively have no intention of understanding. Plain as day. But it is not for me to speculate further as to why.
@lausten, @write4u