Atheism

Originally posted by RichardBrittain
If you seek abstraction, you will find it.

If you seek honour, you will find it.

so, express in non-abstract terms how you seek things and what it is you seek

Thou sayeth it.

I took your words, and heard them.

You took not my words, nor heard them.

Originally posted by RichardBrittain
Thou sayeth it.

I took your words, and heard them.

You took not my words, nor heard them.

Are you Yoda? 😆

Ultimately, I am not seeking anything from this forum, because as it is written, 'They hear, and yet perceive not. They see, and yet do they not understand.'

Therefore is this fruition in which I am satisified; I thank the truth.

Originally posted by inimalist
so, express in non-abstract terms how you seek things and what it is you seek

That was actually a Buddha quote.

Originally posted by RichardBrittain
Seeking truth.

Originally posted by RichardBrittain
Ultimately, I am not seeking anything from this forum, because as it is written, 'They hear, and yet perceive not. They see, and yet do they not understand.'

Therefore is this fruition in which I am satisified; I thank the truth.

That sounds very hypocritical of you.

Or in a dark room with insence burning, while looping a sitar song on your ipod.

Hey, four of us posted in the same minute (4:04) Is that any kind of record?

Answer me this:

Was discussion made for man, or was man made for discussion?

Originally posted by Digi

There's a fine line. Being "open" is usually used by people who think you're close-minded for not believing something other than material reality. I will tell them I'm always "open" to the possibility of something, given evidence to support the claim. I won't believe hypotheticals, regardless of whether they are abstract philosophizing or something that "feels good" to the believer. This is usually where the discussion devolves.

I beg to differ.
It is our openness to impossible which has lead us to either make it possible or prove that such indeed exists and it is not impossible.

One should have a theory, and work with that theory, collect evidence and if possible, prove it. If proven wrong, one will open the door to something else along the way. Being wrong in science is the greatest thing - it expands our view and rediscovers other things along the way - as history would indicate.

The biggest obstacle to finding the truth is the belief you already have it.

Do not get me wrong, I like things proven and solid, but I am willing to expand on possibilities - and the reason for that is very simple -
If Universe is infinite, if possibilities are infinite, than there is a good chance that in some universe, in a particular time, space or dimension a being creating bunch of other beings is actually pretty probable.

Is that possibility the case with us? I don't know.

Originally posted by RichardBrittain
Answer me this:

Was discussion made for man, or was man made for discussion?

Let me make a wild guess; You will not answer any questions put to you. You will always ask questions in response to questions, write as if the only book you have ever read was the King James version of the bible.

It's good to see you again...

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
That was actually a Buddha quote.

ah

I think the point still stands though. "Seeking truth" strikes me as a very abstract type of "seeking"

almost as if it were a self-affirming way of condescending against people that allows the condescending party to feel as though they have a hidden and uncommon access to knowledge without ever having to take a real position on real issues.

If you will not answer my question, then likewise will I withdraw my answers from you.

If you will answer my question, then I will show you what you seek after.

Originally posted by RichardBrittain

If you will answer my question, then I will show you what you seek after.

hahahaha, ok, what question?

Originally posted by RichardBrittain
If you will not answer my question, then likewise will I withdraw my answers from you.

If you will answer my question, then I will show you what you seek after.

I've already seen your answer.

Originally posted by RichardBrittain
Answer me this:

Was discussion made for man, or was man made for discussion?

Originally posted by RichardBrittain
Answer me this:

Was discussion made for man, or was man made for discussion?

neither, both are byproducts of other phenomenon, man fro
evolution and discussion itself from the human capacity for abstract thought and language, mixed with our innate social desires.

by asking the question as you do, you are deliberatly attempting to hedge people into two identifiable groups, however, the origins of man and the concept of discussion don't work as such. strange though, as this entire question is based on an artificial semantic distinction exactly like those you accused atheist of using in your first post.

ok, so, what is it you are seekin in a non-abstract sense and how do you go about it?

If you cannot answer my simple question, I will not give my simple answers.

Originally posted by RichardBrittain
If you cannot answer my simple question, I will not give my simple answers.

hysterical

inimalist, I don't think he liked your answer.

BTW, I thought it was a great answer. 👆