Religion (and lack thereof) at Hypography

[ughaibu]

No, I suggested that holding a default position is not a negative state and needs no word imputing that characteristic.

[Nikola Tesla]

No, I suggested that holding a default position is not a negative state and needs no word imputing that characteristic.

 

Therefore- elaborate .....a debate becomes one's soul....you have the correct state of mind....I just percieve that you can produce a more efficient answer-if you will.....please finish.

[ughaibu]

I have finished, if you're confused, please be specific with your question.

[johnhuey]

Agreed. Sure, a theist would call me an Atheist, but so would I. I have no negative connotation towards the word, regardless of what theists might attach to it.

 

There is the personal side to words but there is also the political side to words. The Conservative movement communicators (Limbaugh, O'reilly, etc.) have spent enormous amounts of time and energy to taint the word 'Liberal'. For the most part that effort has gone unchallenged. So, today a liberal politician is persona non grata in many parts of the country.

 

The word 'homosexual' was (but in a different way) a slur. However, the response to that was the redefintion of the word 'gay'.

 

You and I may have no problem with the word 'atheist' but most of the world does. Two responses to that state of affairs are to 1.) raise peoples consciousness to what atheism is (a la Harris and Dawkins) and 2.) redefine another word to carry a more positive connotation (a la the Bright movement).

[ughaibu]

You're talking about "the country" then you draw conclusions about "the world", these are entirely different ideas, whatever the state of affairs might be in your country, it's quite likely to be small beer for the world.

[Nikola Tesla]

I have finished, if you're confused, please be specific with your question.

 

Your eyes reek of disobedience, if you think that i am confused...the question was clear....only to a reason unknown, you react to the question pessimistically .I fear i shall heed lightly your words and completely disregard them as confusion of one's-self. You have answered my question not knowing that you had.....this is quite generous of you to impart to me your knowledge and wisdom.....but your truths-conceptional-as of this moment in my exploration of truth is set free to tread the willful youth alone.

[johnhuey]

You're talking about "the country" then you draw conclusions about "the world", these are entirely different ideas, whatever the state of affairs might be in your country, it's quite likely to be small beer for the world.

 

You are quite right. I unconsciously fell into a typical American (actually, just the USA) conceit that we ARE the world or at the very least its center. I do apologize for the arrogance.

[ughaibu]

Johnhuey: No problem, and thanks for the reply.

[pgrmdave]

Your eyes reek of disobedience

 

Wow...I've not heard a more pompously souped up phrase in a long time. Your (possesive form of 'you') eyes (organs which are used to gather and focus light) reek (reek: v 1: have an element suggestive (of something); ) of disobedience ( the trait of being unwilling to obey). That's right - your eyes seem like they don't want to obey, or "you must not have seen something", "your eyes are failing you". Followed by

the question was clear

 

Questions end in question marks (especially "clear" questions) so what questions did Nicky ask?

Well, given the past two pages, it can only be either

Why not a psychoanalytical apporach to the superhelical controversy of religion?

or

why quote me?

Since the latter was directed at Rocket Art and the originally pompous post was directed at Ug, I must assume that the question in question is the first question.

 

So what, exactly, does a "psychoanalytical apporach to the superhelical controversy of religion" mean? (Keep in mind this is the "clear question").

 

Psychoanalytical: of or relating to or incorporating the methods and theory of psychiatric treatment

 

apporach: Did you mean: approach - Google Search?

 

superhelical: of or relating to a molecular structure in which a helix is itself coiled into a helix, as of overwound circular DNA

 

So, it seems that our friend Nicky wants us to ponder a psychological approach to a religious controversy relating to DNA (or a controversey that has a physical shape, one of DNA). I can't think of any religious controversy that has to do with DNA. I can't think of any way to approach a DNA controversy from a psychological point of view. I can't think of any way that a controversy can have a superhelical shape. So, Nick Tesla - your question is not only unclear, but doesn't seem to have any bearing on reality. Now please - try to post in such a way that people can understand you - it's half the point of communication.

[IMAMONKEY!]

Wow...I've not heard a more pompously souped up phrase in a long time. Your (possesive form of 'you') eyes (organs which are used to gather and focus light) reek (reek: v 1: have an element suggestive (of something); ) of disobedience ( the trait of being unwilling to obey). That's right - your eyes seem like they don't want to obey, or "you must not have seen something", "your eyes are failing you". Followed by

 

 

Questions end in question marks (especially "clear" questions) so what questions did Nicky ask?

Well, given the past two pages, it can only be either

 

or

 

Since the latter was directed at Rocket Art and the originally pompous post was directed at Ug, I must assume that the question in question is the first question.

 

So what, exactly, does a "psychoanalytical apporach to the superhelical controversy of religion" mean? (Keep in mind this is the "clear question").

 

Psychoanalytical: of or relating to or incorporating the methods and theory of psychiatric treatment

 

apporach: Did you mean: approach - Google Search?

 

superhelical: of or relating to a molecular structure in which a helix is itself coiled into a helix, as of overwound circular DNA

 

So, it seems that our friend Nicky wants us to ponder a psychological approach to a religious controversy relating to DNA (or a controversey that has a physical shape, one of DNA). I can't think of any religious controversy that has to do with DNA. I can't think of any way to approach a DNA controversy from a psychological point of view. I can't think of any way that a controversy can have a superhelical shape. So, Nick Tesla - your question is not only unclear, but doesn't seem to have any bearing on reality. Now please - try to post in such a way that people can understand you - it's half the point of communication.

 

You do know you could have just said none of his post made grammatical sense and was just trying to be smart and use big words to confuse people and give the impression he knew what he was tlaking about.

 

Wouldn't that have saved you much more time explaining it as a whole rather then breaking it down? :)

[pgrmdave]

Yes, but then I wouldn't have had the satisfaction of showing that his attempt at confusing people simply is annoying.

[REASON]

Thank you Dave,

 

I am particularly glad you elaborated.

 

Unfortunately, I predict it will not yield the desired effect.

[Pyrotex]

...Unfortunately, I predict it will not yield the desired effect. :(

Yes, indeed. In fact, I can state categorically, that every time we have tried to coach an 18-year-old Princeton professor of Philosophy, it has never yielded the desired effect. :hihi: :hihi: :hihi:

 

But, hey! Annoying thing is possible.

 

Sorry, I meant, "anything". My bad. :doh:

[Pyrotex]

What does "The map is not the territory" have to do with anything? ;)

Philosopher Alfred Korzybski (pronounced "core-shab'-ski") saw that we humans build an internal model of the world in our minds, models that are wonderfully detailed, but NOT infinitely detailed as is the external reality.

 

He concluded that the world we "live in" is our mental model. The mental model is a "map", if you will, of the external reality ("territory"). Our success at dealing with reality is a matter of how accurately our maps are built, but even so, we must never confuse the map with the territory, else an error in the map could have us "walking off a cliff", in a manner of speaking. Have you ever tried to make a joke with strangers, and by the look on their faces, you knew that you had just gaffed majorly? That's a small example.

 

We also use our maps to understand the Universe. Things like philosophy, science and religion serve as "keys", much like a roadmap has a "key" to explain that a red line is a four-lane freeway, and a blue line is a gravel road.

 

Our understanding of the world is always incomplete.

 

The map is not the territory. And never can be.

[Back2Reality]

I don't like to use the term "athiest" because i don't want to define myself according to what I don't believe in. It is like the term "pagan". Christians invented the term, and it is not what "pagans" would have called themselves in the past.

[Boerseun]

I don't like the term, either. The core of the word is 'Theist', as if that's the norm, and the prefix 'a' is added to it to describe someone who is not a theist. But the flavour of the word favours theism as being the norm. As of now, for balance, I would like to change the table on that score. In my books, someone not believing in the supernatural would be a 'Realist', and someone who does believe in the supernatural, would be a 'Surrealist'. These terms would then use 'Realism' as the core.

 

The term 'Atheist' is about as objective and non-partial as if we talked about homosexuals as 'non-straights'.

[Back2Reality]

I don't like the term, either. The core of the word is 'Theist', as if that's the norm, and the prefix 'a' is added to it to describe someone who is not a theist. But the flavour of the word favours theism as being the norm. As of now, for balance, I would like to change the table on that score. In my books, someone not believing in the supernatural would be a 'Realist', and someone who does believe in the supernatural, would be a 'Surrealist'. These terms would then use 'Realism' as the core.

 

The term 'Atheist' is about as objective and non-partial as if we talked about homosexuals as 'non-straights'.

 

Well said. I will have to remember that about realist (which I do call myself) and surrealist! Everytime someone asks if you are atheist just say "no, I am a realist - are you a surrealist by any chance?"!