Posts by swiftcobra15

Harold James9 said:

Advice isn't meant to be followed; it’s just meant to be remembered. 🙂

Harold James9 said:Yes.👍

Either he skipped over it, or he agreed with mistyfox812's post and chose to stay silent.🙂

If truth is defined by what remains constant,
only the Whole is true. A part cannot be truth.
In terms of cognition, this creates a paradox—an apparent absurdity
where something perfectly clear and exact cannot actually be true.

To put it bluntly, a fact (something precisely established) isn't truth; it's a lie.
Within the confines of language and logic, one can only express, at best,
half of the truth (and usually much less)—
as the other half is merely the negation of the first statement.

If there is a paradox, it lies in the fact that what is true is not equal to Truth. A part is not the whole, which is common sense.

I believe the misunderstanding stems from the limitations of language. Knowledge expands while our vocabulary stays stagnant, meaning we try to express more and more concepts using the same old words. We are heading toward a point where experts from different fields won't even be able to understand one another.

🙂 🙂 🙂

I suspect when you say something is "true," you're referring to the classic definition—adequatio—where a statement accurately matches reality.

In our daily lives, that distinction is absolutely vital
(it's how we tell the difference between facts and lies),
but in this space, people often present a singular, absolute Truth that they expect us to follow blindly (and bow 😁)
so I feel a real responsibility to point out that what seems obvious isn't actually the ultimate Truth.

Truth isn't aletheia—in fact, it remains hidden and beyond words.

Once something becomes unspeakable, you can't capture it through speech, writing, music, art, or even a simple whistle. 🙂

It seems like people are once again treating these concepts as opposites
and pushing this naive idea that if we just "give" enough, everything will magically work out.

The truth is, many people are far too eager to give things they really shouldn't:
like junk, unsolicited advice, or unwanted mentorship.

On the flip side, there’s often a massive resistance to receiving:

whether it's friendly guidance or valuable insights that challenge my own biases and misconceptions.

Giving and receiving are two sides of the same coin; you can't have one without the other.
The opposite of giving is imposing, and the opposite of receiving is grasping.

In my view, the struggle to receive is actually a much bigger issue than the act of giving,
because if the other person isn't open to it,
my attempt at "giving" becomes an imposition—an act of aggression.

Right here on this forum, I see a constant parade of generous donors (self-proclaimed prophets or "sages") who unselfishly offer their "Truths" to anyone interested (and even more so to those who aren't 😁), only to end up deeply disappointed when we ungrateful folks don't take them in.

So, I'll wrap this up with a classic sentiment.
God, please deliver me from the GIVERS,
and I'll handle the seekers myself.

Rebecca Cox2 said:Word has it that Bohr was once asked a question—following his "formulation" of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle as a complementary system (the idea that you can't simultaneously pin down a particle's position and its momentum; the more you know about one, the less you know about the other)—what he believed might serve as a complement to truth (wahrheit)?

Bohr’s response was simple: Clarity. (klarheit)

When you carry this over into the realm of philosophy, it lands right in the middle of some of the most heated debates out there (and not just among philosophers). What does this tell us about:

a) the existence of God? How much of a concept is God—is He defined by clarity, or by truth?

b) our theories regarding "Truth"? If Bohr was onto something profound with that remark, how much "truth" can actually be clear and comprehensible?

c) our fundamental understanding of the world and the laws of nature?

Alright, physicists, philosophers, psychologists, biologists, mathematicians, and everyone else! This is a multi-disciplinary topic, which is why I'm bringing it here to philosophy—the mother of all sciences...

True and Clear!

If we define truth as that which remains constant,
then only the Whole can be true. A mere fragment can never reach truth.

In terms of how we perceive things, this creates a bit of a paradox—an apparent absurdity
where something perfectly clear and exact fails to actually be true.

To put it bluntly, a raw fact (something precisely measured) isn't the truth; it's practically a lie.

Within the constraints of language and logic, we can only ever express, at most,
half of the truth (and usually much less)—

while the other half is simply the negation of our initial statement.

On our "Philosophy" forum, we could have approached the core question this way:
WHY is utility considered a good thing (something worth pursuing)?

Isn't one person's gain usually just another person's loss?

If we view society through the lens of an organism, then the following argument holds up:

Keith Lee2 said:So, who's actually "useless."
Think about it—let's compare the way cells work in the human body to how societies function.
In a biological sense, which cells are considered useless?
It's the ones that just spread everywhere, sucking up all the resources and leaving nothing left for everyone else to survive.
We call that "cancer"—and our whole goal is to wipe it out.
If you apply that logic to human society—basically, looking at us as a collection of cells—the "cancer" would be those specific individuals
who basically just expand by draining everyone else dry, leaving zero room for others to live their lives.
I'll let you guys figure out who those people are in our society... you know who they are.

My takeaway is this: It is always in the interest of the rulers (the owners, the powerful) to eliminate non-functional individuals
(there's an old American saying about how cattle produce tallow while people produce profit),
but it's in the interest of the majority to eliminate the rulers themselves (the wealthy, the media moguls, the "cancer").

I’ve always felt that synonyms don't really need to exist, simply because reality offers an endless variety of relationships while our vocabulary remains so limited.

As I mentioned before, when I care about something, I have this deep-seated urge to own it, master it, and truly make use of it.

When it comes to love, my instinct is to serve and bring joy to the other person, rather than focusing on myself.

I’m a big fan of sautéed kale, sci-fi, swimming, deep conversations, playing pinball, haiku, and even mushrooms...
Liking something is a positive—and quite often possessive—connection to a person or an object.

Love, on the other hand, is an orientation toward the world itself, rooted in unconditional acceptance and total devotion.
It can be centered on one specific person or phenomenon without shutting out the rest of existence, but we shouldn't mistake it for mere infatuation or simple passion.

Jack Harris3 said:

Well, I'll still be feeling just fine.

Thank you so much, Madam! 🙂

The optimist is convinced things will improve.
The pessimist already knows we’re actually "living in the good old days" right now,

whereas I tend to be an agnostic. 😉

Forza

Dalmatian!

Douglas Brown4 said:🧐

There are endless rational explanations out there...

...yet every single one falls short—it's always a miss...

Douglas Brown4 said:A goose in a bottle... Rika, a high-ranking official from the Tang dynasty, poses a question to
Zen Master Nan-zen:
- Long ago, there was a man who kept a goose in a bottle. It grew larger and larger
until it could no longer fit through the opening; he didn't want to break the bottle, nor did he want to
harm the goose—how would you get it out?
The Master shouted: - Official!
To which Rika immediately replied: - Yes!
- There, it's out! - said Nan-zen

Comments....

Let's look at it this way: A teacher tries to guide a student.
Did they succeed? That doesn't depend on the teacher; it depends entirely on the student.

Since it seems many participants here are struggling with some fundamental concepts, I’d like to offer some clarity based on insights from the Protagoras association:

Theism, frankly, lacks any practical substance without specific religious expression. To believe that God exists—that there is a transcendent being who created the universe—without actually knowing anything about His intentions, His will, or what He expects from humanity, makes that belief useless for guiding one's actions. In terms of real-world consequences, believing in God's existence without a defined religious framework is essentially the same as atheism. It is only when divine revelation takes a concrete religious shape that the existence of God gains practical meaning, as an undefined relationship with the transcendent evolves into a very specific way of engaging with the world. …

Because atheism isn't a single, unified doctrine but rather a broad label for a specific stance, there is no uniform way that atheists relate to religion, much like how they relate to any other worldview or its practical application. Furthermore, both deism and pantheism can be viewed as certain forms of disguised atheism.

Anti-religious sentiment isn't necessarily aimed at denying God's existence; rather, it often targets the value of religion as a social and secular institution.

Antitheists occupy a unique middle ground between theists and atheists. What they share with atheists is the rejection of claims regarding God's existence. However, what they share with theists is the presence of faith. … … …

One of the most persistent questions believers pose to non-believers is: "How can you live without faith?"

That question, however, is rooted in a religious prejudice—the assumption that faith can only exist within the confines of organized religion, when in fact, religious faith is merely one specific form of faith itself.

http://www.protagora.org/proonama.htm

Everyone has that one special person they just adore... even if it’s only occasionally.

http://www.arcamax.com/pic/21353/612177

And now, the people of Iraq will finally live in peace and prosperity. 😁

Taylor Campbell4 said:I also don't quite get how someone can call themselves an unaffiliated atheist. You identify as an atheist, yet claim you aren't part of any group. 😕

I personally identify as an atheist, mainly because I want to clarify that I'm "unaffiliated." I say it so people don't mistake me for a Taoist, a Buddhist, or one of those folks who puts blind faith in Science, Diamat, technical progress, or some version of paradise here on Earth—honestly, that kind of stuff just doesn't sit right with me.

In American English, the closest term might be "unbeliever,"
essentially meaning someone who simply doesn't belong to a faith.

The term agnostic, however, refers strictly to our level of knowledge; it isn't necessarily tied to whether you believe or not.

I consider myself an agnostic because I truly believe humans can't provide rational answers to life's ultimate questions. Even if we somehow "possessed" that truth, there would be no way to communicate it to anyone else.

For an agnostic, the whole question of "God" is simply irrelevant.

mistyfox812 said:Regarding Einstein, I don't think his era was one where he would have felt comfortable explicitly calling himself an atheist. But he wasn't one.

I could say something similar regarding Albert:
I am deeply religious, yet I wouldn't call myself a believer—honestly, I can't stand organized religion. Instead, I consider myself an atheist (in the sense of being unaffiliated).

Setting aside any old-fashioned scholastic wisdom, I don't recognize anyone's right to label me, just as I respect everyone else's right to define themselves.

I don't align myself with any specific group of "atheists" or any other "-isms," and frankly, I find the title of this thread quite pointless. 😉

To all seems quite straightforward to me.

1. A believer simply believes.

2. A theist specifically believes in the existence of God, and so on...

3. As for me, I don't believe—nor do I spend much energy worrying about it—
but I certainly understand the distinctions I've laid out above.

Arthur Anderson49 said:If you're an atheist, then you know he doesn't exist.

To me, that sounds like total nonsense—or maybe just a straw man argument.

HOW can anyone claim to know something that is inherently unknowable?

I personally KNOW that the concept of the Catholic God cannot withstand intellectual scrutiny. I feel the same way about Jewish or Muslim conceptions of deity (not to list them all), but I simply can't spend my life debunking every single possible iteration of a god or divinity.

That’s why I identify as a skeptic, an agnostic, or an atheist (which is actually what people called early Christians back when they refused to worship state gods), but I am certainly not a dogmatist.

It seems like you're trying to stigmatize the word "atheist" by painting every atheist as a closed-minded dogmatist.

I don't know what your angle is here, but I find that completely unacceptable.

In my view, atheists are people who didn't subscribe to the "official" gods of their time—think of minds like Epicurus, Spinoza, or Einstein. They were some of the greatest thinkers in history.
i, naturally, they didn't call themselves atheists (for perfectly understandable reasons: even John Locke believed that tolerance shouldn't extend to atheists), but in practice, they effectively were.

Emery said:Regarding the definition of 'atheist'—from where I'm standing, you haven't actually 'explained' it; you've just stated what you personally think it means.

I was explaining what the word means to me specifically.

It’s obvious that everyone views it differently, given that there are as many versions of "God" as there are people.
An atheist is either someone who denies (doesn't accept) the existence of one (or more) gods, or someone who fundamentally rejects the possibility of such a thing existing at all.
But since we're never going to agree on a single definition of God, that second interpretation becomes a moot point anyway.

As S. H. Roberts famously put it, he's only denying one fewer god (yours), while we generally agree that the others don't exist. The trouble is, those "others" number in the millions, if not billions.

Unfortunately, almost everyone today accepts the Dawkinsian paraphrase of this quote as if it were the original statement.

Emery said:That is just your private opinion, not the standard definition of atheism.
I don't see how you can be an agnostic and an atheist at the same time.

Well, that certainly was my "private opinion," just as this is yours. 😉
Are you perhaps willing to offer a scientific, philosophical, or theological definition of God? 😁

If you're an agnostic, then you are necessarily an atheist; conversely, a believer can place their faith in Science or some similar nonsense without necessarily being a theist.