A Religious Animal

[Angel]

I do not like bullies either but, I dislike mendacious people with an agenda as well. I'm not trying to bully you, I'm letting you know that you have failed to conceal your agenda. I know that the snark is a means to an end and that it suits you to be this philosophical martyr while indulging in the backhanded stuff. Any time you actually want a discussion like honest and open people I'm waiting for you to start.

You know nothing about me, and your obsession with me is ridiculous.
Peace out.

 

[William Rea]

You know nothing about me, and your obsession with me is ridiculous.
Peace out.

Produce your link between the human propensity to want to explain things and an actual existing deity.

Be clear that I am not criticising faith, religion or an inclination to believe things, I am criticising your failed philosophical arguments that try to create, 'something that did something', somewhere at some time that you want to call a god'. What you are doing is the antithesis of faith, you are trying to prove something and in my experience that normally indicates that you are trying to achieve something temporal rather than religious.

 

[Angel]

Produce your link between the human propensity to want to explain things and an actual existing deity.

Be clear that I am not criticising faith, religion or an inclination to believe things, I am criticising your failed philosophical arguments that try to create, 'something that did something', somewhere at some time that you want to call a god'. What you are doing is the antithesis of faith, you are trying to prove something and in my experience that normally indicates that you are trying to achieve something temporal rather than religious.

Produce your proof of "the human propensity to explain things." See how ridiculous you sound?

 

[William Rea]

Produce your proof of "the human propensity to explain things." See how ridiculous you sound?

Listen to yourself man, you are losing the plot under the pressure.

For starters, you don't even have the capacity to quote me correctly even when you have used the quote function to quote what I said which was, 'the human propensity to want to explain things'.

Prove it? You mean prove what you have been asserting for a considerable period of time? You want me to quote back all the occasions where you have made a case for this? You have become so ingrained in your desire to be contrary to me that you cannot even recognise at what points I am agreeing with you! Too funny but, what can you expect from politicised religion throwing all religious belief under the bus for it's political aims.

 

[Angel]

Listen to yourself man, you are losing the plot under the pressure.

For starters, you don't even have the capacity to quote me correctly even when you have used the quote function to quote what I said which was, 'the human propensity to want to explain things'.

Prove it? You mean prove what you have been asserting for a considerable period of time? You want me to quote back all the occasions where you have made a case for this? You have become so ingrained in your desire to be contrary to me that you cannot even recognise at what points I am agreeing with you! Too funny but, what can you expect from politicised religion throwing all religious belief under the bus for it's political aims.

I merely improved your awkward pleonasm and tried to help you to see this Proof Refrain for the silliness it is. Except in math and logic perhaps, in closed formalized systems, and in a very soft sense in a court of law, nothing is determined by proof. Tell your friends. Stop asking for proof. Everything we're discussing in this forum is a matter of argument, of reasoning, of persuasion.

 

[William Rea]

I merely improved your awkward pleonasm and tried to help you to see this Proof Refrain for the silliness it is. Except in math and logic perhaps, in closed formalized systems, and in a very soft sense in a court of law, nothing is determined by proof. Tell your friends. Stop asking for proof. Everything we're discussing in this forum is a matter of argument, of reasoning, of persuasion.

Point me precisely to the point where I have ever asked for proof Angel. I have always been quite specific that evidence would change my mind. Making stuff up and misquoting people again, even with flowery language it is bad form. Truth out, sister.

 

[Angel]

Point me precisely to the point where I have ever asked for proof Angel. I have always been quite specific that evidence would change my mind. Making stuff up and misquoting people again, even with flowery language it is bad form. Truth out, sister.

Produce your link between the human propensity to want to explain things and an actual existing deity.

Be clear that I am not criticising faith, religion or an inclination to believe things, I am criticising your failed philosophical arguments that try to create, 'something that did something', somewhere at some time that you want to call a god'. What you are doing is the antithesis of faith, you are trying to prove something and in my experience that normally indicates that you are trying to achieve something temporal rather than religious.

You're not as clever as you think, William; nor are others as slow as you think. How will you spin your demand for "an actually existing deity" I wonder?
Now I've got a lot of funny things to do with my time, but searching through your old posts in order to out you is not one of them.
Anyway, you're outing yourself, you don't need my help.
Next time you ask for proof of God's existence, I'll call you on it. For now this indirect instance will suffice.

 

[soylentgreen]

You've got the cart before the horse here. Man "made" that belief long long before there was a "heritage."

No, you're the one who claimed that religion perverts reality; so the onus is on you to account for that which in your view is being perverted.

Man had the ability to feel awe and wonder long before they decided to profit from it through creating belief systems.

There are many such examples. the pedophilia of the roman catholics church for one. But whether that concerns you personally is not concern.

 

[Angel]

Man had the ability to feel awe and wonder long before they decided to profit from it through creating belief systems.

There are many such examples. the pedophilia of the roman catholics church for one. But whether that concerns you personally is not concern.

My cats agree with you. I stand corrected.

 

[Angel]

"The Numen and the Noumenon"

COMING SOON

2018




...​

I saw this driving to the forum tonight. Does anyone know what it means?

 

[William Rea]

You're not as clever as you think, William; nor are others as slow as you think. How will you spin your demand for "an actually existing deity" I wonder?
Now I've got a lot of funny things to do with my time, but searching through your old posts in order to out you is not one of them.
Anyway, you're outing yourself, you don't need my help.
Next time you ask for proof of God's existence, I'll call you on it. For now this indirect instance will suffice.

And I'll accept being called out when you show that I have asked for proof. You can't show it because you don't know it but, you will snark and evade and twist words to suit your politicised religious aims all day long in order to avoid it. You even did it within the space of a single line in a single post where pride would not allow you to retract what you had already written so the sentence was constructed like this, 'Next time you ask for proof of God's existence, I'll call you on it. For now this indirect instance will suffice'. (emphasis mine) From falsehood to self confessed fail in only 21 words!

I'm prepared to do the hard yards and present evidence rather than just sit and gaze at my navel, utter some inanities and then expect to have my ego stroked and massaged by the grateful unwashed. I'll await your call out and then direct you to this among many other occasions where I have said the same...

2014 -

Proof is for Whiskey and Mathematics.

2014 -

I simply asked for evidence based upon a positive assertion, live with it and stop trying to shift the burden, proof is not required so quit the strawman.

The OP is clear, live with it or start your own thread.

 

[Angel]

And I'll accept being called out when you show that I have asked for proof...

Deal. Now do you have any idea what that billboard is about? You're known to be on top of topics. If anyone at DP can tell us, you can. Numen? Noumenon? It's Greek to me! What do you make of the ad?

 

[William Rea]

Deal. Now do you have any idea what that billboard is about? You're known to be on top of topics. If anyone at DP can tell us, you can. Numen? Noumenon? It's Greek to me! What do you make of the ad?

I make nothing of it, I simply do not care about those words.

Why do they impart such earnest meaning to you?

 

[Angel]

I make nothing of it, I simply do not care about those words.

Why do they impart such earnest meaning to you?

That's a fair question, William. It deserves an earnest answer.
The most straightforward answer I can offer is that those two words, more precisely the concepts behind those two words, and ultimately the portions of reality picked out by those concepts, offer a solution to the World Riddle.

 

[Angel]

To begin with:


noumenon, n
noumena, plural
noumenal, adj

numen. n
numina, plural
numinous, adj
numinousness, n

Numinous is an English adjective, derived in the 17th century from the Latin numen, that is (especially in ancient Roman religion) a "deity or spirit presiding over a thing or space". Meaning "denoting or relating to a numen", it describes the power or presence or realisation of a divinity. It is etymologically unrelated to Immanuel Kant's noumenon, a Greek term referring to an unknowable reality underlying all things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numinous

 

[Angel]

Now the NOUMENON is what lies behind or beyond the PHENOMENON.

The PHENOMENON refers to sensible reality, the world of the five senses, the world of common sense, the world of scientific inquiry.
The objects and effects of this world, of this reality, are PHENOMENA.
This is the PHENOMENAL world, phenomenal reality.

 

[devildavid]

No, I got it right the first time -- blarg projects blarg's deficiency of religious sensibility onto all of humanity.
You might want to reread your original posts (#5 and #8) before you start changing your tune in front of everybody.

That there are any exceptions disproves your alleged rule. How can blarg be deficient of something that you claim is contained in humanity's DNA?

 

[devildavid]

What unsupported bare assertions" are you referring to, T? That Man is a social animal? That Man is a political animal? That Man is a religious animal?
Open your eyes! Look around you! Read some history, some anthropology.
We get it. You don't agree with the facts. But that's not our problem.
Peace.

What facts?

 

[Angel]

That there are any exceptions disproves your alleged rule. How can blarg be deficient of something that you claim is contained in humanity's DNA?

Have you never heard the saying, "The exception proves the rule," David?

 

[Angel]

What facts?

That Man is a social animal, that Man is a political animal, that Man is a religious animal.

 

[devildavid]

Have you never heard the saying, "The exception proves the rule," David?

It's only a saying.

 

[devildavid]

That Man is a social animal, that Man is a political animal, that Man is a religious animal.

What makes those facts? That Man is an animal is a fact. And Man does engage in certain behaviors.

 

[devildavid]

Now the NOUMENON is what lies behind or beyond the PHENOMENON.

The PHENOMENON refers to sensible reality, the world of the five senses, the world of common sense, the world of scientific inquiry.
The objects and effects of this world, of this reality, are PHENOMENA.
This is the PHENOMENAL world, phenomenal reality.

What do you mean by behind or beyond? And how can you know that there is a behind or beyond? It sounds like something make believe pretending to be profound.

 

[Angel]

It's only a saying.

With a meaning, and true. Your inability to discern as much tells against your limited scientific orientation.

 

[Angel]

What makes those facts? That Man is an animal is a fact. And Man does engage in certain behaviors.

What makes those facts is that they are borne out empirically with an intelligent glance at the world and world history.
Your inability to recognize their factuality reflects poorly on your limited scientific orientation.