johnydon22:


I understand this position perfectly. Labels can be restricting and an unnecessary confinement. They throw out a subtle presumption about you to people who do not know you or what you stand for.

Recognizing or reconciling with no label is the best way to live. you broaden your horizon past the confines of people's tags which more than often forms the basis of their assumption of who you are.

I do not like labels myself (of late) people sometimes force you to walk a straight line

Yes, fluidity.
That's the word.

I think that that helps you relate better with others, irrespective of where you think they are.

Cos sometimes, the path of enlightenment comes with pride, and it's not healthy.

Labels are quite a nice route to that kind of pride.

I find that maintaining a state of humility, not just so people can say "Ohh, look at her, she is so brilliant and knows so much about esoteric stuff, yet she so down to earth" - in fact, that shouldn't be a motivation at all (in my opinion at least).

I think that it should come from a place of KNOWING, yet assuming the posture of a seeker, always, always.

MizMyColi:


Yes, fluidity.
That's the word.

I think that that helps you relate better with others, irrespective of where you think they are.

Cos sometimes, the path of enlightenment comes with pride, and it's not healthy.

Labels are quite a nice route to that kind of pride.

I find that maintaining a state of humility, not just so people can say "Ohh, look at her, she is so brilliant and knows so much about esoteric stuff, yet she so down to earth" - in fact, that shouldn't be a motivation at all (in my opinion at least).

I think that it should come from a place of KNOWING, yet assuming the posture of a seeker, always, always.

How do you know that you know? What yardstick do you use to measure this your KNOWING that proves that you KNOW as a certainty?

Saying you know yet still assuming the posture of a seeker is subtle deception wouldn't you say?

MizMyColi:


Yes, fluidity.
That's the word.

I think that that helps you relate better with others, irrespective of where you think they are.

Cos sometimes, the path of enlightenment comes with pride, and it's not healthy.

Labels are quite a nice route to that kind of pride.

I find that maintaining a state of humility, not just so people can say "Ohh, look at her, she is so brilliant and knows so much about esoteric stuff, yet she so down to earth" - in fact, that shouldn't be a motivation at all (in my opinion at least).

I think that it should come from a place of KNOWING, yet assuming the posture of a seeker, always, always.

I agree with this.

There is a certain degree of condescending stance inherent in the adoption of labels. Somehow we all know better, somehow we are all better.

Labels also narrows our views to a confined space, diminishes the periphery of our ideological basis.

johnydon22:


I agree with this.

There is a certain degree of condescending stance inherent in the adoption of labels. Somehow we all know better, somehow we are all better.

Labels also narrows our views to a confined space, diminishes the periphery of our ideological basis.

2nd Timothy 3: 1-7

But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, 4 traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5 having a form of godliness but denying its power . And from such people turn away! 6 For of this sort are those who creep into households and make captives of gullible women loaded down with sins, led away by various lusts, 7 always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth

butterflyl1on:


How do you know that you know? What yardstick do you use to measure this your KNOWING that proves that you KNOW as a certainty?

Saying you know yet still assuming the posture of a seeker is subtle deception wouldn't you say?

I do not think that the yardstick (if any) with which i "know" should be up for debate or public consumption.

If you know, you know. My "knowing" might be different from your "knowing". Everyone should be true to themselves and live their truth.

johnydon22:


I agree with this.

There is a certain degree of condescending stance inherent in the adoption of labels. Somehow we all know better, somehow we are all better.

Labels also narrows our views to a confined space, diminishes the periphery of our ideological basis.

Well, Gbam!

MizMyColi:


I do not think that the yardstick (if any) with which i "know" should be up for debate or public consumption

.

Well it should be up for public consumption because if indeed you do KNOW then it would be extremely generous of you to help someone also KNOW using your "proven" yardstick. It's all about spreading "the love" as it were wouldn't you say?

If you know, you know. My "knowing" might be different from your "knowing". Everyone should be true to themselves and live their truth.

Your statement depends on that which you say "you know"

If everyone was to be true to themselves (selfish) and live THEIR TRUTH what would you then say about the serial killers, paedophiles, mass murderers, and those of other vices who are also living THEIR TRUTHS?

butterflyl1on:
.

Well it should be up for public consumption because if indeed you do KNOW then it would be extremely generous of you to help someone also KNOW using your "proven" yardstick. It's all about spreading "the love" as it were wouldn't you say?

Thats the thing. I do not need to prove, not to myself or anyone who will eventually, or already knows as i do.


Your statement depends on that which you say "you know"

I would insist that it is not necessary talking about my knowing.

]If everyone was to be true to themselves (selfish) and live THEIR TRUTH what would you then say about the serial killers, paedophiles, mass murderers, and those of other vices who are also living THEIR TRUTHS?

Give to caesar what belongs to caesar, and to God, what belongs to God.

MizMyColi:
[/b]

Give to caesar what belongs to caesar, and to God, what belongs to God.

This does not explain nor come close to what I said.
You said Everyone should be true to themselves and live their truth. So how then can anyone even know what it is to be true to themselves about and what truth to live by if they are FREE to live as they please?

Have you considered the ripple effect of your statement and the actions attached to it?

If everyone was free to live as they please who then would be able to say anything is right or anything is wrong after all, everyone is living according to THEIR INDIVIDUAL TRUTHS.

Would this world then be better or worse?

butterflyl1on:


1) What is truth!
2) How do you know that the world you are seeing is actually how it is?

MizMyColi:


Thats the thing. I do not need to prove, not to myself or anyone who will eventually, or already knows as i do.

You mean the same people whom you say they should be true to themselves and live their own truths are now the same people who would know as you do without knowing how you arrived at your own KNOWING?

like seriously?

Martinez19:

This is freethinking 101 why not give me a crash course on it.

1) What is truth!
2) How do you know that the world you are seeing is actually how it is?

butterflyl1on:


This is freethinking 101 why not give me a crash course on it.

1) What is truth!
2) How do you know that the world you are seeing is actually how it is?

how do you know that you know what you know?

Martinez19:
how do you know that you know what you know?

I asked a question and instead of answering you ask me a question instead?

Do you atheists ever have answers to anything you are asked or you simply just enjoy asking others questions instead?

Kindly answer my question please. Be brave enough to try.

You are a claimed freethinker, I am not so do not redirect a question I specifically asked you to me.

butterflyl1on:


I asked a question and instead of answering you ask me a question instead?

Do you atheists ever have answers to anything you are asked or you simply just enjoy asking others questions instead?

Kindly answer my question please. Be brave enough to try.

You are a claimed freethinker, I am not so do not redirect a question I specifically asked you to me.

I know facts through my intuition and senses.

butterflyl1on:


I asked a question and instead of answering you ask me a question instead?

Do you atheists ever have answers to anything you are asked or you simply just enjoy asking others questions instead?

Kindly answer my question please. Be brave enough to try.

You are a claimed freethinker, I am not so do not redirect a question I specifically asked you to me.

I know facts through my intuition and senses. Oya answer my own.

Martinez19:
I know facts through my intuition and senses. Oya answer my own.

Now logic comes into play. How are you sure that your intuition is right?

Not all facts are tangible so our "senses" are limited to their perception hence not reliable.

So how sure are you about your senses and Intuition. Intuition is often fueled by experiences and since experiences vary from person to person so is the likelihood of intuition.

How did you arrive at the perfection of yours which led you to truth and that your view of the world is true?

butterflyl1on:


Now logic comes into play. How are you sure that your intuition is right?

Not all facts are tangible so our "senses" are limited to their perception hence not reliable.

So how sure are you about your senses and Intuition. Intuition is often fueled by experiences and since experiences vary from person to person so is the likelihood of intuition.

How did you arrive at the perfection of yours which led you to truth and that your view of the world is true?

logic, intuition, reasoning and the senses. My former lost is in complete. Answer my own.

Martinez19:
logic, intuition, reasoning and the senses. My former lost is in complete. Answer my own.

Logic is an endless loop and not a conclussion.
Reasoning is individualised so not definite.
Senses are limited so not trustworthy

So these are obviously lacking. You are yet to answer my question.

MizMyColi:


No, I am not a Christian.

I like to see my self as Nothing in that regard.

What's your belief then?

butterflyl1on:


Logic is an endless loop and not a conclussion.
Reasoning is individualised so not definite.
Senses are limited so not trustworthy

So these are obviously lacking. You are yet to answer my question.

Those are my answers. If you feel that they are incomplete, fine that's your wahala. Now answer my question.

Martinez19:
Those are my answers. If you feel that they are incomplete, fine that's your wahala. Now answer my question.

You still don't get it. I never claimed TO KNOW. YOU DID!

so I am simply asking you to show me the infallible way you arrived at your truth and knowing?

Or was this not your claim when you said and I quote

Martinez19:
lucky you bro. At least you started early but I started at 20 as an atheist. Wasted my teenage years reading and memorising the bible, couldn't date my dream girl because of church doctrines and being too spiritual. If only I had sat down earlier to think. All I needed was to sit down and think. It is well bro, seeing the world as it is and knowing the truth brings freedom

You said all you needed to do was sit down and think so can you guide me through the process you used when THINKING that made it an infallible one which caused you to arrive at truth and to also believe that your view of the world IS AS IT SHOULD BE?

butterflyl1on:


You still don't get it. I never claimed TO KNOW. YOU DID!

so I am simply asking you to show me the infallible way you arrived at your truth and knowing?

Or was this not your claim when you said and I quote




You said all you needed to do was sit down and think so can you guide me through the process you used when THINKING that made it an infallible one which caused you to arrive at truth and to also believe that your view of the world IS AS IT SHOULD BE?

process :
1) sit down and relax
2) apply your reasoning, logic, intuition, common sense and senses. Also use your moral compass which is biologically ingrained in us.

Now I want you to tell me how you know that you know what you know?

Martinez19:
process :
1) sit down and relax
2) apply your reasoning, logic, intuition, common sense and senses. Also use your moral compass which is biologically ingrained in us.

Now I want you to tell me how you know that you know what you know?

With each new answer you give you keep adding extras.

First you said it was through reasoning, intuition and your senses.

Next you added logic

Now you are adding moral compass which you claim is "biologically ingrained" in us.

It's like you are not even sure how you arrived at your position because all I see are confused and unsure words coming from you

I already cancelled out reasoning, logic, senses and intuition from your list so let's deal with your "biologically ingrained" moral compass shall we?

Let's start from the very beginning. Emotions are said to be intangible until when expressed so in a nutshell, emotions cannot be proven until when acted upon. Until we act on what we are impressed upon to feel then our emotions do not exist. Morality is the expression of our emotions.

How could our very origin of no control and no meaning, bring about something as meaningful as emotional expression or even controlled emotions which result in our morality or lack of?

Saying morality is biological is like saying the universe is the earth. It is a non sequitur.

Martinez19 I am still waiting o or was my line of questioning too deep and too tough for you?

butterflyl1on:


With each new answer you give you keep adding extras.

First you said it was through reasoning, intuition and your senses.

Next you added logic

Now you are adding moral compass which you claim is "biologically ingrained" in us.

It's like you are not even sure how you arrived at your position because all I see are confused and unsure words coming from you

I already cancelled out reasoning, logic, senses and intuition from your list so let's deal with your "biologically ingrained" moral compass shall we?

Let's start from the very beginning. Emotions are said to be intangible until when expressed so in a nutshell, emotions cannot be proven until when acted upon. Until we act on what we are impressed upon to feel then our emotions do not exist. Morality is the expression of our emotions.

How could our very origin of no control and no meaning, bring about something as meaningful as emotional expression or even controlled emotions which result in our morality or lack of?

Saying morality is biological is like saying the universe is the earth. It is a non sequitur.

see, I might be adding as they skipped my mind earlier. I repeat
1) sit down and relax
2) apply your reasoning, logic, intuition, common sense and senses. Also use your moral compass which is biologically ingrained in us.

Now I want you to tell me how you know that you know what you know?

butterflyl1on:
Martinez19 I am still waiting o or was my line of questioning too deep and too tough for you?

they weren't too deep, I was attending lectures.

MizMyColi:


No, I am not a Christian.

I like to see my self as Nothing in that regard.

Richard Dawkins in a debate said he doesn't like lebel, he prefer to be called non-theist, but he later decided to be lebel as an atheist because he want to create that seriousness in mind of his opponent.

He cited an example from a movie where a girl said to her mother she is an atheist and doesn't believe in God and the mother responded "you don't believe in God I don't mind you might be joking but an atheist, an atheist?!"

Martinez19:
see, I might be adding as they skipped my mind earlier. I repeat
1) sit down and relax
2) apply your reasoning, logic, intuition, common sense and senses. Also use your moral compass which is biologically ingrained in us.

Now I want you to tell me how you know that you know what you know?

How can something that serious skip your mind as you claim?

Let me break this down to you because it's now certain you do not understand what you are saying.

1. Reasoning, logic, common sense are not universally on the same level for everyone so this is one of such cases when what works for one would certainly not work for everyone.

2. Senses are not factual because not all fact is subject to the senses so it can be deceptive.

3. Morality itself isn't biological because the this is the pattern through which morality is arrived at.

A) Trigger
B) Emotions
C) Morality.

Something triggers out emotions and something else triggers that which triggers our emotions. We then take decisions based on our emotions which result in morality.

However, before any decision is taken based on our emotions which would either be moral or immoral there is something that decision is weighed with and this also isn't biological.

I started by saying reasoning, logic and common sense are not universally the same and this is true.

A highly educated person would arrive at a different perspective from an uneducated person using logic, reasoning and common sense but that does not mean the educated person is right because even his education is limited to his environment while the uneducated one may be wiser due to practical know how and not text book knowledge.

So you are still not saying anything.

tintingz:
Richard Dawkins in a debate said he doesn't like label, he prefer to be called non-theist, but he later decided to be label as an atheist because he want to create that seriousness in mind of his opponent.

For Dawkins it is a matter of our side and their side.

He cited an example from a movie where a girl said to her mother she is an atheist and doesn't believe in God and the mother responded "you don't believe in God I don't mind you might be joking but an atheist, an atheist?!"

Ok. this is funny

johnydon22:


For Dawkins it is a matter of our side and their side.


Ok. this is funny

I think it is about the society, an average Nigerian don't even know what atheism means, they don't know "atheism/atheist" exist but in western countries they know well what atheism means, that's why the mother is more concern about her daughter being an atheist than her not believing in God.

Athiesm as been associated with many things, I think that's what Dawkins is taking advantage of in a debate.

Evangkatsoulis:
Nope, I never feel lonely.

Can I be of help?