Breaking news; the tea party is retarded

That's fine with me. Now lets suppose that I'm too far away to rescue you (because I'm there strictly as an observer of your ability to think outside the box), and that giant winged creatures don't exist. Jumping out of the way is the only possible way for you to avoid the train. It's getting closer, Xyle. Let me know when you've understood the nature of an "A or not" type choice.

- - - - - - - - -

No you didn't. You asked "What's the point of a destination if the journey has no significance?"

This was in response to me saying "I only care about the end result". We were talking about atheism at the time. I don't really care how people get to atheism - what's important to me is that they are atheist. In fact, since everyone is born atheist, there needn't be any "journey" to this process at all. It just requires that religion doesn't get hold of them. If it does, they might have a bit of a struggle to break free, but as long as they get back to atheism without killing anyone in a religious frenzy along the way, that's what matters to me.

So, you said "What's the point of a destination if the journey has no significance?" What could this mean? In relation to our conversation, it seemed to be like asking "What's the point of being an atheist if it wasn't a struggle to get there?" Erm... the point of being an atheist is that atheism is correct. It would be better for the world in general if everyone didn't have to struggle to get there.

Now, of course, it turns out you agreed with me and I was "arguing your point all along". Which is odd, because my point was that the vast majority of journeys are irrelevant. If that was your point too, then I wonder why you didn't write "I agree that the end result is what's important", instead of "What's the point of a destination if the journey has no significance?"

 

Personally, I think people are born in a state in pleriomatic oneness, then become god of the universe at a few weeks, then worship their mum as the universe at a couple of months, then continue to progress through various stages of religious confusion.

The difference between a planet which once abandoned religion and the one which never had it at all is that the latter will probably develop religion within one generation, assuming they are humans and the former actively kept it supressed.

 

If the hypothetical planet that never developed religion had our current level of scientific knowledge, then I think that religion would find it rather difficult to displace the understanding of evolution and astrophysical processes with superstition and myth.

 

You've obviously never had much to do with the new age movement, to say nothing of scientology and other transparently contrived cults.

Sorry to disappoint you, old boy, but humans are idiots and they tend to stop breeding when they're educated, so the prognosis is not good.

 

The thing with Scientology is - everyone knows it's a cult. It's hardly about to take over the world. Any newly founded religion would suffer the same disadvantage.

 

No, you assume I agree with you at this time, though what you and I both said means the same thing;

What I said doesn't equal "journeys are fun," it says "journeys are important." Your analogy also said that "journeys are important," because you can't live if you don't breathe, just like you can't work your particular job without walking to work (to save on maintenance costs), or like I can't go to my endocrinologist without taking the bus. That's where it's significant, and I disagree because you don't understand how your words don't doubt your assertion of a lack of a journey's importance. From my stance, what you said is literally ironic rather than coincidental, so I'm actually using the word "irony" properly.

The whole time your "journey" is happening you actively change, mentally and physically, due to having experienced whatever form of locomotion you did over a certain amount of time. You might not realize the change, but it's very rare for a person to have an objective internal thought about what changes they make. Journeys are defined by a goal in mind and a trip to be made, and in your case, every journey to work makes you one day richer, while every journey home means you can finally relax and go to sleep at some point.

Considering the repetitive nature of your "journey," you don't take into account just how important it is, and that would happen with any largely repeated commute - but you still need to make it to get to your job regardless of how little you care, or just how dangerous it might be, because eventually the "dangers" assume a pattern and you learn how to adapt to them via a process of change. I'd guess (conservatively) you walk a mile in 10 minutes, so your two mile trip is as important to you as directly making money. Should you be paid to walk to work I would guess you realize it's important then. like breathing, eating, and hydration are something allowing you to live, your short walk allows you to work. Yes, working is pretty important, but just as important is that you're getting to work.

You've even said before (but not in this thread) that a person's perspective of him/herself is ever-changing due to subjectivity - because a person's sense of self changes in time with the actual changes, therefore they always feel like themselves.

Starting out not knowing anything and then having your cumulative life experience sway you one way or another is not akin to "no struggle." You do what you will with whatever information you gather - some people become theists, some remain atheists. My problem with your point is that you continue to think it's valid because "everyone starts that way," but it's not. It isn't, simply because you said "all atheists are agnostic," and the article I showed you does say all atheists start out that way, but even though he says all atheists are "weak," he also says "most, if not all" are "strong" - and you even conceded that atheists can have conviction, maybe, because you're not so sure they don't at this point (curiously enough, after having read an article by a humanist with a masters in art). If you had read the other articles by the same person you'd see he says more often that not all atheists are agnostic, and I can directly assert that I'm not a strong atheist because I don't except or deny the possibility of any theistic figure, just what people say they are. One man's opinion can be skewed because he doesn't know everything and has not talked to everybody - this is true of every human on the planet. If you want to get really specific, there are gnostic (dogmatic) and agnostic (ditto) atheists, and while a lot are agnostic, not all of them are.

Command of the language and fluid intelligence, Smuel.

 

So, if a teleporter was a viable option for getting to your endocrinologist, would you use it, or would you still take the bus, because sitting on a bus is an important part of the experience of visiting your endocrinologist?

 

The dim view of Scientology frustrates me as much as dismissing the religion of the ancient Greeks as myth. Neither Scientology or Greek mythology is any less viable than the established mainstream religions.

 

Quite so. Ans scientology hasn't even suffered a hundredth, not even a thousandth, of christianitys/islams death toll.

 

I'd walk to the bus - because if I don't, due to extraneous circumstances, I'm in danger of losing the ability to walk.

But your argument doesn't really make sense, because using the transporter is as valuable as getting where I need to go as walking to the bus stop at the right time. Without the transporter, I'd have to leave my house at the same time as I always did, rather than sleep in due to the transporter's luxury. I'd also guess it would need to be a fairly complex device, at least on par with a bus, therefore just as likely to fail - and would there be a receiving end or is it a wearable device?

 

Your recent arguments about how journeys are significant hinge on the journey being an enriching experience. In the case of using a transporter, the journey is instantaneous, so becomes purely functional.

Thus it highlights the key difference in our understanding of what a journey is. In my case, I think most journeys are tedious chores so I would gladly use a transporter if I could, to save myself time and effort.

If you really believe that the journey experience itself is an important thing, then you would reject the transporter option in favour of sitting on a bus. In fact, if you REALLY believed that journeys were so significant, you would take extra bus rides just for the sake of it, even if you didn't need to go anywhere.

Do you do that, Grossenschwamm?

DO YOU?

 

I do, the bus is yellow and they chain me to the seat for some reason along with all the other people. I never understood why.

 

Invalid argument. Mine does not hinge on enrichment, it hinges on the practicality of traveling and learning to adapt to it. You said yourself you'd utilize the transporter's luxury - that in and of itself lends importance to travel using the transporter regardless of the journey's length of time, because you're still moving the same distance in relation to 3D space, and it doesn't take nearly as long. Functional? Of course. Enriching? More sleep/relaxation time/time to eat breakfast/whatever you could fill that extra 20 minutes with in your case. It's not the speed, it's that you're doing it in the first place.

Journeys have significance in that they get you where you need to be. If I'm not actually going anywhere it's because I don't need to be anywhere, and adding such a thing to my day would be a superfluous gesture with no actual point, other than bringing me back to where I started when I could otherwise have been there the entire time. I value practicality when I experience, I'm not the kind of person who takes a bus on whim because I have nothing better to do in my day. I can get more done in my house and in effect the trip I take to my workshop is a journey because it involves determination and mental preparation to get shit done.

Do not equate my appreciation of a journey to an appreciation for spending an entire day with strangers on a mode of public transportation for no purpose. They're not the same thing.

I don't eat, breathe or drink water because those things are intrinsically fun (though they can be under the right circumstances), I do those things because each one serves a purpose. If I was actually going to do "nothing" for a day, I'd walk everywhere, and damn the blisters I could get. it's physical activity, which I need both to maintain my ability to walk and keep my blood sugars under control. Sitting on a bus all day would do neither of those things.

Breathe too much at a time and you can get light headed and pass out. Eat too much and you can simply get fat, or wreck your glucose, or get fat and develop diabetes. Drink too much water and at the least you'll be pissing all the time, at most you will literally get water poisoning.

Do you understand my point yet?

 

Not really. You seem to be stating the truism that "If it's important to get from A to B, then getting from A to B is important."

Well... yes.

Was that your point all along? If so, it's hardly contributing anything to the discussion.

 

I've been saying that, along with the variation of choices you can make in getting from A to B being important, because the choice you make determines how you can deal with B, be it with gradually improving energy from regular exercise, car maintenance, or an admission of a lack of any knowledge regarding a theistic concept. I go for long term practicality, and it looks like you do too, but for some reason we've been arguing over this for way too long because you don't think the choices matter like I do. I don't think I can convince you of that, and I'm very tired of saying the same thing in so many different ways.

 

Could someone give me a quick rundown on what's going on? Really don't wanna read everything.

 

Smuel thinks that the journey isn't as important as the destination, which is odd because he chooses to walk everyday rather than drive his car. That would indicate a prioity driven choice as to the most beneficial journey.

 

I never indicated that I possess a lack of understanding; what I indicated was that your arguments were shit. So to finally prove it, here is my argument FOR "Atheism is not a religion":

Theism is not a religion; ergo, atheism is not a religion. (Both, however, are components of religions.) Theism is defined as a belief. Religion is defined as a set of beliefs. A single belief doesn't make a set; ergo, theism isn't a religion. If theism isn't a religion, then atheism cannot be a religion (regardless of whether it is defined as either a belief or the absence of belief).
To support the premise that atheism isn't a religion, other religions use atheistic beliefs as components of their beliefs. Humanism and Buddhism are two such religions that promote atheistic beliefs. Therefore, identifying a person as atheist does not fully identify their religion because it doesn't limit their set of beliefs down to a single religion.



I may enjoy my ability to be a little nuts & outside the box, but that doesn't mean that I am incapable of logic. The only complex systems that work are the complex systems that are based on simplier designs: Simplify arguments down to definitions then build them up in complexity. Now, has any one seen my crazy hat anywhere?

 

Ahem, Hinduism is not atheistic, Buddhism is, but then that's just a philosophy isn't it? Just like humanism.

Now, Xyle, I think you're still just acting stupid so that we let our guards down and you can attack us telepathically.

I'm on to you, buddy!

 

Yes, it was firmly on your brainless head the entire time you were writing that post. Usually, someone of moderate intelligence could see where they went wrong once it's explained to them; but I honestly think your ill-veiled conceit and inexplicable lack of thought into what you think you're saying firmly prevents you from even considering the fact that you're quite simply wrong, and that your position is common, transparent, understood and rejected by most of (if not all) the people you think you're confounding or convincing, sophistic, tautological, and, worst of all, extremely undergraduate and predictable.


I don't usually do this in earnest, 'cause I think it reeks of the worst kind of pretension, but I'm actually going to recommend a book that I honest-to-fuck hope you read and understand in the way in which it was intended.