God's purpose

You sound like you think 'what I did' was 'wrong'.

Is that how you feel about it RK? "Navigator did a wrong thing?"

I didn't disregard you what you had to say RK. I disagreed with it. I don't believe that people 'don't inherently know good from evil' and that evil and good 'don't exist.'
 
Last edited:
Navigator said:
You sound like you think 'what I did' was 'wrong'.

Is that how you feel about it RK? "Navigator did a wrong thing?"

I didn't disregard you what you had to say RK. I disagreed with it. I don't believe that people 'don't inherently know good from evil' and that evil and good 'don't exist.'
Click to expand...

You said to me, in essence, that I don't really believe what I said, I really believe what you say, etc, etc.

What do I think about that? I can't tell you, I don't need more yellow cards.

However, it doesn't have anything to do with "evil", it has to do with stupidity and choosing to remain ignorant. Not to mention arrogance, narrow mindedness, and a complete lack of intellectual curiosity.

Eta not to mention you're intentionally conflating two separate definitions of "wrong", Ie, morally wrong and incorrect, as though anyone could have read anything I've written and think I've stated it isn't possible to be incorrect. SMH
 
Last edited:
RogueKitten said:
Eta not to mention you're intentionally conflating two separate definitions of "wrong", Ie, morally wrong and incorrect, as though anyone could have read anything I've written and think I've stated it isn't possible to be incorrect. SMH
Click to expand...

Nope - you have been clear that you do not believe that good and evil exist - they are simply moral constructs based upon cultural norms etc.

I replied that the argument that both sides believe they are morally right did not in itself mean that they actually were.


My answer was that they were both evil.
 
Navigator said:
Nope - you have been clear that you do not believe that good and evil exist - they are simply moral constructs based upon cultural norms etc.

I replied that the argument that both sides believe they are morally right did not in itself mean that they actually were.

My answer was that they were both evil.
Click to expand...

What sides? A personal preference or vision is not in the same category with matters of fact, such as the real variations in dearly held precepts across time and culture. Meaning, Navigator has a vision, which is not big news, since anyone can do that. The trick is to use evidence.

BTW, asking and answering your own questions is likely to lead to agreeing with yourself.
 
Navigator said:
Nope. I said in essence that I don't believe what you believe.
Click to expand...
You should reread your post to me. You stated you didn't believe I really believed that. You said it was "obvious" how things are.

What is obvious is that there is no information that could possibly break down the defenses you've created to keep your chosen worldview intact. I'm sorry for you.
 
ynot said:
Perhaps you might consider climbing a rung up the honesty ladder and say you're an agnostic-atheist? When they ask what an agnostic-atheist is you can tell them you neither believe nor disbelieve in a god. Not totally a lie and closer to the truth. Being truthful is more important to me than being disingenuously nice for the sake of convenience, so I tend to say it like it is.
Click to expand...

It really depends on who the people are, how I need to interact with them, etc. Among friends and family, I'm an outright full-blooded atheist, no question. With strangers, it's none of their business, but if it comes up, I'm honest. With co-workers... most of the time I'll stick with "not religious" or "agnostic". Sure, being truthful is important... but it's more important to have a functional working relationship and my lack of belief has no bearing on my job. Being honest gains nothing and risks much. Soft-selling it gains much more and risks nothing at all. I would feel that I were lying if I told them I were Lutheran, or something like that... that would be an total lie. As it is, I'm comfortable with the white lie that's only a sliver away from complete truth, for the sake of getting things done.
 
ynot said:
Perhaps there only needs to be two kinds of atheism . . .

Uninformed Atheist – Covers babies and those that have never heard of theism.

Informed Atheist – Covers those that know of theism but either haven't decided to become a theist or have decided not to. Or merely goes “Whatever . . . Next” :cool:.
Click to expand...

So... those who land in Limbo versus those who burn in Hell?

From a theistic point of view, you've described the difference between an infidel and a heretic. One is ignorant of the way of god, the other rejects the way of god.
 
Navigator said:
Hlafordlaes...ah never mind...
Click to expand...

I can be nice. I think that consensually derived ethics are wonderful, and are otoh nothing new. By that I mean that any ideological organization will choose that leader best representing what is understood at the time; which is, in the end, some form of consensus (no divine finger pointing or opening of clouds and descending doves). Pope is clearest example. Consensus is not the road to moral hell it has at times been made to sound like. However, as a frontal attack on absolutism, it garners its fiercest resistance.

I would encourage you not to think I or others are against, say, some clearly nice things, or wish to undertake or defend heinous acts. There can be decent rules for behavior that are fairly similar in some ways to those religiously derived, just not any that are misunderstood as being written in stone.
 
Navigator said:
The irony (because that is really what it is) is how the fact of math coupled with the fact of language produces the fact of this irony.:D
Click to expand...

Just to elucidate any poor lurkers who don't already know this... All of your numerology and great "coincidences" are nothing more than an artifact of the specific ordering convention you're using. Pick a different language and those words have no similarity from a coded perspective. Translate them to the Latin alphabet, or the Spanish, or Cyrillic, or anything else and the whole thing falls apart. There is absolutely ZERO actual meaning to numerology. It's smoke and mirrors.
 
RogueKitten said:
You should reread your post to me. You stated you didn't believe I really believed that. You said it was "obvious" how things are.
Click to expand...



You should reread my post. How I started off by saying "It is hidden behind the confusion caused by intrusion of the external world which uses the inherent knowledge of good an evil to muddy the waters rather than clarify them. Evil purpose does not want clarity but distortion and confusion, conflict and emotional upheaval...

Be that it is hidden, does not mean that it does not exist within you. In part you are operating within it even in that you use it to fuel and participate within those external beliefs and accompanying conflicts.

What is obvious is that there is no information that could possibly break down the defenses you've created to keep your chosen worldview intact. I'm sorry for you.
Click to expand...

And I pity you. There! Are we both feeling better now we have cleared that up?
Edited by Agatha: 
Edited personalisation, incivility, and alteration of username
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Navigator said:
Nope. I said in essence that I don't believe what you believe.
Click to expand...
But, but, you can't “believe” anything, you're the amazing “Navigator”. You're the one that will navigate the way forward for the human race which will “allow better access to the galaxy in general to promote the nurturing of consciousness therein”. You're the superior “agnostic” in the neutral middle position of mature non-conflict that neither believes nor disbelieves. Please don't tell me the “Navigator” for the future of the human race has lost her way.
 
Last edited:
Hlafordlaes said:
I can be nice. I think that consensually derived ethics are wonderful, and are otoh nothing new. By that I mean that any ideological organization will choose that leader best representing what is understood at the time; which is, in the end, some form of consensus (no divine finger pointing or opening of clouds and descending doves). Pope is clearest example. Consensus is not the road to moral hell it has at times been made to sound like. However, as a frontal attack on absolutism, it garners its fiercest resistance.

I would encourage you not to think I or others are against, say, some clearly nice things, or wish to undertake or defend heinous acts. There can be decent rules for behavior that are fairly similar in some ways to those religiously derived, just not any that are misunderstood as being written in stone.
Click to expand...

Well I am only suggesting that we are born with the knowing...the knowledge is the external stuff.

Its no biggy as far as I can tell. I am not saying that toddlers should therefore be an example of evidence that this would be the case. Indeed, I have already explained it...just because we have it in us does not mean that we use it.
 
ynot said:
But, but, you can't “believe” anything, ...
Click to expand...


Who told you that? Everyone can believe anything.

What I have said about static belief is that I think it is pointless, and that I choose not to believe.

Don't you think it is okay not to believe in other peoples beliefs?
 
Yep - I was right about this too... circular...argument going no where in particular. *yawn*
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom