Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all.
Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage") |
|
Post Reply 
|
Page <12345 8> |
| Author | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
SteveG 
Forum Senior Member 
Joined: April 11 2014 Location: Kyiv In Spirit Status: Offline Points: 20521 |
 Posted: October 14 2014 at 19:21 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
<This is no avatar, silly. It's a picture of the witch doctor I hired to cure you. Let me know when it starts to work. Love, SG.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Dean
Special Collaborator 
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: October 14 2014 at 17:27 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Man A has responded to the question.
Nice avatar, worth every penny.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
What?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
SteveG
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 11 2014 Location: Kyiv In Spirit Status: Offline Points: 20521 |
Posted: October 14 2014 at 15:50 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wouldn't that have saved man A time and effort? There's still time for you to pray, btw. (That should take you less than a second!) Edited by SteveG - October 14 2014 at 16:04 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
wilmon91
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 15 2009 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 698 |
Posted: October 13 2014 at 16:18 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Been busy, had sort of a deadline today which I was working towards..and it takes forever for me to answer these posts...
Why? There must be a point of transition between "normal person" to being "musician". There is not such a fine line between a bomb that hasn't exploded and a bomb exploding. Because the bomb is not in a process of becoming the explosion. A person must evolve towards becoming a musician (or some other profession), and at some point you can say "I'm a musician", but the moment before, you weren't. That's the fine line.
So it's just the word you're against, not the person behind it ( which is the meaning of the word).
I don't agree, but of course it depends on in what respect of difference you are talking about (but lets not get deeper into that)
They only deal with questions. I think from late 18th century and forward, the western philosophy became adapted more to the scientific way of producing theories, were you are focused on making arguments that hold against any critical questions that challenges it. The important thing is that few questions are a subject in itself, it is always related to other things, and it's very common that the problems have to do with how you define the words you are using, so semantics is always relevant. You can derive a question from any statement or claim. For example "The house is blue" holds a question "What color is the house?" (Wittgenstein pointed that out). But here are some questions.. What is the relation between cause and effect? What brings about the greatest happiness? What is the ego? (or what does it do?) What is image? What is a whole? What is virtue? What is the absolute?
The question is too unclear to be answerable.
So you have your own idea of separating things into "useful" and not useful". Before you said "Areas that are not the concern of science will never be explained by science.". and now you say "We separated philosophy from the useful sciences a long time ago". So that equals: 'What can never be explained by science is not useful.' About the greeks, they are the core of western philosophy, and it's the foundation of science with its logical inference. Most of what constitutes modern science is knowledge from before the time of modern science. To have a philosophic mind is very useful in combination with being a mathematician for example, and there are many such examples. A mathematician + philosopher would in your simple view be a person dealing with something useful on the one hand and something useless on the other. You think that everything can be divided in any number of categories, and each will be fully independent. The problem is that you lose the meaning of it. The purpose of philosophy is not to be separated from everything else.
A too short comment , for effects sake, with no clarification. Does this mean that there is nothing to be explained? You haven't read all of philosophy (I don't think you have read a lot), so you need to explain how to make this conclusion. That goes without saying - so why do I even respond to this?
That is the way you present your opinion. But it equals nonsense. You are deliberately not informative , but never mind, it's still off topic!
That depends on what it is, of course. I don't need to have faith in a mountain that I believe exists on another planet, because faith isn't needed, there is no important relation between me and the mountain. It's all about the nature of what you believe in , and your relation to it.
There must be criteria of course (not rules), probably not very strict, that's why we have so many -isms. There are psychological -isms, and they are not "inventions" in the same way as -isms that are the result from opposing or rejection of something where this becomes the -ism. My opinion is that for the sake of sorting different opinions into categories, it has functional. But for someone to just pick one -ism and say -"I am a xxxx-ist." can create more confusion than it clarifies. But to the point - post-theism as an answer to the question of what you believe in, is not an answer to that question.
That sentence doesn't explain what you mean. It's up to me to interpret it as usual. Yes, you can either explain or not - at a given moment. At a later moment, it's the same. But what was previously unexplainable then may have become explainable now. My above comment is still my answer to this.
But you haven't said anything about your own beliefs whichever they may be. You have however implicated that the knowledge in modern science was the useful stuff that was extracted from all the other useless fields of human thought. You haven't talked about anything useful that is outside of the science department. What am I not listening to?
It's supposed to be a way to reach the "inner light"- the 6th sense.
I don't agree, because modern science didn't start from scratch. Knowledge evolved during thousands of years, and now it is made into a system with many independent divisions , and a lot is left out of this system.... but I don't see why it couldn't evolve , if we look far ahead, but it would require big events that cause the beginning of such a change. Modern science doesn't "own" the knowledge that it uses and discovers. That 's my opinion.
I'm sorry to have to disagree again. Our bodies, useless compared to other animals? Who would say that? You want fur and claws? That was us millions of years ago. We don't want evolve backwards into a state like that. But we've evolved our brains like you say. It is an evolution of consciousness. This evolution have had an exponential progress.
Humans are in a category by themselves from other animals. It's because of their minds, their thinking ability ,their self-awareness. Name some creative animals that produces art? They haven't got the self-awareness and intellect.
Not anti-religion, but it defines itself by saying "I don't believe the thing that they believe". It's distancing itself from god-beliefs, and that very distancing is the base of the -ism. Edited by wilmon91 - October 13 2014 at 16:33 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: October 13 2014 at 12:38 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
You have jumped to an understandable but nevertheless erroneous conclusion. I have only "left" the christian religion once.  No real epiphany for me, I just walked away. The why is probably of no concern to anyone except myself (though you can read a potted synopsis here). |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
What?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
CosmicVibration
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 26 2014 Location: Milky Way Status: Offline Points: 1327 |
Posted: October 13 2014 at 12:21 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Just curious as to what made you leave the first and second time? I myself went to a catholic grammar school and started questioning what I was being told in the 3rd grade. The nun teaching the 3rd grade was a kind and gentle soul. However, some of the answers I got from her just didn’t sit right with me. For instance, how can a fair and just god send a good person to hell for simply not knowing Jesus? What if that person lived in Africa and never heard of Jesus was my childish concern. Childish as I was only 8 or 9 at the time. In the fourth grade I came across a really evil and wicked
nun. That was when I concluded that the
ones’ that were supposed to be in the know really don’t have an understanding
of divinity. The behavior I witnessed
from them and the answers I received to my questions left me dumfounded.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: October 13 2014 at 11:42 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
..achieves the same end I guess
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
What?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
CosmicVibration
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 26 2014 Location: Milky Way Status: Offline Points: 1327 |
Posted: October 13 2014 at 11:40 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Dean, you really put a lot of thought, time and effort into all of this. Even though I enjoyed reading it, maybe your time would have been better spent on your knees, praying. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: October 12 2014 at 07:11 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
"The time has come," the Walrus said, "To talk of many things: Of shoes--and ships--and sealing-wax-- Of cabbages--and kings-- And why the sea is boiling hot-- And whether pigs have wings." Let's have a chronological recap:
Man A does not like answering loaded questions which is why he chose to avoid that part of the question; and his answer was not changing the subject since it addressed the 'or' part of the original question "...or are they all a waste of time to you?". The accepted approach to answering a leading or loaded question is to challenge the assumption(s) behind the question, which Man A has apparently failed to do by avoiding the loaded part of question completely. However, by choosing to only answer the 'or' part Man A has rendered the stated assumption "... Nietzsche did have some good points or arguments", (and the 'implied' assumptions "...that "God is Dead" because gods or god is no longer needed for human development, and more over, declared that Christianity is [controlling and] counter intuitive to human behavior "), moot from his perspective. [moot (adj): of little or no practical relevance]. So the statement "...Nietzsche' view of of christianity being a controlling and counter intuitive influence on mankind is of no consequence what so ever " is therefore an incorrect assumption. The view 'of christianity being a controlling and counter intuitive influence on mankind' can be derived independently from Nietzsche, it could be argued that the Reformation some 400 years earlier was a consequence of that independent view and Nietzsche's view is a direct or an indirect consequence of that. That Nietzsche (also) held that view is not relevant; challenges to the authority of religion are not solely attributable to any one philosopher or even to philosophers in general. However, Man A has not stated this view and has purposely tried to avoid any direct criticism of religion and other people's beliefs so it cannot be assumed whether this view itself is of consequence to him or not. Also, this view may be of consequence to others so it cannot be assumed that it is 'of no consequence what so ever'. Man A has explained several times how he arrived at his 'post-theistic' (nontheistic) views in various 'religious' threads, derived from the observation that mankind has rendered gods as obsolete many times in history, for example:
Nontheistic religions exist that are independent of a belief in gods and they pre-date christianity. So Nietzsche's assertion that 'god is dead' is superfluous and of no practical relevance to believers in those nontheistic religions. That Nietzsche's views may affirm Man A's views is of 'no practical relevance' to him since he arrived at these views without recourse to the writings of Nietzsche or any other Philosopher. He is not looking for affirmation of his views or for the stated views of others (Philosophers or not) to support his views. He acknowledges that some Philosophers have views that are in general agreeance with his views and there are other Philosophers whose views would be in disagreement and thus not support his position. To this end using Philosophers and their declarations to back up (or discredit) a position is 'all a waste of time' to him. [NB: Man A has now answered the former part of the initial leading question "...some [philosophers] like Nietzsche did have some good points or arguments", but has only done so by rewording the latter part as "Do you agree The statement that Man A "insinuates that he has no regard or respect for any philosophers or their various schools of thought" is not wholly correct, he does not insinuate nor does he ascribe to the notion that "Philosopher[s]=No good"¯, he makes no judgement on the relative goodness of any individual Philosopher or their views. That Philosopher X affirms Man A views is neither good nor bad, so dismissing the relevance of Philosopher X and his views does not dismiss Man A's views. [Man C thought Man A's summarily dismissal of all Philosophers was "radical" because Man A was dismissing all philosophy (throwing baby out with the bathwater) but this is not the case]. Man A regards Philosophers and the notion of quoting said Philosophers as a waste of time, however, he has plenty of time to waste and the choice of which topics to waste his time on are for him to decide, as is when to let a subject go. "Man A will not let the diverting joke go" The kitten in Man A's avatar is not a dead philosopher.  [edited for typographical errors introduced by the forum engine update]
Edited by Dean - October 12 2014 at 16:48 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
What?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: October 10 2014 at 06:53 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Recently published images of Indonesian cave painting, approximately 40,000 years old. So far we have determined that the human species is around 500,000 years old, with our current subspecies (homo sapiens sapiens) having been around for some 250,000 years. In that quarter of a million years we haven't changed a great deal, (our brain size may have gotten a little smaller and we may be a little taller but there is insufficient evidence to conclusively claim that), so it is fair to assume that our capacity to think and to conceptualise hasn't changed much either - the brain physiology that created the Indonesian cave art is the same that created the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel and the graffiti-art of Banksy. Our capacity for abstract thinking has enabled us to produce both figurative and abstract art is a trait that we have always had (it is not a learnt skill nor is it one that we have developed over time) - we learn to draw and paint but we can only do that because we have the natural ability for abstract thinking. Every human can make a recognisable mark on a wall, a canvas or a piece of paper regardless of their skill with a brush, it would be Lamarckian for us to say that we all can do this because art has developed over time and we have inherited this ability as a result of that development. The ability to produce an art-image from an abstract thought is an inherent characteristic we all share, (the skill to do it well or poorly is another matter). We don't know why these cave paintings were made. We can theorise and hypothesise based upon our sparse knowledge of the people who created them coupled with our interpretation of why we made art in the past and why we continue to make art today, but we can never actually know. However, we can tell that the people who made them were human and they had the ability to depict abstract thought in pigment. The people of 40,000 years ago had more primitive lives than ours but from the photograph of the cave paintings we can see that their art was far from primitive and therefore they were not more primitive as humans. What they show is a capacity for abstract thought, and since this latest discovery is detached and isolated from similar cave paintings found in Europe, this was an inherent ability not a learnt one. Art in any form is communication and all communication is the translation of a thought into a representation of that thought as something that another human can interpret and convert back to abstract thought. We may lack the knowledge to interpret the intended meaning because the translation is (still) too abstract or too ambiguous to determine without further explanation, so we can misinterpret the abstract thought and its intended meaning becomes lost in translation but the image itself is still a translation of the artists abstract idea into visual form. Other animals do not have this problem of mistranslation, not because they do not communicate (there is more than enough observational evidence that they do), but because their abstract thinking has less ambiguity so the messages they are sending are simpler for another animal of the same species to understand. If there is hybridisation of subspecies this ability to communicate is preserved (e.g. Wolf-Dog hybrid), but if the separation between subspecies is too large (e.g. Coyote-Dog and Jackal-Dog hybrids) then the ability to communicate with the parent species becomes problematic. Thus the ability to understand communication is genetic, not learnt. We learn the language of communication but the ability to do that is genetic and some of that language (crying, laughing, tone, etc.) is inherent and universal. Animals communicate for survival. They use their senses (sight, sound, smell or touch) to convey survival information to others: to attract a mate, to ask for food, to tell where food can be found, to warn of danger, to re-enforce a bond, to hunt for food or to educate their young. Visual communication forms a large part of that though body language and display - we would not call that "art" but it is the translation of abstract thought into visual signs for other animals to interpret. Our need to communicate is also a survival trait. We are a social animal that is dependant upon other humans to survive and our codependency on others for survival is dependant on our ability to communicate. Early hunter-gatherers communicated within the family-group, and then to the extended-family group or tribe - the knowledge needed to hunt and find food was communicated within the group, as were the nomadic-routes they followed to track the seasonality of the food they hunted and gathered. Communication strengthened the group-bond and increased the chances of survival. The early art we see in cave paintings are a visual depiction of that nomadic hunter-gatherer existence and perhaps a sign of the communication between social group members and thus to other social groups. We can only hypothesise on the message those paintings were conveying and to do that we apply our modern understanding of art, so we theorise that they are ritual, spiritual, celebrational, instructional, tutorial, tribal, territorial, possessional, expressional, emotional or merely pictorial ... and since we are of the same species one (or more) of those is probably right, we have no way of knowing for sure. Other forms of nomadic art (decoration) are also communication, they convey identity and belonging to a group, they are a visualisation of the group-bond that when transferred to a non-nomadic existence enabled settlement and ultimately civil living (civilisation). Civilisation is group-bonding on a grand scale and "humanism" is perhaps a natural consequence of that. Art is a visual communication within the group regardless of its size. In humans visual communication is less obvious because our vocal abilities are better suited for conveying abstract thought, but we still use it - we can still read body-language and we can tell when another human is happy or distressed regardless of the language they speak. Moreover we can read this visual communication in other species and translate it into our own abstract thoughts and thus relate it to our own experiences. [through this we can empathise for example]. We know that some animals can be trained to respond to vocal and visual commands and to a lesser extent perhaps some animals can interpret our body-language: many pet-owners will say that a domesticated animal can tell when its human owner is angry or distressed for example. This apparent empathic communication between animal and human is often dismissed as anthropomorphism (attributing animals with human characteristics and emotions), but to dismiss it out-of-hand is to deny that we are also animals who employ visual signs to convey an abstract thought such as emotion. Therefore I suggest that human visual art is a continuation of that basic animal-survival visual communication and so developed out of it. It may not seem apparent that the painting of the Sistine Chapel ceiling was developed from a survival trait, but we can interpret it on many levels and use all the same "-al" adjectives I used for the cave painting - the hand of man in the central panel is the same hand of man we see in the cave painting and so was the hand that produced them. Edited by Dean - October 10 2014 at 08:04 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
What?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
dr wu23
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 22 2010 Location: Indiana Status: Offline Points: 20491 |
Posted: October 09 2014 at 07:53 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
At a lecture some one once asked the Dalai Lama how as an individual we could help things improve and he replied,"
Just be a good person."
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
One does nothing yet nothing is left undone.
Haquin |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Kati
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 10 2010 Location: Earth Status: Offline Points: 6253 |
Posted: October 08 2014 at 18:06 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Darius thank you so much for taking your time to reply to me in this matter <3 I know what the meaning of Humanistic psychology, I too think I have that approach especially knowing right from wrong, that approach knowing that one should not do what is not nice and you would not like it being done to you and also wanting the wellbeing of others especially when I am happy or thrilled I too feel the urge or need to share so that maybe others might feel this too ;) My question was more inquisitive and again thank you!!! big hug to you xxxxx |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Kati
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 10 2010 Location: Earth Status: Offline Points: 6253 |
Posted: October 08 2014 at 17:05 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
True and I respect that just like Buddhists respect other people's views and beliefs, they always thought just like modern scientists today believe in the facts however they do respect every single life form, humans or animals i.e. they believe it's morally wrong and inhumane to use any animals for lab testing. 
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
bhikkhu
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: April 06 2006 Location: A² Michigan Status: Offline Points: 5109 |
Posted: October 08 2014 at 16:53 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I don't know if I would label myself as a humanist but I am a Buddhist who does not believe in God. The idea of supernatural powers that guide existence never sat well with me. I need something a bit more logical to believe in. So instead the focus is on making myself and this world better. Isn't that what it's all supposed to be about anyway?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
dr wu23
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 22 2010 Location: Indiana Status: Offline Points: 20491 |
Posted: October 08 2014 at 11:06 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I didn't mean to take it further off topic but those things happen.
I'm an agnostic humanist and I simply don't know.....any better.
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
One does nothing yet nothing is left undone.
Haquin |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Dark Elf
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member Joined: February 01 2011 Location: Michigan Status: Online Points: 12738 |
Posted: October 08 2014 at 09:02 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Given the odd turn this discussion has taken, what with references to demons and genii, perhaps the topic of this thread should be "are you an inhumanist."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined
to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology... |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
dr wu23
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 22 2010 Location: Indiana Status: Offline Points: 20491 |
Posted: October 07 2014 at 09:19 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The word demon came from 'daemon and daimon' , classical words describing 'godlike beings' that the Romans and Greeks believed in. It was changed into 'demon' and used in the biblical translations of the King James Bible.
From what I understand demon did not have the same meaning and connotation as it did to the ancient Greeks.
One of my favorite books that explores this aspect and the whole paranormal /supernatural area regarding these kinds of beings is Daimonic Reality by Patrick Harpur.
from wiki:
The words "dęmon" and "daimōn" are Latinized versions of the Greek "δαίμων" ("godlike power, fate, god"),[1] a reference to the daemons of ancient Greek religion and mythology, as well as later Hellenistic religion and philosophy
Daemons are benevolent or benign nature spirits, beings of the same nature as both mortals and deities, similar to ghosts, chthonic heroes, spirit guides, forces of nature or the deities themselves (see Plato's Symposium). Walter Burkert suggests that unlike the Christian use of demon in a strictly malignant sense, “[a] general belief in spirits is not expressed by the term daimon until the 5th century when a doctor asserts that neurotic women and girls can be driven to suicide by imaginary apparitions, ‘evil daimones’
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
One does nothing yet nothing is left undone.
Haquin |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
TODDLER
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member Joined: August 28 2009 Location: Vineland, N.J. Status: Offline Points: 3126 |
Posted: October 07 2014 at 08:42 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In the Middle Ages, a genius was a supernatural being. I'm rusty on this one.
A supernatural being uses a magic herb to make people want to ravish those they would ordinarily find repulsive. In my case, that would be a so called witch who placed herbs in my food over a course of time...causing me to be unaware mentally of my decisions to do the logical or right thing with my life. This is nailed down to being under a spell, when logically anyone on this planet could put herbs in your food on a regular basis with no intentions of casting a spell....and you'd still feel the same affect. I question this motive. I have mixed feelings about spells because of it's direct connection to medicine. The science of medicine is self-explanatory, so I often think it's just an excuse for people to feel they are doing something special to gain power. However...to believe your power is working from the dependency of medicine is delusional in my book. Supernatural beings appear out of thin air and have psychic powers. Okay, I'm not touching that. This is delusional as well. They are generally thought of as supernatural beings who live alongside humans, possibly within a slightly different dimension to ours.We can't fully explain what inspiration, prophetic dreams and intuition are. That's something we cannot fully explain or impossible to prove visually to the human eye. If you desire to believe and it remains a fantasy so be it, but I have doubt based on personal experiences. Humanist with a capital H, (according to Wikipedia), mentions rejection of supernaturalism, pseudoscience, and superstition. That's me to a degree. I have mixed feelings, but not a broad minded attitude because of my personal horrific experiences with individuals who took it upon themselves to believe in a supernatural being and asked friends to take their life. I have severe mixed feelings. I don't even appreciate a hypothetical question. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Argonaught
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 04 2012 Location: Virginia Status: Offline Points: 1413 |
Posted: October 07 2014 at 06:49 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Demons, as you correctly stated, are an example of supernatural beings. But my question was, 'How do you define supernatural (beings?). I have a lot of admiration for the top-notch obscurantism of the medieval theologians, but, with all due respect, demons were written about millennia before the Middle Ages.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Icarium
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member Joined: March 21 2008 Location: Tigerstaden Status: Offline Points: 34055 |
Posted: October 07 2014 at 06:20 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post Reply
|
Page <12345 8> |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
"Are you a humanist?" topic closed (to the edge)
Topic Options
SteveG wrote:
