<= [731][732][733][734][735][736][737][738][739][740] => |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
731) Arminius,
03.06.2015, 14:09,
14:50,
15:31,
15:58,
16:13,
17:39,
18:35,
23:02
(3109-3116)
|
3109 |
Gravity-time and Gravity-space.
===
We speak the word »time« without concrete scientific definition. **
Therefore our knowledge about »time« is foggy.
But if we say »gravity-time« then the fog is disappeared because
for us there isn't another »time« expect the »gravity-time«. **
We don't use light- travel- time
(so- called 1 Astronomical Unit) in our daily life. **
The same »fog« is with the word »space«.
For us there isn't another »space«expect the »gravity- space«. **
We don't use another spaces in our daily life. **
The conceptions »time« and "space" are property of Gravity. **
Without gravity there isn't »time«, there isn't »space«. **
The discussion about »time« and »space« without Gravity is tautology. **
3110 |
Arminius wrote:
»If there are the following three categories: elephants, lions, and zebras; in which category do you fall into?« ** **
That's a false dichotomy fallacy.
3111 |
So, Arminus' example is a false trichotomy whereas yours is a false dichotomy. **
3112 |
Your argument is a logical fallacy by definition of a false dichotomy .... **
3113 |
3114 |
3115 |
3116 |
Features | Lexemes | ||
Theist | Atheist | Antitheist | |
Living being | yes | yes | yes |
Human being | yes | yes | yes |
Godbeliever | yes | no | no |
Intellectual | yes | yes | yes |
Child | no | no | no |
Against theism | no | no | yes |
Against atheism | | no | |
Against antitheism | yes | no | no |
A newborn is both; not an atheist and not a theist. **
732) Arminius, 04.06.2015, 00:00, 15:14, 15:15, 15:36, 15:37, 16:20, 16:21, 16:56, 17:24, 23:18 (3117-3126)
Mutcer wrote:
That is not a fact. Your definitions and premises (preconditions) are false - as I said several times in several post, in several threads, again and again.Mutcer wrote:
I am as much no antitheist as you are an antitheist.Mutcer wrote:
First of all one has to know which human is meant.Mutcer wrote:
First of all one has to know which human is meant.Mutcer wrote:
Do you ignore anything just after you have »read« it?Mutcer wrote:
A human newborn is not able to do that - as I said to you several times in plenty of posts and in two threads, over and over again.Again the widened table:Arminius wrote:
True.Jr Wells wrote:
Also true.Mutcer wrote:
Do you ignore anything just after you have »read« it, Mutcer?---------------------------------------------------------------------------------B.t.w.: Shall I copy this post and put in this and your other thread, so that you don't have to write anymore? (Because it is always the same!)
And you (**) are the one who dictates who and what an atheist is. Oh, no. Your definitions and premises (preconditions) are absolutely false.Mutcer wrote:
Read my posts. I have answered your questions over and over again.Mutcer wrote:
What word would you use to describe a robot that does not hold the belief that oil does not exist?Mutcer wrote:
Mutcer, I have said that again and again. Please read my post and do not say the same again and again!Mutcer wrote:
It does not sound, because you are not able to hear my writing.Mutcer wrote:
Why should I? Is it because you hear my writing on a keyboard?Mutcer wrote:
It does not sound, because you are not able to hear my writing.May I hope that you can learn?Mutcer wrote:
Why should I? Why you hear my writing on a keyboard?Please explain how which human can hold a belief.Mutcer wrote:
I have answered your question and many other questions again and again, but you are ignoring everything. Please answer my question why you are ignoring everything.Do you ignore anything just after you have "read" it, or do you even ignore it before you have read it? :)Does non-theist mean the same as "not a theist"?Mutcer wrote:
It does not matter.Mutcer wrote:
It is defined. Read my posts - without ignoring.Mutcer wrote:
No one of them is wrong. Like I said over and over again: A newborn or other children are no theists, no atheists, no antitheists.Mutcer wrote:
Not by definition, and here we are talking about definitions. Like I said again and again: It is the prefix a that tells us why an atheist is not against theism and not against antitheism. And it is the prefix a too that tells us why so many antitheists call themselves atheists - either they do not know better, or they lie.Mutcer wrote:
Guess what they can mean! It distracts you from your usual doings (e.g. ignoring and repeating).Mutcer wrote:
Should that be the summit of nihilism? An Atheist can never be against atheism - by definition.Mutcer wrote:
Then they tell you lies. It is the prefix a that tells us that an atheist can never be against anything which has to do with theism (including antitheism) - by definition! You are an antitheist, and those you know are probably against you, against your atheistic character, or they are telling lies, or both. There are merely a few humans in the world who are really atheists. Most of them who call themselves atheists are either antitheists or theists.Mutcer wrote:
A newborn human is not an atheist, can never be an atheist, and will never be an atheist. A newborn human has nothing to do with that. Again and again: The answer you get, if you ask whether newborns can be atheists is always: NOT DEFINED.Arminius wrote:
|
Features | Lexemes | ||
»Theist« | »Atheist« | »Antitheist« | |
Living being | yes | yes | yes |
Human being | yes | yes | yes |
Godbeliever | yes | no | no |
Intellectual | yes | yes | yes |
Child | no | no | no |
** **
3119 |
Please provide your source which says a newborn human isn't an atheist. **
3120 |
3121 |
3122 |
Arminius wrote:
»Mutcer wrote:
Please provide your source which says a newborn human isn't an atheist. **
The sources are all results of science (all their disciplines that have to do with it), the common sense, the perception / awareness / cognition, all experiences with newborn humans.« ** **
Not to mention the 21 dictionaries that stated the requirement for disbelief that embryos and infants cannot have. **
3123 |
3124 |
Babies are pretheists if anything. **
3125 |
But let's say we created a dichotomy as follows:
(1) All humans who don't hold the belief that a god exists
(2) All humans who don't fall into #1
In this case, newborn babies would fall into #1 .... **
3126 |
733) Arminius, 05.06.2015, 00:27, 00:57, 15:43, 19:30, 23:40, 23:58 (3127-3132)
Mutcer wrote:
I have explained it many times. Why do you not read my posts? You are ignoring people's posts that are not in agreement with your false definitions, false premises (preconditions) and false conclusuions.Mutcer wrote:
Herewith you force all humans into two categories, although it is not possible to force all humans into that two categories when it comes to the belief that a god exists or that a god does not exist, and so on, and especially when it comes to theism, atheism, and antitheism - as I already explained many times in many posts and in many threads. According to the definition and thus also to the premises (preconditions) your case #2 is not allowed to contain such humans who are not capable of the belief that a god exists or that a god does not exist, and so on, because they have no chance of belonging to your case #1. Equal opportunities are required - in a logical sense, of course. All humans you want to classify must have the same chance, the same possibility - by definition and by premises (preconditions), because they are required.In other words: Your set must be: humans who are capable of holding a belief that a god exists; then one of your two subsets must be: (A) humans who are capable of holding a belief that god exists and who hold the belief that a god exists; and the other one of your two subsets must be: (B) humans who are capable of holding a belief that god exists and who do not fall into #A. That would be correct, because both subsets belong to the same set. But newborn humans, for example, are not capable of holding a belief that a god exists; so they have nothing to do with the set, thus also nothing to do with both subsets. So you are using the wrong subsets and thus also the wrong set. The following set and its subsets are correct (note the description too, please):
or as a symmetric difference: And logically, Mutcer, you are also not allowed to confuse the conclusion, also then, if it is a false conclusion (e.g. newborn humans are atheists => false), with the premise, also then, if it is the false premise (e.g. newborn humans fall into #2 => false), because you are using the conclusion as premnise, namely the false conclusion as the false premise (newborn humans are atheists => false) and the false premise as the false conclusion (newborn humans fall into #2 => false).You are in violation of logic, and ignorance can never help you, because it can never change the rules of logic.
So will the gun laws be changed (in the near future)? It is just a question - not more.
That's right (**), and we know it, especially from history and from the US people's attitude towards guns. But nevertheless the US government will have to do more than "something", if this development of violence will go on, perhaps in the direction of a civil war, unless the US government wants this development and wants it to escalate.
But the term allowing ... to usurp the power of the courts (**) implies that there is an instance that (is allowed to) allow, and this instance is the government, not the people who are allowed to make a cross on a piece of paper. The ballot paper fakes that there is democracy - that is a lovely fairy tale, but the reality is that there is a dictatorship of a corrupt system.
If we refer to all humans, then the Venn diagram is e.g. the follwong one:N = All humans. N and S = Humans who are capable of holding a belief that god exists. S = Humans who are capable of holding a belief that god exists and who hold the belief that a god exist. K = Humans who are capable of holding a belief that god exists and who do not fall into S. P = Humans who are capable of holding a belief that god exists and who fall into both S and K. Mutcer's error is that he confuses Q with Q+ and Z, or equals them, and ignores that Q is not a subset and that Q and Z are not the set.In other words: Mutcer's definitions are false, Mutcer's pemises (precondions) are false, so that Mutcer's conclusions are also false.I'm sorry, Mutcer.
What do you think about that? |
734) Arminius, 06.06.2015, 00:37, 01:00, 02:01, 02:08, 02:38, 04:38, 16:06, 19:14, 22:13, 23:35, 23:59 (3133-3143)
We are talking about logic and mathematical set theory in order to get to philosophical statements. We are not talking about antitheistic ideologies (thus: modern religions).When it come to classify those humans who are capable of holding a belief, then it is not possible to classify all humans.Ideologies, ignorance, and ad hominems do not change any logical rule.And when it comes to know the rules of ad hominems, please read the following text: **
|
3135 |
3136 |
I'm pretty sure that the intersection N makes no sense. **
3137 |
You already defined Z as being exclusive of Q+. **
... so the intersection must be empty. **
It's not that complicated. **
There is a universal set of all humans which contains 3 mutually exclusive subsets. There is a subset of humans who are capable and also believe in a god and a subset of those who are capable and lack a belief in god. The third subset consists of people incapable of forming beliefs - babies, the severely mentally ill and those unable to think because of physical damage. **
3138 |
Which religions were smart enough to include a lexicon as part of their holy scriptures? None of them. The Hebrews came closest during their effort to create the perfectly ordered holy language, but they didn't really know how to do that. Think about how extremely different world history would be if the religions inherently felt the need to include a dictionary as a part of any holy book. **
James S. Saint wrote:
»Which religions were smart enough to include a lexicon as part of their holy scriptures? None of them. The Hebrews came closest during their effort to create the perfectly ordered holy language, but they didn't really know how to do that. Think about how extremely different world history would be if the religions inherently felt the need to include a dictionary as a part of any holy book.«
Your objection is right but let me tell you that many religions tried to make up that deficiency by creating a certain wise and intelligent class, who can interpret scriptures for the folks. That is precisely what sages, gurus, sheikhs and molvies were supposed to do. That system also worked long enough, though now has been failed because that chosen class also intruded by vested interests. **
3139 |
3140 |
You're ignoring the fact that I said an atheist is a person (e.g. a human) who doesn't hold the belief that a god exists. Are you aware that you are ignoring this? **
What definition did I present that is false and why is it false? **
When category #1 is all humans who hold the belief that a god exists and category #2 is all humans who don't fall into category #2, explain how a human could not fall into either category #1 or #2? What characteristics would such human have to not fall into one of those 2 categories? **
If those two categories are presented to you, how would you go about determining which of the two categories each human falls in? **
Do these humans you're talking about hold the belief that a god exists? If not, then they don't fall into category #1. **
And since category #2 is »humans who don't fall into category #1«, the humans who aren't capable of the belief that a god exists MUST fall into category #2. Does that make sense? **
Your set must be: »humans who are capable of holding a belief that a god exists«; then one of your two subsets must be: (A) »humans who are capable of holding a belief that god exists and who hold the belief that a god exists«; and the other one of your two subsets must be: (B) »humans who are capable of holding a belief that god exists and who do not fall into #A«. That would be correct, because both subsets belong to the same set. But newborn humans, for example, are not capable of holding a belief that a god exists; so they have nothing to do with the set, thus also nothing to do with both subsets. So you are using the wrong subsets and thus also the wrong set. The following set and its subsets are correct (note the description too, please):
or as a symmetric difference:
A and B = Humans who are capable of holding a belief that god exists.
A = Humans who are capable of holding a belief that god exists and who hold the belief that a god exists.
B = Humans who are capable of holding a belief that god exists and who do not fall into #A.And logically, Mutcer, you are also not allowed to confuse the conclusion, also then, if it is a false conclusion (e.g. »newborn humans are atheists« => false), with the premise, also then, if it is the false premise (e.g. »newborn humans fall into #2« => false), because you are using the conclusion as premnise, namely the false conclusion as the false premise (»newborn humans are atheists« => false) and the false premise as the false conclusion (»newborn humans fall into #2« => false).
You are in violation of logic, and ignorance can never help you, because it can never change the rules of logic. ** **
You're missing the point and have committed a blatant straw man fallacy. **
The population I'm dividing into a dichotomy is all humans, not all humans who are capable of holding a belief that a god exists. **
3141 |
3142 |
3143 |
735) Arminius, 07.06.2015, 01:08, 01:27, 03:17, 03:35, 04:07, 13:39, 23:59 (3144-3150)
What most people do not understand is the economy, especially the economy of money. So they often confuse economical causes with pure sociological or pure psychological causes, thus with something that has nothing to do with the reallity.This misunderstanding is exploited; so those humans who control the other humans have an interest in that misunderstanding and strive to keep the controlled humans in ignorance.
James S. Saint wrote:
Do this two realms of existence interact with each other in such a way that somtehing of the first realm can become something of the second realm and something of the second realm can become something of the first realm? For example: Is it possible that an atom can become a word or an idea an electron?
What do you think about the unmoved mover?
Most of those who call themselves atheists are antitheists. I have never met a real atheist. But I have met many so-called atheists, thus antitheists.And now in this thread and just because I am defending the logic against
those antitheists who know not much or even nothing about logic, those
antitheists think, although they do not know me: He is a theist.
They do not know that defending logic does not imply being a theist.
|
3148 |
And the »unmoved mover« is also a concept of no changing and thus, by definition, not a part of the physical universe. **
3149 |
That's not true. **
The »a« means »lack of belief in« not disbelief in .... **
... by definition children and squirrels lack belief in God, atheism has two definitions... one is anti-theism and the other is Lack of belief in the God concept«.
Ecmandu wrote:
»That's not true. The a means lack of belief in not disbelief in ..., by definition children and squirrels lack belief in God, atheism has two definitions ..., one is anti-theism and the other is lack of belief in the god concept. This means neither for nor against, no formulation, whatsoever. So, yes, by that definition that atheists give... all children are atheists. This is just definitions, Arminius ..., the answer to the op is yes ... they mean the same thing.« **
Why do you think that you have greater authority than 21 dictionaries that say otherwise? **
Ecmandu wrote:
»They can be that way because they are an oppressed culture, just like oppressed cultures wear bling ... or oppressed people. It's an ornament mostly, but some anti-theists (implying that the there theity to be anti towards... so the theists still win) are not about the ornateness.... they come from a place of What the fuck is this shit!? And honestly ..., you think there's a benevolent being behind all of this?! That's fucking psychotic! You smug fuckers!! Seriously!!. Atheists are treated like shit in the military ..., beat up constantly, because of these God fuckers ..., so yeah atheists are an oppressed minority.« **
Bullshit. **
3150 |
736) Arminius, 08.06.2015, 00:14, 00:54, 01:18, 01:37, 02:59, 04:19, 14:39, 15:55, 16:36, 16:57 (3151-3160)
Jr Wells wrote:
This indoctrination is worse than all other indoctrinations, and those who suffer most from it are the children!
James S. Saint wrote:
Interesting thread ( except some special posts ).
Well done (except continuous clearing of the throat), Primal Rage (Erik).As you know I also like Peter Sloterdijk's philosophy. So that was the second reason for me to say: Well done, Primal Rage (Erik), and thanks.
Jr Wells wrote:
One of his main errors, yes. The natural state has nothing at all to do with atheism. Nothing at all. Regardless whether atheism lacks theism. Theism is required in order to have atheism. Theism precedes atheism. Without theism there can never be atheism. Theism is also not the natural state, because it is a cultural phenomenon, and theism can lead to antitheism and atheism. If (if!) atheism occurs, then the lack of theism occurs as well, but that does not mean that atheism is the natural state - the reverse is true: if (if!) atheism exists, then as an effect which is caused by theism (perhaps later also by antitheism) but never by itself.
Primal rage (Erik) wrote:
Yeah, that is a good book.Copied post in another thread.My video contribution to your thread is the following video: **
Is it true that one out of five children of the US go to bed hungry?
Is DARPA really independent from other military research and development and reports (**)?
Mutcer wrote:
That is nonsense, Mutcer, because of your false dichotomy you have to deal with a different dichotomy, namely with a dichotomy that is not false.Jr Wells wrote:
Or:1) There are humans who are odd ILP members.
|
3159 |
3160 |
737) Arminius, 09.06.2015, 01:05, 01:05, 01:06, 01:26, 16:48, 16:53, 17:47 (3161-3167)
Mutcer wrote:
UTTER NONSENSE !
Mutcer wrote:
Did anybody say that newborn humans are no humans? Besides you yourself, Mutcer, and Sauwelios, no one else!Your nonsensical question also shows that you are missing the point and have committed a blatant straw man fallacy, Mutcer.Mutcer wrote:
Your statement that a newborn human is not a human is a contradiction, absolute nonsense. Of course. And: Your statement that a newborn human is like an adult human is also a contradiction, absolute nonsense. In addition: These two contradictory statements also contradict each other, so that the conclusion of this absolutely contradictory statements is: A human is a human and not a human - which is a typically contradictory statement of nihilistic debutants.
Mutcer wrote:
No. The burden of proof is upon you, dear magic Mutcer, to show that newborns are capable of holding a belief that a god exists, because in order (a) to believe that a god exists and/or (b) to believe that a god does not exist one has to be capable of holding a belief that a god exists, as I said and showed several times, and newborn humans are not capabe of holding a belief that a god exists, as I also said and showed several times - again and again.Stop ignoring everything, Mutcer!In addition:You are missing the point and have committed a blatant straw man fallacy, Mutcer.
James S. Saint wrote:
I know. Unfortunately I forgot that you had already mentioned DARPA several times - although I was quite sure that it had something to do with ARPA and ARPANET, the precursor of the INTERNET, but then I thought: Why am I not asking James S. Saint, the one who wants to be asked? At that time I had already read the following text:
The ARPANET was officially shut down February 28, 1990.James S. Saint wrote:
There was a campaign aginst Google some months ago. It seems that DARPA is able to knock out Google if it wants to. But DARPA itself is also not absolutely independent.
James S. Saint wrote:
I guess you do not mean the US government but the world government as the world rulers. The US government depends on the world rulers. Think of, for example, the money that the members of the US government need for their elections and re-elections.
Wealth inequality will never be corrected, and it is not possible to correct it. The main reason is the fact that there are rulers and those who are ruled, another reason is the fact that there are different cultures, different mentalaities, different interests, and so on (don't forget the multiple possibilities of the rulers to display or sidestep all that). So egalitarianism leads to even more inequality, especially in the long run. But there is one possibility I have not mentioned yet: If the number of a society is small enough, then there is a chance to correct inequality, at least in a bearable sense. So the larger the inhabitant number of a social unit the higher the inequality degree within it. But this is true only if those tiny units are left alone and not eaten by the big units, especially the biggest unit (e.g.: the current world society); and the big societies and especially the biggest society are always hungry.---------Again:
|
3167 |
738) Arminius, 10.06.2015, 04:41, 14:13, 18:13, 20:01, 23:59 (3168-3172)
Sauwelios wrote:
An atheist is a person who is capable of holding the belief that a god exist, but who doesn't hold the belief that a god exists- this is already my defintion! So there is nothing to edit or to incorporate. In addition: Mutcer's definitions are false.A definition Mutcer gave in his last reply to Moreno? That can only be a false definition.Which one do you mean?Suggestions:Mutcer wrote:
This definition is false. Atheism is the lack of theism (a-theism = non-theism, lack of theism), not the lack of belief. The lack of a belief is an a-belief (= non-belief, lack of belief), so lack of the belief that a god exists is merely a-belief-that-a-god-exists (= non-belief-that-a-god-exists, lack lack of a belief that a god exists). The word theism does not mean belief but god + ism. Theism and its successors (not ancestors, Mutcer!) antitheism and atheism imply the belief in god, but these words do not mean belief or religion but god and ism (and not more, Mutcer!). Addionally this one of Mutcer's false definitions also lacks the capability of holding the belief that a god exist.Mutcer wrote:
This definition is false, because it lacks the capability of holding the belief that a god exists.Mutcer wrote:
This statement is false. A newborn baby can be any mammalian newborn baby. But the main point is that any newborn baby has nothing to do with atheism. So the the definition of atheist is not possible without mentioning the capability of holding the belief that a god exists. Theists, antitheists, and atheist must be capable of holding the belief that a god exists, and all newborns are not capable of holding the belief that a god exists.If you were a newborn baby and an implicit atheist (???), what would you intellctually say (???) about god or even about theism? Theism is a precondition of antitheism and atheism. Both antitheism and atheism are impossible without godbelief and especially theism. If you want to be an atheist you have to know what godbelief and theism exactly mean before you can overcome them and become an antitheists or an atheist.What Mutcer and his friends do is also comparable with what the egalitarian(ist)s have been doing since the so-called french revolution: confusing the future with the past and saying back to nature (!), because the real humans are those who live in natural state (!), have no power (!), and do not believe in god (!) but in those humans who know what is good for them (???). Who is really meant by the word them? What is good for »them«? What? For whom?
Sauwelios wrote:
Okay, but exactly I defined atheist in this way: An atheist is a human who is capable of holding the belief that a god exists and who does not hold the belief that a god exists.The term who is capable of holding the belief that a god exists, but ... should not be in brackets, because it could be misinterpreted as an option, although it is no option, or in the direction of not that relevant, but it is most relevant. This term is the premise of that whole definition and of other premises and conclusions.Mutcer wrote:
Then you have no idea of the English adverb implicitly and no idea of logic. I know that the English language is not suitable for logic, science (including philosophy). That is no surprise. Can you speak other languages? Maybe we will find a solution in another language. Mutcer, all your posts contain the implicit statement that newborn humans are capable of holding the belief that a god exists, and that statement is false.Mutcer wrote:
I seem to think that? Are you not able to read, not capable of reading? In each of my posts of this thread I wrote that a newborn human is not capable of holding the belief that a god exists and therefore not capable of being a theist, or an antitheist, or an atheist.Mutcer wrote:
That is again utter nonsense.You are implicitly saying that the effect is before the cause.No one of the humans was an atheist before becoming a godbeliever and later a theist. No one! And no one of the humans have any single ancestor who was an atheists before becoming a godbeliever and later a theist. No one! In order to be an atheist one has to know what the prefix a in the substantive atheist, the suffix ist in the substantive atheist and the suffix ism in the substantive atheism mean. By definition: as an atheist one has to know what one is not, what one lacks of, and one has to know that this requires an intellectual processing in a modern / nihilistic sense. One can know this then (and only then), if one is at least capable of holding the belief that a god exists.An atheist is an atheist - the exact definition: An atheist is a human who is capable of holding the belief that a god exists and who does not hold the belief that a god exists.You want to create an animal or a stone-age human animist out of an atheist. That is utter nonsense, Mutcer. You want to turn the time back to the Stone Age because of your dream: you want your atheistic baby. That is utter nonsense, Mutcer. Rethink it, please!
I have answered all your questions many times. I do not have to answer your questions again and again.....An atheist must also be capable of holding the belief that a god exists. Of course!Mutcer:
|
3171 |
Well, if I'm not mistaken, 2) 2 statements .... **
According to you. **
The fourth statement is a conclusion from the first three statements. **
So if the first statement is false ..., then so is the last. **
3172 |
Logic has nothing to do with the truth value of statements--except indirectly, if the statements in question are implied by other statements. **
I think this is a case of a) if the first statement is false, then so is the last. According to you, that is. **
Please guess how many of them are false:
1) 1 statement.
2) 2 statements.
3) 3 statements.
4) 4 statements, thus: all statements. ** **
Yes, ... there are seven possibilities:
a) if the first statement is false, then so is the last;
b) if the second statement is false, then so is the last;
c) if the third statement is false, then so is the last;
d) if the first and the second statement are false, then so is the last;
e) if the first and the third statement are false, then so is the last;
f) if the second and the third statement are false, then so is the last;
g) if the first, the second, and the third statement are false, then so is the last. ** **
739) Arminius, 11.06.2015, 00:01, 01:24, 02:23, 18:20, 18:38 (3173-3177)
Good luck!And don't forget that according to Mutcer's false syllogisms a bike is a car (**), a mouse is an elephant (**|**), ... and so on ....Other examples for Mutcer's false syllogisms: blonde hair is the natural state (**), or odd ILP members are the natural state (**|**), ... and so on.
Wo immer das Interesse an Enterbung und Neubeginn aufflammt, stehen
wir auf dem Boden der authentischen Moderne. - Peter Sloterdijk,
Die schrecklichen Kinder der Neuzeit, 2014.
|
3175 |
3176 |
Whether or not my posts imply anything about what newborn babies do or don't believe, it doesn't change the fact that they don't hold the belief that a god exists - and that such a state makes them atheists. **
3177 |
Mutcer wrote:
»Whether or not my posts imply anything about what newborn babies do or don't believe, it doesn't change the fact that they don't hold the belief that a god exists - and that such a state makes them atheists.« **
There is only fact in your posts that you are defining atheists wrongly. That is all. And, you know that too. **
740) Herr Schütze, 12.06.2015, 11:01, 23:04 (3178-3179)
Vier Antworten zu vier Fragen, die Peter Sloterdijk auch umtreiben:1) Was treibt die Menschheit voran?Das Leben und die jeweilige Kultur.2) Entwickelt die Menschheit sich von Niederem zu Höherem?Sie entwickelt sich mittels verschiedener Kulturen und in verschiedenen Kulturgruppen in Zyklen, genauer gesagt: in Spiralzyklen. Die Entwicklung verläuft also sowohl zu Höherem als auch zu Niederem. Das ist besonders gut an der Geschichte zu erkennen, aber auch an der Evolution. Die Evolution wird diesbezüglich häufig falsch gedeutet, weil die einzelnen Entwicklungsschritte länger dauern als in der Geschichte.3) Orientiert sich Fortschritt an Lehren aus der Geschichte?Genau genommen gibt es den Fortschritt so nicht, und auch dann, wenn es ihn so gäbe und er sich an den Lehren aus der Geschichte zu orientieren vorhätte, würde es ihm zumindest langfristig nicht gelingen, weil er immer wieder von stärkeren Bewegungen zermalmt würde.4) Ist Geschichte als Progression der und in der Freiheit zu begreifen?Nein.
Das ist absolut übertrieben. Es gab eine Dichte in dem Ausmaß dort nie.
Ja und nein.Ja, weil wir es tatsächlich brauchen könnten.Nein, weil wir es nicht mehr brauchen können.Der Unterschied liegt eben in der Möglichkeitsform und in der Wirklichkeitsform.
Ja.
Es ist ja nicht jede Tier- oder Pflanzenart gefährdet, sondern nur viele, aber eben nicht jede. Diejenigen Arten, die am besten in Form, also am fittesten sind, werden dieses Desaster überleben.
Nein, nicht jeder Mensch, denn das können nur wenige Menschen, und gegenwärtig sieht es so aus, als könnten es - trotz oder eher wegen der Tatsache, daß die Bevölkerungszahl weltweit enorm steigt - fast keine Menschen mehr.
Ja, und genau die fehlen oder/und werden von anderen Interessen unterdrückt.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Peter Sloterdijk hätte vielleicht Ähnliches geschrieben wie Mathilde Ludendorff, wenn er es in etwa zur selben Zeit geschrieben hätte wie sie. |
==>
|