Neil deGrasse Tyson: "I am not an atheist!"

[Dutch Uncle]

Claiming to be Zen is what Americans who don't actually think much about spirituality, transcendence, or the nature of being like to say, because there is a certain urban chic to it that movie stars, urban hipsters, and metrosexuals find appealing

It's pretty easy to tell who is living a life of Zen and who isn't by their posts. IMO, #10 isn't but then I also believe him to have mental issues so it's a push.

 

[Cypress]

It's pretty easy to tell who is living a life of Zen and who isn't by their posts. IMO, #10 isn't but then I also believe him to have mental issues so it's a push.

Schizophrenia.

In America, the word Zen has lost most of it's potency and integrity because it has been confiscated in casual language by urban hipsters and frat boys.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Schizophrenia.

In America, the word Zen has lost most of it's potency and integrity because it has been confiscated in casual language by urban hipsters and frat boys.

That might be a West Coast thing but I've rarely run into anyone advocating the philosophy of Zen east of the Rockies.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Seems you have stumbled upon pure empiricism. David Hume teaches us that all of existence is merely experience and that unless you can experience something you can have no knowledge of it whatsoever. For instance, if a light switch is flipped and a light across the room comes on you can't really know for certain that there was a necessary causal relationship. You would have to experience every movement of every electron in the chain all the way from switch to light. Because no matter how many times you flip the switch and the light comes on it could always be random chance. You cannot know for certain.

I reiterate...people who use the word "atheism" as a descriptor, do so because of a belief...just as theists use their various descriptors because of beliefs.

This is fine insofar as it is the logical extreme of empiricism. It is also usually why few follow it that extreme.

You seem to suppose that because a person does something in one case, they must do the same thing in all other cases. I suppose you to be intelligent enough to see the absurdity in that, so I ascribe it to you wanting to hide your dependence of beliefs for your use of "atheist" as a descriptor.

Okay...nothing wrong with you hiding that.

However your position seems to be very much like that. People who FAIL TO BELIEVE in some random claim are practicing a "belief" regardless of the absence of any evidence for that claim.

Oh, bullshit.

Then you only "believe" that dropping your keys will cause them to fall to the ground. You only "believe" that there is a necessary causal connection between a light switch and the light coming on. You only "believe" that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. You only "believe" everything in your life.

I do not "believe" they are going to fall to the ground, especially if I drop them in my car...or on my porch. I KNOW they will follow the laws of gravity and fall. I also KNOW the sun will rise in the east and set in the west.

If you need to suggest otherwise in order to hide your belief driven use of "atheist" as a descriptor...go for it. It is amusing in many ways...so this is more than just accepting your need.

I'm OK with you claiming that. But I have my doubts that you actually LIVE it.

Doubt whatever you want...especially if it help you to hide your belief driven use of "atheist" as a descriptor.

There is a mystical creature called the Zybox that lives in your state. Now you have been told this you must BELIEVE it to be as likely as not.

If you don't believe in it, then you are merely practicing a "belief". Is that a fair description of your new position on the Zybox?

Poor you. It must be hard for you to even bullshit yourself about these kinds of things.

I do wish you the best.

 

[Kafka]

It's unfortunate you listened to Neil deGrasse Tyson, and assumed he was talking about you.
Do you believe the world revolves around you?

Not at all what I said. But you couldn't possibly read a post for content. Indeed I think Neil is WRONG to suggest atheism is to be defined by the worst actors. However I did find common cause with him when he was suggesting people won't let him use "spiritual" language with his "Godspeed" point. Which was almost exactly how you responded when I used the phrase "spiritual path" and you screamed that as an atheist I shouldn't be able to use that phrase.

May I ask why you are so incapable of getting past your hatred in order to discuss a point? When you are shown to be in error or someone just questions your erudition you almost always go on the attack. Usually you scream "You frantically googled", or "You stole my brilliance!" or go running off to Doc so you can bitch about the other person.

I am fascinated at how you give free reign to your passions and seem incapable of controlling them. But your ego is clearly extremely fragile and you will look for whatever misinterpretation of a post you need to amp yourself up so you can be the noble victim of evil doers.

Try debating the point rather than the person. I have to keep reminding you of this simple, simple rule

 

[Kafka]

You seem to suppose that because a person does something in one case, they must do the same thing in all other cases.

Nah, I just assume they understand their own position sufficiently to see how they fail to live up to ideals. You want to demand atheists kowtow to your made up definition yet you can't see how your position is not really different precisely because you DO fail to live up to your own ideals as expressed on these posts.

I do not "believe" they are going to fall to the ground, especially if I drop them in my car...or on my porch. I KNOW they will follow the laws of gravity and fall. I also KNOW the sun will rise in the east and set in the west.

Actually you do not. Like I said, take an intro philosophy class and learn about empiricism. In point of fact you do NOT know with 100% absolute certainty that the light will come on when you flip the switch. Just because it has every single time you did it does NOT mean you have direct experiential evidence of the causal connection between the two.

You merely BELIEVE it will.

That is pretty much your argument that the atheist "believes" that they fail to believe.

Poor you. It must be hard for you to even bullshit yourself about these kinds of things.

I do wish you the best.

It would be fun if you had taken a philosophy class at some point. But I get it, education is not for everyone.

 

[Kafka]

Claiming to be Zen is what Americans who don't actually think much about spirituality, transcendence, or the nature of being like to say, because there is a certain urban chic to it that movie stars, urban hipsters, and metrosexuals find appealing

It is so interesting that you sit in judgement of everyone else but brook no question of your claims. Now you want to denigrate someone else's self-identification?

How strange. Why don't you try to debate the point rather than the person. Ask Zen what they actually know about Zen Buddhism and then pick that apart if you have a problem. Don't just scream "You don't know! I'm the smartest person on here and you don't know!"

Try that for a change.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

It is so interesting that you sit in judgement of everyone else but brook no question of your claims. Now you want to denigrate someone else's self-identification?

How strange. Why don't you try to debate the point rather than the person. Ask Zen what they actually know about Zen Buddhism and then pick that apart if you have a problem. Don't just scream "You don't know! I'm the smartest person on here and you don't know!"

Try that for a change.

It is so interesting that all you do on this thread is bitch and whine about Cypress, Perry. Why don't you just start another thread lying about your education?

 

[Kafka]

Poor you. It must be hard for you to even bullshit yourself about these kinds of things.

I do wish you the best.

I noted you couldn't answer the simple question about the Zybox. The claim has been made, now you must be agnostic about it. You are honor bound by your own philosophy.

I'm just curious if you are brave enough to admit it.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I noted you couldn't answer the simple question about the Zybox. The claim has been made, now you must be agnostic about it. You are honor bound by your own philosophy.

I'm just curious if you are brave enough to admit it.

^^^
I'm going to start calling posts like this a "Perryism".

Looking through your long-winded text wall for the "Zybox", it appears to be a computer character. Do you live in a fantasy world, Perry?

Zot! Online Character Guide - Zybox

 

[Dutch Uncle]

May I ask why you are so incapable of getting past your hatred in order to discuss a point?

The only hate I see on this thread come from religious extremists, including atheists, like you, Perry Phd.

On the subject of Zen, it's as convoluted and fractured into various groups as Christianity. All have the basic tenets of Buddhism, but, like Chrisitianity, different sects emphasize and downplay different aspects. Some more much religiously oriented than others, some more secular and practical for every day living. Just as there are Gnostic Christians, there are those who see Zen as a philosophy and strip it of the religious aspects.

Zen | History, Doctrines, Practices, & Facts | Britannica

Zen, important school of East Asian Buddhism that constitutes the mainstream monastic form of Mahayana Buddhism in China, Korea, and Vietnam and accounts for approximately 20 percent of the Buddhist temples in Japan.

www.britannica.com

What Is Zen Buddhism Really About?

First approaching Zen Buddhism can be daunting. A brief history of its development and some of its distinctive characteristics can ease entry to this ancient and sometimes enigmatic practice.

www.learnreligions.com

Ultimately, Zen is about coming face-to-face with yourself in a very direct and intimate way. This is not easy. But if you like a challenge, the journey is worthwhile.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Nah, I just assume they understand their own position sufficiently to see how they fail to live up to ideals. You want to demand atheists kowtow to your made up definition yet you can't see how your position is not really different precisely because you DO fail to live up to your own ideals as expressed on these posts.

Bullshit.

I reiterate...people who use the word "atheism" as a descriptor, do so because of a belief...just as theists use their various descriptors because of beliefs.

Actually you do not. Like I said, take an intro philosophy class and learn about empiricism. In point of fact you do NOT know with 100% absolute certainty that the light will come on when you flip the switch. Just because it has every single time you did it does NOT mean you have direct experiential evidence of the causal connection between the two.

Bullshit.

I reiterate...people who use the word "atheism" as a descriptor, do so because of a belief...just as theists use their various descriptors because of beliefs.

You merely BELIEVE it will.

That is pretty much your argument that the atheist "believes" that they fail to believe.

Bullshit.

I reiterate...people who use the word "atheism" as a descriptor, do so because of a belief...just as theists use their various descriptors because of beliefs.

It would be fun if you had taken a philosophy class at some point. But I get it, education is not for everyone.

Bullshit.

I reiterate...people who use the word "atheism" as a descriptor, do so because of a belief...just as theists use their various descriptors because of beliefs.

 

[Ross Dolan]

I noted you couldn't answer the simple question about the Zybox. The claim has been made, now you must be agnostic about it. You are honor bound by your own philosophy.

I'm just curious if you are brave enough to admit it.

Bullshit.

As I said earlier...people who use the word "atheism" as a descriptor, do so because of a belief...just as theists use their various descriptors because of beliefs.

 

[Cypress]

Not at all what I said. But you couldn't possibly read a post for content. Indeed I think Neil is WRONG to suggest atheism is to be defined by the worst actors. However I did find common cause with him when he was suggesting people won't let him use "spiritual" language with his "Godspeed" point. Which was almost exactly how you responded when I used the phrase "spiritual path" and you screamed that as an atheist I shouldn't be able to use that phrase.

May I ask why you are so incapable of getting past your hatred in order to discuss a point? When you are shown to be in error or someone just questions your erudition you almost always go on the attack. Usually you scream "You frantically googled", or "You stole my brilliance!" or go running off to Doc so you can bitch about the other person.

I am fascinated at how you give free reign to your passions and seem incapable of controlling them. But your ego is clearly extremely fragile and you will look for whatever misinterpretation of a post you need to amp yourself up so you can be the noble victim of evil doers.

Try debating the point rather than the person. I have to keep reminding you of this simple, simple rule

I had no idea a video of Neil deGrasse Tyson would be so upsetting to you.

I thought he made a salient point that the most visible and vocal atheists define themselves by calling religionists idiots. I don't see how you can spend three months on this message board and not see that.

I'm guilty myself of creating threads mocking the mental acuity of bible thumpers.

The Soviets famously mocked the superstition of religion in their quest to build the first society based on the materialism of scientific atheism.

 

[Litmus]

I had no idea a video of Neil deGrasse Tyson would be so upsetting to you.

I thought he made a salient point that the most visible and vocal atheists define themselves by calling religionists idiots. I don't see how you can spend three months on this message board and not see that.

I'm guilty myself of creating threads mocking the mental acuity of bible thumpers.

The Soviets famously mocked the superstition of religion in their quest to build the first society based on the materialism of scientific atheism.

the problem with attack on religion is they are really based on attacks on morality.

demoralization is a potent weapon against mankind and our achievements.


nihilism is gay.

 

[Cypress]

The only hate I see on this thread come from religious extremists, including atheists, like you, Perry Phd.

On the subject of Zen, it's as convoluted and fractured into various groups as Christianity. All have the basic tenets of Buddhism, but, like Chrisitianity, different sects emphasize and downplay different aspects. Some more much religiously oriented than others, some more secular and practical for every day living. Just as there are Gnostic Christians, there are those who see Zen as a philosophy and strip it of the religious aspects.

Zen | History, Doctrines, Practices, & Facts | Britannica

Zen, important school of East Asian Buddhism that constitutes the mainstream monastic form of Mahayana Buddhism in China, Korea, and Vietnam and accounts for approximately 20 percent of the Buddhist temples in Japan.

www.britannica.com

What Is Zen Buddhism Really About?

First approaching Zen Buddhism can be daunting. A brief history of its development and some of its distinctive characteristics can ease entry to this ancient and sometimes enigmatic practice.

www.learnreligions.com

Ultimately, Zen is about coming face-to-face with yourself in a very direct and intimate way. This is not easy. But if you like a challenge, the journey is worthwhile.

I've got a bridge to sell anyone who believes the mentally ill Hawkeye10 is a Zen Buddhist.

Our vernacular language is pregnant with religious words - karma, zen, godspeed, goodbye, good Samaritan - and I think most of the people who trot out the word zen are just trying to hijack the latent impression of being mellow, cool under fire, balanced.

 

[Litmus]

I've got a bridge to sell anyone who believes the mentally ill Hawkeye10 is a Zen Buddhist.

Our vernacular language is pregnant with religious words - karma, zen, godspeed, goodbye, good Samaritan - and I think most of the people who trot out the word zen are just trying to hijack the latent impression of being mellow, cool under fire, balanced.

wtf are you besides a liar here to keep religion crazy and violent with your fake intellectual bullshit?

 

[Hume]

Schizophrenia.

In America, the word Zen has lost most of it's potency and integrity because it has been confiscated in casual language by urban hipsters and frat boys.

And anyone can call themselves a Christian.

 

[Cypress]

wtf are you besides a liar here to keep religion crazy and violent with your fake intellectual bullshit

That's right, I am here to keep religion "violent and crazy"

It's really funny that my little post sounded "intellectual" to you.

 

[Margot]

If churches are running food pantries for the poor, making meals for the homeless, providing day care services to children of working parents, shelter in cold weather, charitable aid to humanitarian crises they should get tax benefits for providing a charitable service to the community.

If they aren't consistently providing substantive charitable services they should have a tax liability.

I don't know of any charitable organizations that explicitly identify themselves as an organization for atheists

Republican Party! They've made Trump God! And he's not! So I guess that leaves Republicans are atheists because they believe in a God who clearly is just a loudmouth carnal man