NonE's call about self-ownership
Current time: 10-20-2017, 04:12 PM
User(s) browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)
Author: Dionysus
Last Post: NonEntity
Replies: 254
Views: 162262

Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
NonE's call about self-ownership
10-29-2011, 10:14 PM (This post was last modified: 10-29-2011 10:43 PM by NonEntity.)
Post: #10
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership
(10-29-2011 10:09 PM)Kel Wrote:  My assertion was only that many refuse to entertain the notion of an intelligent being/designer solely on the grounds of what theists claim "it" to be in their doctrines and the superstitions attached.


NonEntity Wrote:...I don't know how it works.To claim to have the answers to something as apparently unknowable seems to me the height of hubris....

...your argument fails, regardless of the facts...

...it fails on simple logic...



Ahh yes. By observing your lack of knowledge, you avoid its discussion, as there is nothing to discuss. You can boldly claim "my" logic is false, because you do not know wether it is or is not. A most curious trick indeed! Big Grin






-NonE-Prime
Excuse me if I'm misunderstanding, but I pointed out what I thought it was that you were using as your logical explanation, and I then showed how it was circular reasoning. I also said that I maybe misunderstanding your point, so I don't see where I deserve the snide treatment. I'm attempting to have an honest conversation and I made my point as honestly and clearly as I knew how. If you have a fault with my logic, please show me. Or if I've misunderstood what you were attempting to say, please show me my error.

- NonE

{edit} Oops. Sorry to have replied a bit too hastily. Yes, I see somewhat more what you were saying. You make a good point. I think that the reason so many may act as you describe is because those who make the statements based on doctrines and superstitions are using circular reasoning and that is inherently dishonest, therefore somewhat deserving of contempt.

Sorry for jumping in to respond before fully engaging my brain.

{additional edit} Upon further reflection, I still think my statement holds logically. If something is so special it requires an intelligent designer, then ipso facto that intelligent designer would similarly require it's/his/her own superior intelligent designer and so on down the line to infinity. This negates the possibility of that theory.

I'm not rejecting the idea for the reasons I've mentioned. I'm rejecting it because it fails logically. At least as I see it.
(10-29-2011 09:34 PM)Dionysus Wrote:  But when it comes to self-ownership, I think it's a special case. I could make any number of statements of the form: If self-ownership doesn't exist, then X; but X is not true, so self-ownership must exist. But it's late and I'm tired, so you'll have to wait until later. Wink

I just read an article on Strike-the-root.com that is quite thoughtful and I think may go somewhat towards answering your concerns, Dionysus. If you'd be willing to read it before delving back into our discussion it may be helpful. Here's a tiny snippet:
Westenerd Wrote:All of these areas of society are dominated by constantly changing rules, lightning quick adaptations, enforcement, and acceptance by voluntary means alone.


I think that if you look at the concept of "ownership" in this context you may find that the idea of black and white delineation is really not found anywhere in nature, that all natural events are processes or parts of processes, and ownership can be viewed with somewhat more fluidity than the western mind tends to try and quantify and divide it.

- NonE

- NonE the severely deluded Sister Sleazious .).

"I just don't understand how this happens." Undecided
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Messages In This Thread
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - Kel - 10-29-2011, 07:23 PM
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - Kel - 10-29-2011, 09:03 PM
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - Kel - 10-29-2011, 10:09 PM
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - NonEntity - 10-29-2011 10:14 PM
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - Kel - 10-29-2011, 10:48 PM
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - Kel - 10-30-2011, 02:00 PM
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - Jonathanr - 10-30-2011, 08:09 PM
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - soveREIGN - 11-01-2011, 04:51 PM
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - Kel - 11-08-2011, 08:42 PM
RE: NonE's call about self-ownership - Jonathanr - 11-20-2011, 04:34 AM
RE: Celebrate...celebrate... - eye2i2hear - 10-01-2012, 02:15 PM

Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)