CorpseysEvilTwin
Well-known member
Yes, if existence is fundamentally idealist, then one must logically accept God. It is impossible to an atheist or secularist and cling to the idea of a fundamentally idealist existence.
The Republican War on Transgender People, Drag Queens, and Queerness in General
- Thread starter padraig (u.s.)
- Start date
-
- Tags
- 44 pages of prepubescent pharmacological blockers 45 pages of prepubescent whining 67 pages of prepubescent pharmacological blockers absurd contortions benny and benny drinking benny b still butthurt by maridonna bisque denoncement conversations cotton ceiling doesn't even know who totnumb are dogging has no gender handwaving women's rights hm govts mask dom fetish i identify as a knobhead jamaican voodoo gang from predator 2 maxi celibacy men's rights to women's bogs nonce biscuits and his moral high grooming ground oh here we go again 18 paragraphs about communism padrage phallusy political male lesbianism sanctimonious man really hates misogynists shed ted utd simple cancer insult skunk+internet casualty=as serious as cancer take a bite of peach there is no such thing as society what gender is the hand of god? world's worst dinner party
Yes, if existence is fundamentally idealist, then one must logically accept God. It is impossible to an atheist or secularist and cling to the idea of a fundamentally idealist existence.
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
I guess if God = the all-encompassing consciousness, yes
Atheists normally mean some bloke with a beard tho
CorpseysEvilTwin
Well-known member
That means nothing, just because sexual orientation is an ideology, and provides the imaginary of object orientated choice, does not make it 'fake.' There is a real substructure, as it were.
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
but is the substructure different for each (type of) person?
CorpseysEvilTwin
Well-known member
But this is different to the materialist assertion that there is something rather than nothing. And it is an assertion, let us be frank. But even materialism itself is itself a philosophy, a word. When materialism becomes a sensuous thing to be for us, then it shall cease to be a philosophy, and resultantly, philosophy as the highest culmination of religious thinking will be confined to the museum of history. The atheists you have in mind are fundamentally agnostics, and agnostics are worse than Stalinists. You must go beyond Spinoza.
CorpseysEvilTwin
Well-known member
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
'Something' needn't necessarily be material; it could just be an effect of consciousness
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
What I'm trying to get at is whether for you, one's sexual orientation is determined or partly directed by something deeper than choice ie. by part of the 'substructure' you mention
CorpseysEvilTwin
Well-known member
object orientated choice itself is an ideological phenomenon and hence imaginary. It does not exist autonomously. the ultimate fantasy still exists. this fantasy doesn't have to be exclusively male or female, just of the other.
There is no such thing as a non-ideological choice. Ideology allows us to parse the world in our day to day reproduction of immediate life.
CorpseysEvilTwin
Well-known member
consciousness is material. anything else is an absurdity, it is akin to positing the existence of souls.
CorpseysEvilTwin
Well-known member
There is no reason why in principle awareness couldn't be based on circuit boards as opposed to neurons. Of course, this would mean that the mechanical person would not be a machine, as the AI ideologists would have it. They would be conscious of death, and would have drives and desire.
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
Well it never stopped Michael Jackson.
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
I guess that can't be ruled out but then again we can't rule that stones are conscious. But Penrose has shown that human consciousness includes non-computable thoughts; that means we're not digital and the universe isn't digital either.
Few societies haven't believed in souls and consciousness is primary over matter: there is no evidence that matter exists separate to consciousness and obviously consciousness can simulate matter and its properties convincingly.
Profoundly wrong, reductionist 20th century thinking.
WashYourHands
Cat Malogen
CorpseysEvilTwin
Well-known member
In Penrose's theory quantum computing would have to take place in the brain before decoherence kicked in. All right, it's interesting, but A) it's provisional and B) nothing suggests that humans can even remotely think that fast.
CorpseysEvilTwin
Well-known member
give me 20th century thinking over plastic imitation English God squad crew who can't even accept an organised religion. it's abject, really. It is redolent of people who read nonce crowley and listen to david tibet I took acid and had a religious experience to Noddy current 93. Rather than strong willed men who make a habit of studying classic asharite theology. Too whimsy.
CorpseysEvilTwin
Well-known member
This is just the use of consciousness as a suitcase word. jump in front of a moving train and tell it not to crash into you because your consciousness determines its motion. You can't, though the magikal I.Q thinker might, if he wasn't a pussy and actually left his room.
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
But remember that matter is stuff-in-consciousness, just not necessarily a particular person's
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
I'm referring to his proof that humans can think non-computable thoughts rather than the microtubule stuff