Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Can God Think?


  • Please log in to reply
36 replies to this topic

#35 Snax

Snax

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 177 posts

Posted 04 February 2013 - 01:06 AM

"She" refers to Ayn Rand. Why would anyone with a competent mind attach a gender to the universe?

Good question, why would you?
Based on your grammar you called the universe a "she," which I suppose is accurate since scientists often describe the universe as giving birth to phenomena within it.

I agree that the book is overrated by many of her followers. It taught me things that I did not know, so I found it valuable.

Oh, I wouldn't know, I didn't read it lol.

From both your comments and attitude, I conclude that you are an inept reader. Here you claim that you read my post only once, and from the comments you provided in this lengthy, incoherent, and generally insulting reply, I conclude that you understood nothing of what I wrote.

Nor you of what I wrote.

I could go through your comments and reply, clarify, or defend, but what would be the point of it?

Your credibility is one point, the sake of winning the argument is the other.

Your mind is in a box labeled atheism, which is fine with me. Atheists are no more or no less ignorant of reality than religionists. But you seem to me to be of an especially dogmatic sort. You cannot even see that my ideas are not the ideas that you rejected, and you do not want to see. No quantity of words from me will ever dissuade you from that opinion.

After telling me I missed what you said, this obviously spells that you missed what I have said, namely that I am not an atheist, but simply used that word as a replacement. I don't think you see that your ideas parallel, if not exactly copy, pre-existing deistic beliefs. Some of which I have seen on this forum itself. You can easily dissuade me if you present not only counter-arguments to the axioms and retorts you are limiting yourself from responding to, or if you present an original idea that hasn't already been refuted in some length.

Therefore this is my last reply to you. I do not care to waste more time. Please do not try to read my book. It is for open-minded, curious individuals whose brains have not been fully programmed. You are incapable of understanding it, and trying to do so will simply annoy you the more. Follow your path, leave me be. Please.

Refusing to continue an argument does not mean you've won the argument, and unless you address your counter-arguments, no one will take you seriously or as a credulous source of information.

I have doubts that your book is for anyone within intelligencia, considering you claim it to be for open-minded and curious persons, but then describe the readers of the book as those who are being programmed by it, much like Dianetics (also a deistic concept - like yours - that spawned Scientology).

I have no complaints whatsoever with you. You have replied to my posts with such a high level of competency and objectivity that, when I actually read your header information and found that you were a moderator, I was surprised. Your moderation work is exemplary and fair. I accept your chastisement without reservations or complaints. In a PM I will offer a few other non-negative but explanatory comments.
...
Thank you for good, tough work.

Suck his dick more, seriously.

Edited by Matthew Garon, 04 February 2013 - 01:08 AM.


#36 Guest_MacPhee_*

Guest_MacPhee_*
  • Guests

Posted 04 February 2013 - 08:04 AM

As a mere awestruck observer of this titanic "Battle of the Gods", may I humbly draw attention to the influence of language on our ideas.

Specifically, on the "gender" of the Universe - a point mentioned by Greylorn.

If we were conducting our debate in French, we'd have no choice but to ascribe a "masculine" gender to the Universe. Because "l'univers" is a masculine noun in French. Therefore we'd have to ask: "The Universe - what is he?"

Whereas in German, the Universe is a feminine noun: "die Welt". So if we were Germans, we'd be asking: "What is she?"

Such sexist linguistic absurdities! Don't they make you feel grateful for the privilege of thinking and speaking in rational, lucid English?

Edited by MacPhee, 04 February 2013 - 08:24 AM.

  • Eclogite likes this

#37 greylorn

greylorn

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 61 posts

Posted 05 February 2013 - 04:18 AM

As a mere awestruck observer of this titanic "Battle of the Gods", may I humbly draw attention to the influence of language on our ideas.

Specifically, on the "gender" of the Universe - a point mentioned by Greylorn.

If we were conducting our debate in French, we'd have no choice but to ascribe a "masculine" gender to the Universe. Because "l'univers" is a masculine noun in French. Therefore we'd have to ask: "The Universe - what is he?"

Whereas in German, the Universe is a feminine noun: "die Welt". So if we were Germans, we'd be asking: "What is she?"

Such sexist linguistic absurdities! Don't they make you feel grateful for the privilege of thinking and speaking in rational, lucid English?


Good point, MacPhee. I did some French and Russian but not German, don't recall whatever gender either language has ascribed to El Universe, but were I to do so, she'd be female, a birthplace for consciousness.

I love English. It carries less baggage than other languages--- fewer implicit notions such as the genders you mention.

I cannot declare that English is inherently rational and lucid. Read some posts in a dogmatically religious or atheistic forum and you'll see why. But I believe that because of its reduced baggage, English facilitates rationality and lucidity. Moreover, it contains many words taken from other languages that seem to be synonyms, and probably were back when they were adopted, but which, over time, have developed subtly different meanings. This makes English a versatile writer's language, as well as a dependable expositor's language.

I've been told by a long-dead linguist that English is also the world's most easily understood language. He claimed that there is no other language in which the linguistic equivalent of "No tikee, no shirtee," can be understood either within or without a Chinese laundry. Thanks for appreciating it.