|
|
|
|
Ludwik Kowalski, author of a free ON-LINE book entitled “Diary of a Former Communist: Thoughts, Feelings, Reality.”
http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/life/intro.html It is a testimony based on a diary kept between 1946 and 2004 (in the USSR, Poland, France and the USA).
The more people know about proletarian dictatorship the less likely will we experience is. Please share the link with those who might be interested, especially with young people, and with potential reviewers.
Thank you for posting your work and making it available. However, there is something that bothers me about what people claim a theist and an athiest are. Most say "a belief in" or a "disbelief in", yet, if I say I believe in tomatoes, does that make me a tomatoist? Obviousl not. The operant is the word belief. Some say that belief is a form of ignorace, i.e. that we can believe in that which we have not known-but then there is scriptural definition, being of "whole body, mind, and soul"--this is what I am want to acknowledge. This last assertion implies that our destiny is to be "as God" as we find in Genesis 1-3. This can only be attained when the mind of man reaches a certain functional behavior. |
|
[QUOTE=Philosopher8659;1634733]Thank you for posting your work and making it available. However, there is something that bothers me about what people claim a theist and an athiest are. Most say "a belief in" or a "disbelief in", yet, if I say I believe in tomatoes, does that make me a tomatoist? Obviousl not. ... /QUOTE] |
|
Ludwik Kowalski, author of a free ON-LINE book entitled “Diary of a Former Communist: Thoughts, Feelings, Reality.”
http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/life/intro.html It is a testimony based on a diary kept between 1946 and 2004 (in the USSR, Poland, France and the USA).
The more people know about proletarian dictatorship the less likely will we experience is. Please share the link with those who might be interested, especially with young people, and with potential reviewers.
[QUOTE=kowalskil;1643468] That is just my point. A very wise man once said, 'we testify to what we have seen, and speak of what we have known.' or something to that effect. This is the foundation of langauge-- it is a requirement for a convention of terms. Also, it means that belief is of knowledge, while one cannot claim a belief in that which they are ignorant of. |
|
Last edited by Philosopher8659; 04-20-2011 at 03:31 PM.
I think Phil should be set upon all noobs as a right of passage. |
|
It is written that one should search unto the living and unto the dead for their God, but I am not looking for God--God found me because I was looking for an understanding, I am looking for a wife. Should I be any less dilligent searching for life? |
|
Last edited by Philosopher8659; 04-20-2011 at 03:49 PM.
I will never admit that one is the objects or things that they think about. |
|
Being a tomato =/= Being a Tomatoist |
|
Then, by your words God is not a theist--which makes him very insecure. |
|
I think such arguments are beneficial for all involved. It challenges both parties, and, in some instances, we all learn something new. Prodding theists in the gray matter and making them question their beliefs is quite fun, and reading through scientific journals expands one's knowledge. Most debates end with theists |
|
I have never seen an arguement yet that was based upon the Scriptural definition of God. If it did, there would hardly be dissention. |
|
Last edited by Philosopher8659; 04-06-2011 at 05:24 PM.
Maybe you haven't looked very hard. There are many aspects of god seen in the bible, which help to define his nature. For instance, god is jealous. That is seen when he orders his believers to slaughter all the nonbelievers and take their women. He cannot accept that people do not believe in him, so in his jealousy, he has them all killed and sent to hell. |
|
Actually, I am one of the few people who have actually typed out the entire text of the book--even made a spell checker using a concordance. |
|
Maybe you, as a pseudo-theist don't believe in a deity that you have no knowledge of and interprate God to mean something else, but most theists don't. I dont' really identify with being a theist or an atheist, |
|
Last edited by StonedApe; 04-06-2011 at 06:29 PM.
157 is a prime number. The next prime is 163 and the previous prime is 151, which with 157 form a sexy prime triplet. Taking the arithmetic mean of those primes yields 157, thus it is a balanced prime.
Women and rhythm section first - Jaco Pastorious
All of Aristotle's explanation of assertion and denial being the root of all logical error can be reduced to one sentence, Predication is the inverse function of abstraction. When we construct groups of words that do not comply with this, one is simply speaking non-sense. |
|
You should try making the connection between the topic of the discussion and your pseudo-logical assertions more clear. It's not our job to decipher the meaning of your ambiguous statements; it's yours to make your reasoning evident. If you can't do that, then I see no reason to respond to you or even try to figure out what you're saying. |
|
There's the Philosopher we all know. It just didn't feel right without all the extraneous bullshit on ancient grammar systems and how we're all somehow using English wrong because we can't understand what the fuck he's trying to say using the definitions of words that we have been taught and that have been accepted by every major English dictionary on the planet. |
|
"Predication is the inverse function of abstraction." |
|
---o--- my DCs say I'm dreamy.
I see you are a very wise man. So, please inform me, as I am one of those who are not really so sharp, is a tooth real before or after it has been abstracted? And, consequently with definition, does a name stand for something before predication or only after? |
|
Last edited by Philosopher8659; 04-07-2011 at 11:13 AM.
Both science and religion deal with the same essential thing |
|
Signature work courtesy of Cloud
Not true. They deal with it in the same language, and if language is used in accordance with its principles, it is impossible to arrive at different results. The fault is a lack of understanding grammar to begin with. I.e. man is not literate, he is pre-literate. |
|
Last edited by Philosopher8659; 04-22-2011 at 01:18 PM.
Bookmarks