Should atheism be an organized movement?

As I told you my feelings are to share. The statement, I have nail fungus was not a complaint. I offered the statement not to report on my physical proportions but to ascertain how the report would be construed. Whether as some type of loss or some other assault on my well being, your response has been consistent three times running. The idea that the body is the crucible of life invariably sets life in contention with life because my body, becomes, my life. Therefor to you nail fungus represents disease. To me it is a life form, in this case a parasite that is simply demonstration of life putting the body to it's uses.

Of course. Understanding has not been had through conviction. My insistence and your insistence are the same. We report what we perceive.

The way you treat the meaning of words always allows for every conjugation and as such you are able to reliably string together justifiably true statements. However, there are many words and words can be used in many combinations and their meanings are modified, confused or sharpened, accordingly.

Some words cover a wide spectrum of phenomena such as the word thing. For the sake of understanding in some cases we must exclude some conjugations of a word in order to reach a greater degree of specificity. Thing no longer means all things but some specific thing.

As such, the shape and outward appearance of a book, it's form in this specific instance, does not represent the contents or meaning of the symbols contained on the books pages. Sometimes we do not appreciate this distinction and in this state we confuse form, with content. I see it every day with children who see colorful and fanciful characters printed on a box and they automatically assume there is some child's surprise within, when it could be something totally uninteresting to them, like medication or baby wipes.

This is what I mean by confusing form with content. If I am still speaking gibberish here is another example. We see a man in a local store who is outwardly unkempt and soiled and the lady next to him in the checkout line recoils at the sight of him believing him somehow unsavory because of his appearance, because of his outward form. Turns out the guy is a neurosurgeon who was in the middle of a dirty project at his home and popped into the store quickly for refreshments. This is confusing form with content.

Here is such a confusion. My body does not grow nail fungus. Nail fungus grows as a parasite on my body.

Conscious action?, as distinct from physical action?

Does the thought come first or does it come?

 

I gathered that. But I don't think it hurts to put parasitism in perspective. Our interest is to share our life, not have it leeched through 'demonstrable usefulness'. Before you were saying to me that your point is not to be too attached to life because death can cause grief! You won't mind that it is a point I don't care to share with you?

It's just confusion. A conclusion construed where there is none. The form is nevertheless true to its content, to itself.

Your willingness to give words to your understanding is what we share of insistence upon them. I wouldn't say our insistence is the same. Are you me? The self may be shared, but only amongst ourselves! :-D

lol Forgive me. I was under the impression you were allowing it to grow there.

No. It's not as though I personally have to make allowances for the preconditions of consciousness. That would be too rich, even for a cosmic soup. Creation is not needfully conscious.

It comes. You didn't create yourself, but you came to.

How come to if not knowing how you may ask?
As poets we put more than teachings to task. ;-D

 

What perspective? Still you say leached as though life taken away. Do I have more right to life then?

I don't think that is the point I made. I said attached to the body or identified with the body. I said it causes grief for many. It is not warranted but brought on by the active denial of ones existence, associating that existence exclusively with the body of the deceased. The perception is in that case that you can no longer communicate with the deceased and where communication could be fostered, it's attempt is instead abandoned for the sake of appearances.

The bird is just confused when it rejects a delectable caterpillar for one not so tasty because the delectable had taken on the outward form of the one not so tasty, Not! Natures use of mimicry takes advantage of the fact that we associate the appearance of form with the overall identity of a form.

I don't why you object to my statement confusing form with content when I posit the words legitimately.

I do not encourage it's growth.

 

lol Any perspective that wants continuation. I'm not saying you should get rid of your nail fungus. I only hoped it would go because I'd imagined you'd prefer your nails without it.

About the "right" to life though. I wonder if you can imagine a 'kill or be killed' situation? You say you're not your body. Have you considered becoming an organ donor?

This is what you wrote: -"My point is not to be too attached because molecular bonds break. Many find grief at the passing of the body."

To which I replied: - "Grief is not reason enough for me. There is no 'after' life except in others, and then only during life."

There is no life without the body, there is no disembodiment. Are the deceased not deceased after all?

Natures use of mimicry takes advantage of association, not confusion, which is only incidental to it.

Because there is nothing to confuse, and everything to make clear. The appearance of form is, in any instance, its overall identity. It's like your not seeing how knowledge is perception, as though knowledge were not the ongoing process of knowing.

There must be a reason for that. You could always discourage it. Are you afraid for its feelings? My wishing it away for you won't work by itself.

 

oh my god lol, you two!!!! :toetap05:







:rofl:

 

lol

We're trying to have a serious discussion here r0llinstoned. Say what you have to say about nail fungus or gather no moss.

 

It just seems to me that the serious discussion has zero relevance to the OP's thread.

 

It did have relevance to the topic. Things tend to keep moving. Is there something you wanted to say about atheism? I'm sure you don't want to dispute that everything is on topic. :-D

 

What is the discussion about? I got lost. I guess the fine points of your argument seem kinda pointless. We need to get OWB into this to get back on track.

 

Many and varied things.

Didn't read it? Bored? Each to their own.

You guess? Which argument?

Where do you think this needs to be headed?

 

At first glance or maybe even upon some scrutiny I would have to agree with you. There are elements in the current conversation that are carried over from other threads and it seems the topic has morphed from should atheism be an organized movement to should there be, or are there, any requirements or should bees regarding the nexus of the abstract pulse of life and the physical body, philosophically speaking or otherwise.

If I were to consider the questions we are currently discussing in the vain of the original post/er, I would say that the body does not represent something that life could organize itself around. Environments are subject to wholesale changes and if life had to rely on a particular biological form, or body, life could well have been extinguished on this planet.

 

Do you want to continue your imagined perspective? I would expect you to imagine as you have given your belief about the conditionality of love.

Nail fungus is of no great account to me whatsoever, but the accounting of it
has been rich as fodder for peculiar understandings.

I can and have imagined a kill or be kill situation. How I would respond in such a situation would be entirely dependent on the predominant state of mind I was in at the moment as we respond to what we perceive. It is most likely however considering the effects of resonance that I would not be faced with such a choice.

I have a drivers license with an organ donor endorsement. I personally eschew the health care system with the exception of pharmaceuticals which I prescribe for myself.

The body is deceased but the mind that once animated it is not. The body in fact is not alive of itself as animus animates animal. The body is a machine, a mechanism, specifically a communication device.

Exactly, the confusion is incidental to the divergence of a form of association from actual familiarity.

 

A man can appear as a lawyer but that is not his overall identity.

Perception is interrogative. We believe to see and see to believe. Perception is not knowledge but can lead to it.

It grows according to it's own design.

 

thedope:

With regards to your first sentence, I'd say the opposite, as life is not only represented by the body of life, but is the body in its particulars. Second sentence makes sense to me.

No, not if you don't want me to. But I've already made that clear. Who now knows what you want of me regarding your precious nail fungus?! ;-D

lol I'm beginning to grow fond of your nail fungus. First you reveal my "colder side"
( still working on that one ) then throw your fungus between us. What next? :-D

If it is truly a kill or be killed situation you have in mind, I have absolutely no idea how you can answer as you have, your resonance making the choice most unlikely excepted.

Your personally eschewing the health care system just went public! lol But what does that matter when you think the body has to die? :-D

Where does the mind that once animated it reside? In us all? But it always did don't you see? Oh thedope, death makes no sense...

lol If you're talking about Ivory62, take it back! He may look like a man on the outside, but how do we know on the inside it's not all hanging judge with a tiny plea for leniency?

Seriously though, in the instance of his appearance as lawyer it is his overall identity, or would you deny his very existence in that instant?!

Form is content, to the last ( I add 'to the last' only to poke a bit of fun at those who may be 'coming to terms' with this concept. Take it or leave it. ;-D )
Don't you always say the truth sets us free thedope? Truth be told, it is only love that liberates.

I don't want to call you a block-head...but...well...nggghhh...Ok I won't.
Here's something for you though. I no longer interrogate you on this point. I now accuse you of seeking an end to understanding. lol

LOL Admit it, you're growing to like it! What if you grow out of that, will you discourage its growth then?

 

Does the body create life?

Expect nothing of love as it expects nothing of you but anticipates everything.

I would dispose of the body between us.

Know thyself. The fact is I can swing all ways depending on my current sponsoring considerations. The ray of creation proceeds, thought, word, and deed.

I don't think the body has to die. I don't think the body is alive or a living thing. It is a state of matter in flux. The body functions mechanically on a metabolism of chemosynthesis. Metabolism is a sacrificial fire as life consumes life and causes the machine over time to oxidize or rust.

Yes I do see. You were never your body.

 

What doesn't? Life credits all that it may create itself.

Dispense with convolution? :-D Love is a lapping and an overlapping!

The world? I admit, I do wonder a little at you when you go on about the littering of fat carcasses! Who is it you're talking about? Is it just your "colder side" talking? I do not, as you know, hold those who hold love in no condition to be loveless, you included... nor do I want to see you as confused!

You can swing to be killed? Remind me not to elect you team captain.

I'm already familiar with the sentiment that you're already dead, awaiting some sort of return to life, or rather, I'm not 'familiar' with it at all.

I have been as long as I can remember. I don't need to forget that to know I am of everybody elses. You really don't see?

 

Events.

The convoluted is difficult to follow and requires a guide but this guide, without a map, is blind. Disappointment is the province only of those who appoint.

The human being. The glut is here to eat and shit and that is all and somehow this is construed as productive as it poisons and pollutes.

As far as the cold comment, I simply acceded to your determination as you reflected on the perceptions that passed through you. When you say cold, it is a reflection of your temperaments.

A good teachers measure of success is to be no longer needed.

That is not my sentiment. My sentiment is that I exist transcendentally, now.

The body does not see but I have vision.

 

So life may not credit all?

lol I was only asking if you'd dispense with your own. I deserve this reply for not being specific. :-D

How misanthropic of you. And after your acclamation of toilet training too! Again I must ask, who is construing poo as productive? Is there anything in lifes 'functioning' that is not expedient?

Perhaps my finding you cold was cold of me. I have never been determined to find you so though.

No longer needed, as in killed? lol

Your sentiment is that there is only the life of the mind. That it animates matter and not vice versa. Is mutual exclusion something you have come to live with?

lol Where will you lead the body with your vision? Does the body 'sense' you want to dispose of it?

 

Life is life reaching toward life in all things but things are not responsible for the reaching. Events do not create life although life can be deemed eventful.

Very well, if you mean convolution as in the folds of brain matter, then yes.
However I would no longer have a voice capable of vibrating your ear drum or a hand to type to you, so communication from that point on would depend only on your invitation and the willingness to take the time to search the contents of your own mind for the response.

The ones considering poo profitable are those who find consumption profitable.
You misappropriate my sentiments toward potty training. It is a stroke of genius as far as urbanization but urbanization I could truly do without.
As regards the question of expediency, nothing is wasted and all expressions of love are maximal.

Your determination remains to be demonstrated.

I can imagine a scenario where someone would be more desiring or perceived as needful of my dead body than me of my living one.

Is your head full of rocks?

The body has no sense. I would lead it wherever I will it to go.

If the truth sets us free, how are we bound? We are bound, prevented from going where we will, by fear. All anxiety is caused by the misapprehension of what is so. The truth sets us free to love.

 

I'd be a Pastafarian, but it's too unimaginative to just stick to one means of ridiculing God.

I think God is just the personification of man's self love, in a bad way. But there are other ways to have self love, and who can say what that means.