Should atheism be an organized movement?

Anyone?

Guess you didn't see the part where I said I could swing either way.
Nothing responds to worry because worry is not responsive to extant things.

 

One can love anyone. But If you're asking if everyone is anyone, you know my answer. That anyone is of, and never apart from everyone doesn't make them everyone.

I saw it, and I still don't understand it. Do you think I should?

So you don't rule out worry as response to the possibility of extant things, yet all existence contains its possibility in actuality. By holding 'all' anxiety to be the misapprehension of what is, you allow it no means of dissolving.

 

You say everyone is love. Doesn't that make anyone love?

It could perhaps change this calculation;
"Being the resonantly peace-loving conscientiously-objecting non-combatant you are, chances are I'd have to "prevent" your would-be killers from becoming your killers."

No, I do rule out worry as an appropriate response to the possibility of extant things or worry would be the default setting as long as you were responding appropriately.

Never fear.
The means for dissolving illusion is truth or the recognition of what is so.

 

It is not a meaningful question to me to ask how life began out of eternity.
Is it to you?
Order of procession is meaningful when we are talking about a life cycle. Order of procession is meaningful when we are talking about articulation. When we walk we extend one leg and then the other and to extend both legs at once, it is called hopping.
Part of the experience of consciousness for human beings is the ability to direct effort toward a desired aim, to be creative. The order I am speaking of is the temporal order and the ray of creation I describe is the way that order is navigated.

By dreaming I mean, we make it up. To realize we make it up simply reduces the probability that what you make up, will be a nightmare.

I said be not stay. With no resistance, levity is not an issue.

Everywhere.

The I am I call myself is the same I am you call yourself. From that single point there are many corridors of refraction.

Is it in favor or against?
I wouldn't know where to look besides somewhere in hipforums.
I am glad then you have a warm if somewhat fuzzy memory.

There isn't even a word misperception .
A hallucination is a distorted perception.

That is so. If you recognize that perception is not knowledge you realize that you do not know what you do. From there do not let the right hand know what the left is doing. Knowledge is being shared and all gain is measured in being whether you perceive it or not.

 

Someone please close this thread.......

 

I have to concur. The thread seems to be about nonsense now rather than any discussion on the original post.

 

What relevant thing would you contribute to the question, "should atheism be an organized movement"?

Why do you think the thread should be closed? This discussion has given it life long past what it would otherwise have. The discussion is not currently about nonsense. Perhaps you could provide an example of what you consider to be nonsense.

 

thedope:

Not by themselves, themselves being how anyone happens to be themselves no matter that they do so by eachother. For instance, who is 'anyone' if we're talking about who everyone is?

If you'd rather not say how you can imagine you might let yourself be killed, that's fine.

lol What is the appropriate response to existence?

Sure, and so how could all anxiety be the misapprehension of what is? What of that which leads us to pursue the means you mention?


thedope:

No, but then I'm not the one saying the thought comes first. I do not mind in the slightest your finding order of procession to be meaningful, but I would love you to say how. :-D Where does life realize its eternity for you?

By how much? To realize we make it up means we make it up.

You also said 'all the time'. How is levity an issue even with resistance?

Everywhere anything is with no body?!

We share self but remain ourselves.

You really have to ask?

Huh?

From there?! From not knowing what either hand is doing to begin with?

So perceiving (or not) that knowledge is shared is all there is of gain in knowledge?! lol

Friend, either I want to do something that simply can't be done in 'words' or you are misunderstanding me for your own ends! :-D

 

The same.

I said it would depend on the sponsoring considerations of the moment.

If it is not joy there is no sense of proportion.

We are hard wired to find our good.

In being. Doing is temporary which is what I am trying to explain

To the extent that we do not forget.

What goes up, must come down.

i can't tell if you agree with the statement or not.

No word, misperception, in my dictionary.

From the belief that you do to the recognition that you do not.

We have a model that transcends subjectivity. Knowledge is complete, subjects are many.

That is because you are trying to create out of order. The understanding, the thought, comes first. What makes you think I don't understand?
I appreciate that all is well in eternity but eternity is just a theory in the face of temporal contingencies.

Knowledge flows freely onto an open mind and open mind is an out of time interval as the thinker transcends it's own history.

What would you call this thread to synchronize thread title and thread content for general consumption?

 

Then why are you not me?

The sponsoring consideration in question being a kill or be killed situation. Are you now questioning the existence of such a thing?

I disagree. How else to find joys proportions without a sense for it?

And there's the answer! I think I'm harder on words than you. :-D

No. Being too becomes what it is.

It reduces the "probability" to the extent we do not forget?!

What if it enjoys being up?

I agree with you. What import do you hold the statement to have for me?

lol It's origin is estimated 1920-25. Before your conception old bean.

I know what I do, I just don't know its effects in full. I'm not everyone! lol

We who? This makes no sense to me.

Just that. How does the understanding precede itself?

Are you afraid of countenancing such contingencies?

The open mind has time for itself, it is not out of time.

I wouldn't. And I do not think the thread should be closed simply because we happened to go on to discuss other things. What is that about? Are they autistic?! lol

 

What are you?

The considering comes with the word, or.

 

A man.

Yes, which is why I don't see how you could consider letting yourself be killed.

 

How do you feel about euthanasia in the case of terminal illness?

 

Voluntary? Not a kill or be killed situation.

 

To the op? I dont see why not. Whats the big deal with people getting together and sharing thoughts,beliefs and ideas of life?
Being an Aethiest is kinda like being the only sober person in a car full of drunks and nobody will let you drive...

 

The threat of terminal illness could create one for the individual.

 

Your mind is a kingdom you alone can rule. Nobody is preventing you from anything and you falsely accuse.

Believing you are the only sane person is a sign of insanity.

 

Uhm who or how am I accusing anyone? How is it that you assume I think I'm the only sane person? I'm somewhat confused by your saying or quote. It is quite catchy when one ponders the depth and grasp to which that one thought reaches. I truely try not to judge any person on their beliefs that is not my purpose in life... If somebody wants to worship some imaginary god than that is their choice. So be it just don't try and force your savior down my throat or bind my hands with your religous bound rules. What they mean to you does not influence my ideas,thoughts or beliefs on how to live my life or who I'm living it for. As always best wishes in life to you all. Sincerely -abs-

 

thedope:

lol How? Are you trying to twist kill or be killed into be or not to be?

thedope to absentwithin:

He said kind of like. And it is. What if it were nothing like it? Also, I hope you're not equating drunkenness with insanity. :-D

 

Accusing is a figure of speech. The accusation in the analogy is that you are prevented from driving.

I am not assuming anything about you but our common humanity. I was commenting on the meanings of the analogy.
To be drunk in your analogy is not to be of right mind and in the analogy you are the only sober one.

Have I cleared things up?

Almost always what I say here is highly distilled from extensive investigation.

Do you succeed in this instance?

Is this a complaint you have about me?

I think you would be surprised at the many thoughts we share.