Dear Banjo,

No parody intended. All I wanted to stress was

(i) the fact that most concepts (whether or not “conceptual errors”, whatever that means), that (Western) philosophers and scientists of the last couple of millennia where engaged in exploring and discussing, have their roots in the primeval man’s primitive understanding of his surroundings, (and of himself), in order to survive,

and

(ii) that this fact does not imply anything about the usefulness or “truthfulness” of the concepts thus evolved into our century. [Like the story of Einstein’s childhood and his then childish understanding of the physical world is irrelevant to the usefulness or “truthfulness” of his relativity theory.]

Of course, I knew that we had different ideas about what constituted reality, and what concepts could adequately represent it, but thought that the two observations above were acceptable irrespective of these differences.

AJ & Banjo: the term “logical absolute”

You know, it's like looking into a muddy pool & trying to see the boetom. It ain't gonna happen. Philosophers do that. Looking too deaply into & for a problem when there isn't a problem at all.

Theists hierarchy don't like Atheists because they don't control those people & they instruct their followers to do the same. The Atheist Hierarchy don't like being bullied by the Theist. They just want to be left alone.

The notion of a "God" is a Western concept & when Europeans encountered Animists they automatically called their "Spirits" "Gods." The Australian Aborigine, South Sea Islands & many others don't have "Gods" to the same understanding as Europeans do. They do now because that's how described their "Spirits" to the local peoples.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

It seems that you are still not understanding what logical absolutes are. They are not ‘things’ as such, but concepts that we apply to reality in order to make sense of the world. We can’t abandon them either. They exist whether we like it or not.

It sounds as though you are conflating or confusing the concept with the labels that are being applied to the concept, because whether or not everything is constantly evolving and relative, and whether or not human logic has its limitations is entirely beside the point.

Without at least an implicit understanding of logical absolutes, you could not possibly make sense of the world and would cease to function. You would probably have to be strapped to a bed and fed through a drip, as or your actions would be random, and unintelligible to everyone else.

<<My understanding is that theism and atheism are human concepts. If no humans are around to have such concepts I do not see how they can possibly exist.>>

I’ve explained this in my second post to you (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6587#198423). As another example, take any object: a rock. That rock is itself and everything else is not that rock. That rock cannot be itself and something else at the same time; nor can that rock exist and not exist at the same time; nor can anything exist in a state in which it is somewhere in between that rock and everything that is not that rock.

The above applies whether or not we are there to conceive of it. Are you suggesting that until we arrived on the scene, it was possible for something to be both itself and something else at the same time? Or that things can simultaneously be ‘not’ something and ‘not not’ that something (pardon the double negative)? What would that third category be?

<<You seem to be suggesting that the human concept of “logical absolutes” is eternal, with no beginning and no end.>>

Maybe not before the big bang (since not even time existed).

AJ: I’ve explained this in my second post to you (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp? Discussion=6587#198423). As another example, take any object: a rock. That rock is itself and everything else is not that rock. That rock cannot be itself and something else at the same time; nor can that rock exist and not exist at the same time; nor can anything exist in a state in which it is somewhere in between that rock and everything that is not that rock.

Yep, as I said. Philosophers looking into a muddy pool decreeing how the World "is."

Actually, Banjo Paterson, I’ll make this easier by going back to the start and asking you a question in light of the definitions that I linked you to.

You initially said: “Happily, the qualities you mention are not just limited to theists and atheists.”

You have implied here that there is a group out there who are simultaneously ‘not theists’, and not ‘not theists’.

How is this possible?

Jayb,

There is nothing unclear about what I had said. It’s all very basic stuff. I’m sorry if you are not capable of understanding it.

You are either yourself, or you are not yourself. If you find that confusing then I feel sorry for you and would question how you function in life.

When did our planet and its ecosphere start - along with that of other planets and the spaces around them? How were they created?

It is a very deep topic and no one has ever given me any information - and do I really need to know?

What difference does it make to this planet, that we as animal species of all types live in at present, that some believe in different 'views' and have different 'values' than others?

In some ways many would say it is important - and I would agree - but I can't read a mind - and there is no science to support that.

Some examples:

1. Birds will fly down and eat another animal to survive - when?
2. A family may send a child to a private school - a decision?
3. Environments destroyed by a political party - which area?
4. A couple may want a new home to move in to - is it affordable?
5. Violence and bad behavior - what could prompt it?

This topic is not just about 'good atheist' beliefs - it is about beliefs in principle that respect others rights to believe what they want as much as possible within their own life, that do no negatively impact on the rights of others - that live on this beautiful planet, that we as humans call Earth.