Is Humanism Religion?

[Kleophon]

Humanism, as definied by the Humanist Manifesto (http://www.americanhumanist.org/about/manifesto1.html), consists of about 15 essential elements, the first of which being that a diety does not exist. After perusing the next 14 points, one may start to wonder, is Humanism a religion or philosophy?

Therefore, we need to define the terms religion and philosophy. For the purposes of this thread, religion is what you believe in and live your life to fulfill, whereas philosophy is simply the way you think, not necessarily the way you act.

Since religion implies a way of life that directs your thinking, can Humanism be a religion in itself or is Humanism simply a philosophy?

[Epsilon=One]

...one may start to wonder, is Humanism a religion or philosophy?

Therefore, we need to define the terms religion and philosophy. For the purposes of this thread, religion is what you believe in and live your life to fulfill, whereas philosophy is simply the way you think, not necessarily the way you act.Not quite the way that I would define philosophy and religion.

Religion and philosophy, like science, are all concerned with how we conduct our lives.

Religion requires faith, dogma, and a hierarchy within a metaphysical environment.

Philosophy is a personal logic.

Science seeks and tests for a Natural truth.

Philosophy is the highest discipline; religion is the opposite.

Thus, humanism, atheism, a science that accepts the Big Bang and black holes, and organizations that praise an anthropic god would all be religions .

[Kleophon]

Religion requires faith, dogma, and a hierarchy within a metaphysical environment.

Philosophy is a personal logic.

Science seeks and tests for a Natural truth.

Philosophy is the highest discipline; religion is the opposite.


I see a parallel between philosophy/religion/science and literature. In a class a took a few years back on literature, we learned about the various "levels" of literature from high class to low class literature. Literature can be regarded "good" or "bad" by academics, critics, and the masses. I see religion to be the mass's way of searching for truth and values while philosophy seems to be the high-class, academic way of finding values and attempting to apply those to the masses. You made an interesting argument that I will look in to.

I do, however, realize the differences in secular humanism, religious humanism, and other various realms. However, I think the question still exists, regardless of the academic argument, if you can live your life based on Humanism. Perhaps that should have been my question, Can you live your life based on Humanism as people live their life on Christianity?

[Epsilon=One]

...Can you live your life based on Humanism as people live their life on Christianity?I'm assuming by "Humanism" you are referring to the euphemism that many atheists use for their belief system.

My answer to your query would be: Yes. And, I would hope the life so lived would better promote good-will than the historical record indicates for Christianity. Compassion and tolerance does not require organized religion.

Most Christians belong to proselytizing religions, which by their very nature are intolerant of “non-believers” as well as other Christian sects. Fortunately, few Christians depend upon the fundamental canons and faith of their particular sect to guide their interactions with life’s situations.

On the whole, concerning the average; I find great understanding, compassion, and tolerance among atheists for the condition of living things. These qualities are lacking in many instances among those who most loudly proclaim that they are Christians; or, from many others who profess a belief in an anthropoidal god.

I find little in the ongoing history of Christianity to indicate that the iconoclast, Christ, had he lived, would approve of what goes on in his name. Certainly, the Christ of lore, was born, lived, and died as other than a Christian. Catholics consider themselves at the forefront of Christianity; I can only wonder if the Pope truly believes that the Arab, Christ, was ever a Catholic.

Unlike "Humanism" most religions, like Christianity, place a man between a person and his god. This is unnatural.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

Given that you have removed the idea of Diety, then the ideas of Philosophy and religion become muddled, as religion requires a diety.

Humanism would simply be a Philosophical Manner of Practising ones life, no higher moral code, No Requirement of 'Faith' or 'Belief' which, humans have demonstrated, as an aspect of there make-up, so where would that have come from? in an entirely self organized Universe, never-mind where did the Universe then come from?, too many questions, and they can't answer them, either.

Except maybe "philosophically" but who then decides what is Wise? :eek:

[Epsilon=One]

Given that you have removed the idea of Diety, then the ideas of Philosophy and religion become muddled, as religion requires a diety.Specifically, where have I "removed the idea of Diety (sic.)" in my post. There was no such intention. So often your arguments depend upon ascribing erroneous words and thoughts to another person that have not been expressed. Such argument is dishonest and intolerable.

Religion does not require a deity. Religion requires only faith, a creed, and a leader.

The ideas of Theology/religion are Philosophy; however, "muddled" hardly is the word to describe the situation as much as the state of the contender.

Humanism would simply be a Philosophical Manner of Practising ones life, no higher moral code, No Requirement of 'Faith' or 'Belief' which, humans have demonstrated, as an aspect of there make-up, so where would that have come from?No higher moral code is required. When one tampers with the moral code of others, "higher" is seldom ever a proper adjective.

As for arguing that: what humans have demonstrated is indicative of the righteousness of "Faith" and "Belief"; is absolutely the epitome of hubris and ludicrousness. The immorality of humans is legend. And, sadly most of the immorality on a grand scale is in the name of some religion. When was the last time that atheists went on a killing rampage? Some say that you won't find an atheist in a foxhole; there are also very few in prison for violent offenses.

I would rather my country be led by an atheist than one who practices the intolerances of one's religion.

…in an entirely self organized Universe, never-mind where did the Universe then come from?, too many questions, and they can't answer them, either.Certainly, a learned philosopher can better rationalize the status of the Universe than an anthropoidal god that can be interpreted by anyone merely by requesting that the listener have faith.

Except maybe "philosophically" but who then decides what is Wise? :eek:This is a decision that each person must make; and, I contend that modern humanity is better served if such a decision is made without the usual coercion and threats of organized religions that have been usurping such power ever since the aboriginal era, well before modern society.

It’s been only a little more than 100 years since the Pope railed against democracy as being against god’s will. The Pope insisted power (and the ownership of land) came from god to the Pope who distributed it to the Kings. And, of course, tithing was supposed to flow in the opposite direction. Democracy, which gave power to the people was immoral and the work of the devil. Shortly before this Papal Encycle, the Pope declared that he was infallible . . . and Mary was born of a virgin birth (at a time when there was no word for virgin as now defined).

Despite your wandering comments to my post, can I assume that you agree with that which you haven't addressed; or, is there any specific point with which you disagree?

[OfficeShredder]

Not quite the way that I would define philosophy and religion.

Religion and philosophy, like science, are all concerned with how we conduct our lives.

Religion requires faith, dogma, and a hierarchy within a metaphysical environment.

Philosophy is a personal logic.

Science seeks and tests for a Natural truth.

Philosophy is the highest discipline; religion is the opposite.


While you don't mention where science falls here, I am assuming you mean to imply between philosophy and religion. However, it doesn't really fall within the same realm as philosophy and religion, so which one is higher isn't applicable (science or philosophy), although you could state that science is a higher discipline that religion, due to religion's over-expansive use in today's world.

Religion's roots come from the idea of the supernatural. People then use this supernatural belief to create a set of morals with which they live their lives. Philosophy, on the other hand, attempts to rigorously determine the superior set of morals one should live by, along with a host of other functions of course. However, philosophy does not serve the purpose of determining the manner in which the world works, as such, it is not directly comparable to science.

As religion has become organized, this belief has come into direct conflict with scientific findings. This is where religion and science can be compared, in which is superior in predicting the world around us, and clearly science has won.

So while you could say science is superior to religion, and philosophy is superior to religion, you can't really determine whether philosophy or science is superior, because they fill disjoint sets in terms of discovery of truth.

[Epsilon=One]

While you don't mention where science falls here, I am assuming you mean to imply between philosophy and religion.No.

Science, Theology, and Philosophy (STP) are one.

See: Conceptualism (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=156), http://www.Brunardot.com/g-stp.htm, and http://www.epsilon-1.com.

Religion's roots come from the idea of the supernatural. People then use this supernatural belief to create a set of morals with which they live their lives. Philosophy, on the other hand, attempts to rigorously determine the superior set of morals one should live by, along with a host of other functions of course. However, philosophy does not serve the purpose of determining the manner in which the world works, as such, it is not directly comparable to science.There was a time when STP was united and jointedly practiced by a single individual; today, with self-serving jargon and obfuscation, the disciplines cannot even communicate with one another.

I have dedicated more than fifty years to the day when this will no longer be so. All disciplines are to blame; but, only the theoretical physicist can meaningfully and rapidly halt the continuing divergence. Our survival may well depend upon the outcome.

And worse, It seem that depending upon the theoretical physicist to define god seems akin to depending upon Geo. W. Bush to alleviate terrorism.

So while you could say science is superior to religion, and philosophy is superior to religion, you can't really determine whether philosophy or science is superior, because they fill disjoint sets in terms of discovery of truth.You, unfortunately are correct. BUT it should NOT BE SO!!!

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI


Specifically, where have I "removed the idea of Diety (sic.)" in my post. There was no such intention. So often your arguments depend upon ascribing erroneous words and thoughts to another person that have not been expressed. Such argument is dishonest and intolerable.

(SNIP) the first of which being that a diety does not exist.(SNoP)

that is the really BIG problem with you. you DON'T READ WHAT IS WRITTEN!!

But the rest of what is quoted, herein, (Italisized in darkorange) REALLY applies .....to you!

I went against what you have asked me to follow, about not doing italic (or bold) to your words, cause apparently you don't really read anything else that anyone else writes, nor have you, seemingly figured yourself out .....yet.

You Have noticed that other people post too, right? they sometimes have 'input' too, you know?

[Kleophon]

Epsilon=One, I appreciate your comments on my original post. I am interested in learning more about your ideas about IPSO and Conceptualism. I was wondering if there is a place on your website in which you describe more about these two ideas. I have researched and researched philosophical ideas and have found many to be very intriguing and yours is one of them. Perhaps we could exchange email and discuss more about your ideas.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

....Kleophon, My Apologies for having been seemingly so Rude, in your thread, Just that......

It clearly Isn't meant towards you, from myself.

(I) also find that No 'Human' singular or Group would make a Moral Code that they themselves couldn't accomplish as a Living reality, as it is Human Nature to Well, we all know the rest.....{insert Current Global Moral Picture :eek: } don't we?

[Kleophon]

Mr. Robin Parsons, your comments are appreciated as well, I'm trying to get a more universal sense of what people think in general about religion and philosophy and this has helped greatly. No need to apologize, just some friendly conversation... :)

[Mr. B]

Surely you need a Deity to have a religion? Without a Deity surely Humanism could be viewed as an ethos, perhaps a collective ethos, or (dare I use the word) moral ethos. An ethos to live ones life by, a way of thinking, or a particular outlook. Sure, Humanism could be said to be a philosophy, but if someone lives according to a particular philosiphy, then they are living according to an ethos.


Parsons is probably about to misquote someone right abooooouuuuuuttttt, NOW!

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Mr. Robin Parsons, your comments are appreciated as well, I'm trying to get a more universal sense of what people think in general about religion and philosophy and this has helped greatly. No need to apologize, just some friendly conversation... :)
Thanks :cool:

[Epsilon=One]

that is the really BIG problem with you. you DON'T READ WHAT IS WRITTEN!!Sorry. I thought your comment concerning "deity" referred to my post, as you did not ascribe it to anyone, and posted directly after my post. When you are commenting about old posts on threads with several contributors, it would be helpful for everyone if you would include the original comment that you are critiquing.

As for the rest of your post concerning the above, it is no more than your usual blathering that does get a little tiresome.

[Kleophon]

Surely you need a Deity to have a religion? Without a Deity surely Humanism could be viewed as an ethos, perhaps a collective ethos, or (dare I use the word) moral ethos. An ethos to live ones life by, a way of thinking, or a particular outlook. Sure, Humanism could be said to be a philosophy, but if someone lives according to a particular philosiphy, then they are living according to an ethos.


Perhaps what I should have asked in the first place is what is the difference between religion and philosophy. I've seen so many differing views on Humanism, both on this forum and others. Some say strongly that it is a religion, then others suggest that religion cannot be so without a diety of some sort. Maybe ethos is the answer to many questions, and you may be right Mr. B that it is "moral ethos". I look at Humanism as an all encompassing "branch" of thinking in general that embodies the form of a philosophy, science, and ethos and when applied in a certain way becomes a religion. Any thoughts on this view?

[Epsilon=One]

Surely you need a Deity to have a religion?A Deity is a fancy word for a god (Deus). God (Deity) is loaded with complex connotations and it is difficult to find much consensus concerning a definition; however, for many people the word conjures something with anthropoidal qualities: intelligence, able to hear, communicate, judge, etc. There are religions (Buddhism for one) that don't have such a god. The requirement of a god has its subtleties; however, generally, Theology requires a doctrine and little else.

Broadly speaking, I am aware of many groups of atheists that go through all the rituals of meeting, raising funds, caring for others, and doctrine that differs little from many organized religious groups in the same neighborhood.

On the other hand, there are consensus religions (maybe Unitarianism; certainly Conceptualism) where one can attend meetings and never hear the word god or, at least, its association with anthropoidal qualities.

By my definition, all ways of living one's life fall under the umbrella of Philosophy; whereas religion, as a philosophical subculture, requires only a dogmatic doctrine that may even be that of an atheist.

Parsons is probably about to misquote someone right abooooouuuuuuttttt, NOW!The only defense is a sense of humor.

My concern is the disruption to a thread's forward progress and the intimidation of those who have something cogent to add and/or real concerns. A consenus is near impossible with endless repetition and mindless side issues.

[OfficeShredder]

No.

Science, Theology, and Philosophy (STP) are one.

See: Conceptualism (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=156), http://www.Brunardot.com/g-stp.htm, and http://www.epsilon-1.com.

There was a time when STP was united and jointedly practiced by a single individual; today, with self-serving jargon and obfuscation, the disciplines cannot even communicate with one another.

While I can understand the strive for philosophy and physics to be jointly studied (and people do study both), religion, in its current form, is clearly out of bounds. The complete denial of scientific evidence, the acceptance of.... unorthodox....sources of evidence, the obvious contradictions, run directly contrary to the nature of scientific and philosophical endeavors. While certainly religion is not exclusive of science and philosophy, the current popularized conception is.

I have dedicated more than fifty years to the day when this will no longer be so. All disciplines are to blame; but, only the theoretical physicist can meaningfully and rapidly halt the continuing divergence. Our survival may well depend upon the outcome.

I have to ask why on all accounts here.... why can only the physicist halt the divergence, and why might our survival depend on the outcome? I can see possible religious wars, especially fired up by contrary scientific evidence, but I doubt a theoretical conceptualization of god falling within the realms of physics would halt that either way.

[Epsilon=One]

While I can understand the strive for philosophy and physics to be jointly studied (and people do study both), religion, in its current form, is clearly out of bounds. The complete denial of scientific evidence, the acceptance of.... unorthodox....sources of evidence, the obvious contradictions, run directly contrary to the nature of scientific and philosophical endeavors. While certainly religion is not exclusive of science and philosophy, the current popularized conception is.I agree, generally.

I spoke of Science and Theology; not physics and religion. More or less you have made my point that they aren’t united. They should be is my contention because their interests are identical: Where have we come from?; Where are we going?; and, How should we behave in between?

How is it possible that academia has let three such important disciplines, with identical interests, drift so far apart? And, by so doing, rip the fabric of civilization to where there is little worldwide civility.

why can only the physicist halt the divergence, and why might our survival depend on the outcome? I can see possible religious wars, especially fired up by contrary scientific evidence, but I doubt a theoretical conceptualization of god falling within the realms of physics would halt that either way.You have pretty well answered your own question. Also, don’t forget what humans may be doing to the environment of Earth that could well be irreversible. A lost atmosphere is not easily replaced.

Theologians don’t have the technology, skills, or predilection to find truth. Philosophers have been unable to unite among themselves and have abandoned absolute truth since Gödel destroyed early 20th century logical positivism and kindred mathematical theory. It is the theoretical physicist alone that can define god such that a consensus is possible that can unite not only the primary disciplines but the disparate society. Such is Conceptualism.

[Epsilon=One]

I am interested in learning more about your ideas about IPSO and Conceptualism. I was wondering if there is a place on your website in which you describe more about these two ideas.Have you checked http://www.Brunardot.com/g-ii.htm? or http://www.Conceptualism.net?

Maybe: http://www.epsilon-1.com or My Creed (http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=90) or Proof of God (http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=150).

You might just peruse http://www.PulsoidTheory.com.

But, I would suggest the best idea is to just keep asking your own questions on this forum. Generally, each question will bring some answers that should suggest many more questions; and, others may join in to help you sort it out. Or, by not jumping in they may also express an opinion that you will have to interpret.

I have researched and researched philosophical ideas and have found many to be very intriguingI also. But nothing should be better than one you put together for yourself that requires little faith beyond what you decide upon.

Perhaps we could exchange email and discuss more about your ideas.The decision is yours.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

If the Idea of Diety is removed then there can be No Pertinent reality to the Idea(s) of "Moral" Consequence, for as Long as there is No observant (Witness) 'Diety' there is NO 'press' of Moral Service/Servitude, as there is No Punishment, NO Guilt, NO Consequence to Violation of (self) 'Ascribed' Moral Code when there is No other 'Observer'....But that is the pertinence of A Diety, that there IS consequence to Moral Impropiety.

________________________

MY Apologies to The rest of the readers as, below these lines it is, admitedly, Off topic/off thread

________________________

After that, well EP1, your Drivelled Slobber that you Blather as to Fill in the Pathway to Your own Self agrandiment, LINKED here here and here all Dead Ending (Under Construction) somewheres out there, well, gives you something to do. little else.

The fact that Your rudness, towards me, stems from the Original Posters Stated Premise (Post #1) which you Missed an/or Ignored .....Completely, thereafter your A-typical Dogmatic Crusade of One trying to get/reach Concensus Wherein the Only accpetable Concensus is, well, Yours...

Then, The Siddling Claim that there were "many Posts" and "other" posters....

Kleophon Started With Post #1
Your Post #2
Kleophon is back at #3
Your #4
(I)'m Number Five ...(Can you count that high?? Still?? and you?? were a Math teacher?? :eek: !!)

But thats Too Much for you to Follow ...(I)'m glad to know that.

Please go Slobber your drivel over someone else.

Your a Disrespectful, tedious, repetitive Tired Old Man looking for some attention, but abusing those who, trying to be empathetic to what is, otherwise, a Socially accepted "Norm" of 'Respect towards Elders' such that your efforts succeed but mostly in dis-suading further conversation and/or learning of 'anything' other then your presentation of yourself.

BTW you are the King of the use of Ad Hominem, or close enough thereto. (+ thereto = therefore?)

Please don't bother responding, to me.

Thereafter, If you actually have anything to Contribute to this Threads' Conversation....Do Whatever YOU want to do! Cause (I) certainly CAN ignore you.

________________________

Once again, MY Apologies to The rest of the readers as it is/was Off topic/off thread.

[Epsilon=One]

If the Idea of Diety is removed then there can be No Pertinent reality to the Idea(s) of "Moral" Consequence, for as Long as there is No observant (Witness) 'Diety' there is NO 'press' of Moral Service/Servitude, as there is No Punishment, NO Guilt, NO Consequence to Violation of (self) 'Ascribed' Moral Code when there is No other 'Observer'....But that is the pertinence of A Diety, that there IS consequence to Moral Impropiety.Your comments are as meritorious and as ludicrous as your continued misspelling of Deity. (Have you missed my prior corrections? It's god as in Mater Dei, Dei Gratia, and Opus Dei, etc. Or, maybe Canada's god prefers the concept "Die"?)

MY Apologies to The rest of the readers as, below these lines it is, admitedly, Off topic/off threadWhy bother to apologize now? Everyone is well aware that most of what you post, that isn't ad hominem or drivel, is either off topic or does nothing to further the thread.

...If you actually have anything to Contribute to this Threads' Conversation....Do Whatever YOU want to do! Cause (I) certainly CAN ignore you.Please do. I not only will be relieved, but I'm sure that many others will suffer far less if you "CAN ignore...(me)"

Once again, MY Apologies to The rest of the readers as it is/was Off topic/off thread.Now that you have indicated that you understand the rules, is it possible that you can, please, try a little bit harder to abide by these forum rules such that more valuable time can be applied to the exchange of meaningful discourse.

[Kleophon]

Perhaps it should be my apology for starting this thread... I did not mean to cause any unrest amongst forum members. I do hope that I have not been the cause of any of this based on my thread. I am interested to know the philosophical reachings of others, and I believe I have found them.

[Epsilon=One]

Perhaps it should be my apology for starting this thread... I did not mean to cause any unrest amongst forum members. I do hope that I have not been the cause of any of this based on my thread.No need to be concerned. If it wasn't your thread, it would have been another.

With a few clicks on a name and post listed, you can scan a person's posts and note there has been little difference from before your thread was posted.

I am interested to know the philosophical reachings of others...As are many of us.

[Kleophon]

Epsilon=One, I am curious, if I may ask. What is your profession? You had mentioned in an earlier post about working for 50 years to provide a sense of unity amongst physics/TOE/philosophy, which I have seen that you have made significant steps in doing. I've dabbled in the ideas of string theory, philosophy, physics, but admit to never having studied in depth enough to be able to say I comprehend anything; I am thus very interested in your ideas. But, what exactly did you do? I do not mean to seem nosy, I apologize if I do, and I understand if you do not feel comfortable answering. You seem like such a knowledgeable person, and it makes me curious who you are.

(I apologize for going off topic in my own thread...)

[Kleophon]

In the same respect, Mr. Robbin Parsons, you seem just as interesting as Epsilon=One, what have you done as well? I have seen that you are somewhat opposite to Epsilon=One and wonder the same questions to you? I am sorry for writing much less in a question to you, please do not assume that I seem more interested in either person.

[OfficeShredder]

If the Idea of Diety is removed then there can be No Pertinent reality to the Idea(s) of "Moral" Consequence, for as Long as there is No observant (Witness) 'Diety' there is NO 'press' of Moral Service/Servitude, as there is No Punishment, NO Guilt, NO Consequence to Violation of (self) 'Ascribed' Moral Code when there is No other 'Observer'....But that is the pertinence of A Diety, that there IS consequence to Moral Impropiety.

This is exactly backwards in logic. The absence of an omniscient deific observer is what drives human morals, not the presence of one. Have you ever heard the phrase "Morals are what you do when no one's watching"?

If you act like a goodie-two-shoes just because you're afraid of god sending you to hell, that doesn't make you a good person, that makes you a coward. On the other hand, if you act like a good person despite knowledge that doing so will not inhibit your afterlife, then you actually ARE a moral person.

And the idea that there is no consequence to moral impropriety is ludicruous. Humans are smart enough to realize that we must, amongst ourselves, enforce laws, morals, etc (this system appears to be more effective than the standard burning in hell line for pedophilic priests).

Also, am I the only one who's incredibly bothered by Parson's complete lack of proper grammar? While the random parentheses, italics, bold statements, etc. are interesting for a while, they really do look stupid after a couple of posts. If you need to rely on bolding a statement in parentheses to let the reader know that it's pertinent information, you really just need to write better (when I read epsilon's first posts, I thought his italicizing of infinity, reality, etc. was mildly annoying, but Parson's method is just out of control).

Don't even get me started on the capitalizing of each word.

[Epsilon=One]

This is a keeper. I may print this post and carry it for awhile.

For those that may have missed it above; see the pertinent section in the first quote below:

This is exactly backwards in logic. The absence of an omniscient deific observer is what drives human morals, not the presence of one. Have you ever heard the phrase "Morals are what you do when no one's watching"?

If you act like a goodie-two-shoes just because you're afraid of god sending you to hell, that doesn't make you a good person, that makes you a coward. On the other hand, if you act like a good person despite knowledge that doing so will not inhibit your afterlife, then you actually ARE a moral person.

And the idea that there is no consequence to moral impropriety is ludicruous. Humans are smart enough to realize that we must, amongst ourselves, enforce laws, morals, etc (this system appears to be more effective than the standard burning in hell line for pedophilic priests).
Also, am I the only one who's incredibly bothered by Parson's complete lack of proper grammar? While the random parentheses, italics, bold statements, etc. are interesting for a while, they really do look stupid after a couple of posts. If you need to rely on bolding a statement in parentheses to let the reader know that it's pertinent information, you really just need to write betterNo. I've just been more timid than you to express the obvious. And, if it has not been deleterious to the threads and friends that I enjoy, I have been guilty of tolerating a difficult tolerance. I am loathe to complain because this is a free-spirited, renaissance inspired forum that is the only forum that I've been able to find that has tolerated my postings for very long.

(when I read epsilon's first posts, I thought his italicizing of infinity, reality, etc. was mildly annoying, but Parson's method is just out of control).I perfectly understand. The choice for me is the lesser of two evils. I use italics and capitalization to indicate a specific meaning that I define in Conceptualism/Pulsoid Theory. I generally coin a new word for specific definitions; but some concepts (Light, Infinity, Reality, Cosmic Inertia, etc. would lose meaning for many. I capitalize all coined words to indicate they are not part of the general vernacular (You can't "look" them up outside of my writing). I generally use quotes for common words to indicate that I am aware of or don't entirely agree with the words actual or most common connotations.

Sorry, but the only other solution to clearly conveying an idea that I can think of involves lengthy and boring explanation. I also use this unconventional grammar to highlight controversial issues that I hope will draw out questions.

Don't even get me started on the capitalizing of each word.Lowercase letters were developed because they are faster and easier to read. Thus, those who over use the uppercase letters lose what they think they are achieving.

[Kleophon]

I believe I have caused quite a stir in these forums... wow, perhaps Humanism is definitely something I will take to heart.

As response to OfficeShredder, I agree with you. Morals would not exist if we had to constantly "watch out" for a diety. I believe this to be the beauty of Humanism, Conceptualism, and other schools of thought existing without a true diety. I recently read a debate between the Theologian William Lane Craig and Athiest Kai Nielsen, and it amazed me to hear Craig talk about the fact that there would be no morals without God. Nielsen, who I do not believe to be the best, or most influential, speaker, did not respond appropriately enough. I think OfficeShredder's response was much more clear and concise.

[Epsilon=One]

Epsilon=One, I am curious, if I may ask. What is your profession? You had mentioned in an earlier post about working for 50 years to provide a sense of unity amongst physics/TOE/philosophy, which I have seen that you have made significant steps in doing.Thank you. Your opinion places you among an astounding minority.

It is my concepts and general ideas, rather than my person, that I would like to think will provoke an alternative culture to what is now entirely faith based . . . either secular or religious; and for most . . . both. This culture is enervating to the spirit and/or the well being of things living. For many years I, and my profession, have been unknown to my family and best friends. Even many of my world-class associates. Ideas can be extremely dangerous no matter where one resides.

With age, time is running out . . . and so is my caution.

I attended Cornell University on a full scholarship including living expenses in a five year program. From the mid '50's, I've considered Philip Morrison as a mentor. Not too sure what he considered; particularly, after I got into a lot of trouble with "J. Edgar" and Oppenheimer after Einstein's death, which led to a forced (armed companion) medical leave of absence and a subsequent paid vacation for a few years near the Korean DMZ.

I am personna non grata wherever I've gone in academia for obvious reasons; however, I consider that I have many world-class friends on a personal level in a wide variety of academic disciplines that I enjoy exchanging ideas with.

My personal life has been eclectic, fun like a rollercoaster, that has been fuller than I ever would have imagined possible.

I've dabbled in the ideas of string theory, philosophy, physics, but admit to never having studied in depth enough to be able to say I comprehend anything;...The world is depending upon open, exploring minds like yours.

I am thus very interested in your ideas.If your friends were aware of this, it might get you commited. I ask for no more than interest; the purpose and importance of my "ideas," more than being right or wrong, is to stimulate interest . . . in any "idea."

But, what exactly did you do? I do not mean to seem nosy, I apologize if I do, and I understand if you do not feel comfortable answering. You seem like such a knowledgeable person, and it makes me curious who you are.Thanks. I am flattered. My best acquaintences have no knowledge of what I do. I am no longer as concerned with such questions as when I was younger. But, I am concerned that the answers will detract from the message.

(I apologize for going off topic in my own thread...)Welcome to the Renaissance world of Dr. E.

[Kleophon]

Thank you Epsilon=One, I appreciate you giving a little about your background. When I first came to this forum I noticed that you posted on every issue on this forum. I admit, at first I thought it was simply because you were very intelligent as a physicist (I am assuming this from your mentorship and forum answers) and wanted to answer everything. I now see that you are an incredibly well-rounded, educated person who has lived a life full of thinking, which I only hope to achieve something near to the same. I look forward to learning more about the world of physics, as you have inspired me to continue my search for a meaningful existence.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Look at that, it brought out some nice stuff, Good thread Kleophon however un-intentional.

Officeshredder Immorality is what happens in/following your logic, not morality, your the one who has the Logic Backwards.

As for the Typing Style, it is Idiosyncratic ...as Am (I) ....continued as to ensure, well, the obviousness of My Presence in it.

If you CANNOT GET YOUR OWN HEAD OVER THE IDEA OF TYPING AS YOU NOW THINK THAT EVERYTHING THAT IS, NOW, SIMPLY BEING TYPED WITH THE CAPS LOCK ON, IS SOMEHOW BEING SCREAMED, AND YOU CANNOT FIGURE IT OUT, (READ IT) AS NOT BEING SHOUTED BUT, SIMPLY, BIG LETTERS, WELL .....AS FOR HAVING A 'DISCIPLINED' MIND......USUALLY IT IS through practise

as for spelling (Grammer) some of you ain't No "Dr. E" at it, then again (I) don't know how well Dr. A. Einstein Typed to begin with sooooooo/sew.

Gotta go think about the rest.....

Then again, maybe not.....Why Bother

[Epsilon=One]

I noticed that you posted on every issue on this forum.It was pretty much only Astro and I. Often wonder if I had posted less, if there would have been more thoughtful participants.

...you are an incredibly well-rounded, educated person who has lived a life full of thinking...Careful. You have no idea who you may be alienating.

which I only hope to achieve something near to the same. I look forward to learning more about the world of physics, as you have inspired me to continue my search for a meaningful existence.Thanks. The emphasis is properly placed with "inspired." Emulation seldom accomplishes very much of importance.

Some physics is necessary for truth; but there is little truth within pomo physics until the physicist can understand philosophical beauty as well as mathematical beauty.

[Epsilon=One]

...search for a meaningful existence.Have you studied these threads in the "Philosophy General" topic?

Conceptualism (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/Conceptualism)

Atheists, Enlightenment, and Intelligent Inquiry (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/AEI)

or this short essay:

Some thoughts concerning delusion . . . and modern academics (http://www.Brunardot.com/e-stc.htm)

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

Some thoughts concerning delusion . . . and modern academicsPoopers, you wrote your Biography?? :eek:

"Modern academics"?? you mean the way they teach school now-a-days, compared to the manner that you used.....Its' better now, then then, less delusions.

[Epsilon=One]

Poopers, you wrote your Biography?? :eek:Thanks for the promotion of the essay.

You are perceptive concerning its origin. It would be nice to know your thoughts concerning the topic. Perhaps, there is something that can be debated or agreed upon that might interest the Viewers beyond snide references.

Do you have any comments regarding any of the content.

For those that may have missed it, above:

Some thoughts concerning delusion . . . and modern academics (http://www.Brunardot.com/e-stc.htm)

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

You are perceptive concerning its origin. Oh so you admit it is a Delusional WORK, by a deluded whatever...

It would be nice to know your thoughts concerning the topic.You mean yoru in need of An opinon again? haven't (can't formulate) one of your own ...AGAIN!

Perhaps, there is something that can be debated or agreed upon that might interest the Viewers beyond snide references.PooPsters your snide nature isn't really meaningfull

Do you have any comments regarding any of the content.Again proof you cannot even ....read...

For those that may have missed it, above: Buy PooPsters essay (Short! little to say, little experience{s} for an OLD{er} whatever) 'Bio'

Some thoughts concerning delusion . . . Aaaaw PooPsters your ruining it again, your supposed to let (get) them to BUY your Bio and then explore your delusions

(Told you! Forwarned you! .......stay away!)

[Epsilon=One]

I will let your above inanities stand as they are.

Nothing could illustrate my problems with your hectoring any better than such a collection of nonsensical replies and weaseling on the issues previously raised.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

I will let my inanities stand as they are.Nothing could illustrate the problems with my hectoring any better than such a collection of nonsensical replies and weaseling on the issues previously raised.O.K. by Me Poops'tars

[Epsilon=One]

O.K. by Me Poops'tarsClever subtle changing of my words; and, thus their meaning in the above quote.

I wonder how many Viewers caught your deception?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

GO AWAY!