Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I remember that commercial, too, and I still own a record player (with a USB connection).
I also remember "a little dab will do ya" ... "digger the dog"... "gee your hair smells terrific" ... "you're soaking in it" ... "he never has two cups at home" ... and many more.
I'm in my mid fifties.
Whoa, would NEVER have guessed that, but "digger the dog" makes me believe it.
Whoa, would NEVER have guessed that, but "digger the dog" makes me believe it.
I remember 'a little dab'll do ya' for hair cream.Awful stuff. I USED it in my teens. Mad magazine spoofed it in the Irving Irving story, the biopic of a genius writer of Ad jingles, spoofing the 'life story...with the initial struggles, the fame, the losing it, failed marriage, drink..."Oh Irving, Irving, Irving..." "What the heck? You never used my middle name before." and the ambulance coming to drag the broken drunk out of the gutter. "Hey, you guys want ta buy a great ad jingle?...'Morphine, a little jab'll do ya..'
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
having problems with my computer I am losing post.
we are talking about how to struggle with a belief. we can use mystic/gld belief as example of how to sort through a belief when we are struggling. We can use it because it is really relevant in this forum in seeing how you claim its not supported and I claim it is supported.
looking at both ways helps us in the struggle in forming a belief. What is a sound way to form a belief?
Its just a great real time example. It actually helps atheism. we can break down mystics belief to see how to sort through the noise and see where 1/2 truths are deployed to both support and deny his view,
I fail to see how that's a helpful method.
I prefer to begin with no assumptions and let each argument make its' case. But out OP has his own problems and may need something else other than whatever Ism any of us may want to peddle. Including atheism. Some people may Need a theism.
I remember 'a little dab'll do ya' for hair cream.Awful stuff. I USED it in my teens. Mad magazine spoofed it in the Irving Irving story, the biopic of a genius writer of Ad jingles, spoofing the 'life story...with the initial struggles, the fame, the losing it, failed marriage, drink..."Oh Irving, Irving, Irving..." "What the heck? You never used my middle name before." and the ambulance coming to drag the broken drunk out of the gutter. "Hey, you guys want ta buy a great ad jingle?...'Morphine, a little jab'll do ya..'
I fail to see how that's a helpful method.
I prefer to begin with no assumptions and let each argument make its' case. But out OP has his own problems and may need something else other than whatever Ism any of us may want to peddle. Including atheism. Some people may Need a theism.
I would prefer no assumptions too. But we here in CD and the assumption matches what we see.
You are exactly right again, it really is about them. So we can use a real time example were we are struggling with mystics/gld's belief to see how to form a belief. We can actually see where we diverge from them (as atheist) even tho they have evidence and we can show where they jump from to assumption that have no support.
n my opinion anyway. We are showing, although they believe in god, they have proof, and even though they have some proof doesn't mean it, by any means, is what we have to believe. And feel good about it.
Kind of like ... I see that, I see this, no I don't agree with that, no that isn't right. Kind of thing. And a person struggling with, lets say catholism can do the same thing ... I see that, I don't see that, I certainty am not on board with that thing.
they can feel good about staying and/or leaving having conflicting information and emptions. They deal with it in a rational manor. staying or going is kind of irrelevant to me.
that's right. We can do a relative reliability list of just religions. What religions match what we see going on around us the best. Then we can most certainty pick a religion from the present ones that work for us.
And like designing a tank, there is no perfect answer, we just do the best we can.
how ever, when we move into describing how the universe works. We are forced to place in that "pile of stuff" observations that are outside of some religious beliefs. And when we place them next to the religous claims, many of the religious claims come up short.
Based on what we know, some things religions say match how the universe works and some things they say don't.
I would prefer no assumptions too. But we here in CD and the assumption matches what we see.
You are exactly right again, it really is about them. So we can use a real time example were we are struggling with mystics/gld's belief to see how to form a belief. We can actually see where we diverge from them (as atheist) even tho they have evidence and we can show where they jump from to assumption that have no support.
n my opinion anyway. We are showing, although they believe in god, they have proof, and even though they have some proof doesn't mean it, by any means, is what we have to believe. And feel good about it.
Kind of like ... I see that, I see this, no I don't agree with that, no that isn't right. Kind of thing. And a person struggling with, lets say catholism can do the same thing ... I see that, I don't see that, I certainty am not on board with that thing.
they can feel good about staying and/or leaving having conflicting information and emptions. They deal with it in a rational manor. staying or going is kind of irrelevant to me.
It's like this; we start (philosophically, not in pragmatic living) with no assumptions. Nothing exists. Each thing has to be validated. Reality, physics, consciousness, evolution, religion, society, politics, the family, love, hate and just looking good for other people. Understanding the case for these things is essential to knowing whether to credit them or not. Philosophy and science have provided a lot of this case. Questions about them do not debunk them. Questions do debunk the plausibility (never mind validation) of a claim.
We don't (using logic) form a belief, but rather let the validated facts build a reliable model of what is so (whether we know or like it or not). Of course people don't do that; they get by day to day on 'common sense' and rote social norms. That doesn't mean that doing it on logic and evidence isn't valid.
For me (I would say any 'thinking' atheist) agreeing with or not any religion isn't a factual matter at all, or 'belief'. It is rather judged on social impact. It isn't a 'belief' issue at all.
Now I may have gone wide off -topic, but there's a lot of misconception about rationalist thinking and atheism (a subset of rationalism - pertaining specifically to the god -claim) that bears repeated clarification.
How would the existence of an afterlife render all religions false? Sincere question. I don’t know what you mean.
POST 666
Because everyone regardless of belief makes it into the afterlife. Everyone follows a specific religion because they fell that is the only way into the afterlife. If everyone gets into the afterlife that makes your claims for that religion false.
It's like this; we start (philosophically, not in pragmatic living) with no assumptions. Nothing exists. Each thing has to be validated. Reality, physics, consciousness, evolution, religion, society, politics, the family, love, hate and just looking good for other people. Understanding the case for these things is essential to knowing whether to credit them or not. Philosophy and science have provided a lot of this case. Questions about them do not debunk them. Questions do debunk the plausibility (never mind validation) of a claim.
We don't (using logic) form a belief, but rather let the validated facts build a reliable model of what is so (whether we know or like it or not). Of course people don't do that; they get by day to day on 'common sense' and rote social norms. That doesn't mean that doing it on logic and evidence isn't valid.
For me (I would say any 'thinking' atheist) agreeing with or not any religion isn't a factual matter at all, or 'belief'. It is rather judged on social impact. It isn't a 'belief' issue at all.
Now I may have gone wide off -topic, but there's a lot of misconception about rationalist thinking and atheism (a subset of rationalism - pertaining specifically to the god -claim) that bears repeated clarification.
Now it's time for my gruel.
I think one struggling and having social impact deciding reality is going to veer off into a bias confirmation belief system that may or may not trip over the reality of the situation more than the accuracy of processing the information.
Because everyone regardless of belief makes it into the afterlife. Everyone follows a specific religion because they fell that is the only way into the afterlife. If everyone gets into the afterlife that makes your claims for that religion false.
Let's start with our common ground: We are in agreement that death is not the end of our existence.
The conclusion you draw, however, relies on the presumption that "everyone regardless of belief makes it into the afterlife".
Why do you belief that? Thanks.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
