Here we go again. I am going to have to go through this and tag and distinguish out and out falsehoods stated by you. Otherwise, where I can clarify I will do my best.
"if you want to say that things are true (and I think you do)"
Yah. umm ehh Well yahh.
"then you have to have some basis for saying so."
Yah. Umm eeehh y'ah.
"I just wanted to know what that was."
buzzer sound, aahhh.
False: "You seem happy to say "that's just the way things are" without giving any further philosophical justification."
I have said repeadly, that I would be happy to clarify further or explore any concept presented by me further.
"That's a conversation stopper plain and simple."
For you and by you. You stopped the conversation at a point of insistence that I agree to place myself upon your taxonomy of world view classifications. I even told you that you could satisfy yourself with whatever classification you prefer, it means nothing to me and you don't need my agreement to move on. You refused to move on. I have pointed out repeatedly that you are stuck and why, and how, and yet you remain ... stuck.
As far as my views being "religious" and yours not;
ooopsie. I never said that.
You're just fooling yourself.
How so.
The sum of your individual views about God, religion, the universe and what it means to be Human make up your worldview ...
I have already said as much myself. So what?
...and yes it's a religious view.
That depends on the context you or I choose.
"Everyones worldview falls somewhere along the lines of broad categories that have been recognized by those who study such things for a long time.
Important to you because of your religiosity, not important to me.
"To say or think that you have no worldview is akin to someone saying that they have never studied philosophy and formalized their particular views so therefore they don't have a philosophy."
Maybe but I haven't said or thought that, and we've already discussed this.
"Everyone who is conscious has a philosophy.
Is that a truism greg?
"Everyone who considers religion and it's implications has a religious point of view. The only way around it is to ignore and not talk about or consider religion, but even that is a view of religion as unimportant. "
Another truism?
"You don't want to lay your cards on the table.
Ambiguous and irrelevant.
"Fine; but name calling and armchair psychoanalyzing is not advancing anything.
Maybe not but speaking honestly and directly sometimes cuts through pretence and gets people to accept each other as equals, which definitely provides an opportunity to further discussion. If you are to defensive, egotistical, or embarrassed about it, then it may not advance anything but that's up to you. |
