On Being Atheist...

[tetriscera]

tetriscera, welcome to Lit and the Authors' Hangout.

There are a lot of interesting people here. If you stick around (and I hope you do) you will get to know them and will be able to predict the general tone of several of them. Let's just say that some of them have defining characteristics and you won't be able to get them to budge on anything if you used dynamite, instead of words.

Amicus (ami to most of us) is one such character. You're trying to engage him in a discussion by pointing out an error in his thinking (by using Ayn Rand's own quotes to point out why he shouldn't bring up her in a discussion about abortion).

To ami, such a thing does not, never has and never will exist. When you point out to ami that one or more of his arguments don't hold water, one of two things will happen. He will ignore it or he will come back and call you a soulless socialist, a usual suspect, a brainless minion of the intellectually bankrupt left or anyone of his dozen or so favorite epithets. When he gets wound up, he'll use about half a dozen in the space of two sentences.

It's up to you how you deal with the guy. From personal experience I know that using fact and reason won't get you very far.

Thank you very much for the welcome stephen55, it's a pleasure. Also thank you for the advice, I will take it under consideration and judge for myself.

 

[sr71plt]

Sorry, Ami, I studied situational ethics under Joseph Fletcher (look him up) as an undergraduate and totally buy into it. And, once again, I don't read your postings in any depth--just enough to see that, as usual, you are full of verbose shit. I don't feel like vomiting every time you post--I just feel pleased that you have taken all of that time to compose something I'm going to do no more than skim.

 

[amicus]

I suspected that responding to your post would lead to another snide reply. I had hoped, in this one case where you seemed sincere in your exposition, that it would be otherwise. But, sadly, you confirm my earlier suspicions that you are without character, honor and integrity.

You not only read my Posts in depth, you study them, each word, each concept, always looking for a way out of your amoral, agnostic, boxed in corner of existence and when you fail to conceive a decent, rational response, like a rat in a cage, you strike out.

Who cares. You don't get a second chance.

Amicus

 

[sr71plt]

You not only read my Posts in depth, you study them, each word, each concept, always looking for a way out of your amoral, agnostic, boxed in corner of existence and when you fail to conceive a decent, rational response, like a rat in a cage, you strike out.

Oh, yes, do believe that, please. And please do write them longer and spend much, much more time collecting research for them. With luck it will keep you out of your granddaughter's bedroom until the government gets wise to you and stops paying to keep you alive.

 

[estragon]

Now children, play nice. What a shame we don't have a penalty box or a yellow chair for timeouts.

 

[tetriscera]

Hello, Tetriscera, welcome to the forum and thank you for a well presented and thoughtful query. Tetris....would that be from the game? I think it was Dr. Mario, a similar game, that I enjoyed and played for hours reaching level 25, when there are only 20 levels on that game...perhaps some will remember...

Hello to you, and thank you for the welcome. Actually my name is an amalgamation of a few of my favourite song titles. But I remember the old Mario days, good times.

Should I dare to quote Rand, I am usually referred to as a 'Randroid', with Objectivism being called a 'cult', and Rand being disparaged at every turn.

When I offer a difference from Rand's thinking, then the presumption is that I do not understand her thoughts. At one time I was familiar enough with Rand's thinking to offer classes in Objectivism, but that has been nearly a half century ago when I wore a younger man's clothes....(song)

It certainly provokes some strong emotional reactions when quoting or paraphrasing her thoughts on a relevant subject. I have seen this kind of reaction on many occassions.

I suggest that one needs to view Ayn Rand in context also; ; (February 2 [O.S. January 20] 1905 – March 6, 1982), she began writing in the 1920's, her first serious work, "We The Living", published in 1936, and became famous in 1943 with the publication of "Fountainhead".

In further context, women's right to vote, The Nineteenth Amendment was added to the U.S. Constitution on August 26, 1920, the 'Feminist' movement that began in the 1950's, I think, all played a part of her intellectual development.

I greatly admire the efforts of Ayn Rand to clarify fundamental concepts concerning human individual freedom, rights and liberties, and especially her summation of economic imperatives and her understanding that free people implied free markets.

My diversion from her thinking is contained in her own words and her own insistence upon defining the terms one uses and to acknowledge that words represent absolute concepts that are self evident, axiomatic, to the human condition:

That seems quite vague. I will quote Rand on "axiomatic concepts":

"Axioms are usually considered to be propositions identifying a fundamental, self-evident truth. But explicit propositions as such are not primaries: they are made of concepts. The base of man’s knowledge—of all other concepts, all axioms, propositions and thought—consists of axiomatic concepts.

An axiomatic concept is the identification of a primary fact of reality, which cannot be analyzed, i.e., reduced to other facts or broken into component parts. It is implicit in all facts and in all knowledge. It is the fundamentally given and directly perceived or experienced, which requires no proof or explanation, but on which all proofs and explanations rest.

The first and primary axiomatic concepts are “existence,” “identity” (which is a corollary of “existence”) and “consciousness.” One can study what exists and how consciousness functions; but one cannot analyze (or “prove”) existence as such, or consciousness as such. These are irreducible primaries. (An attempt to “prove” them is self-contradictory: it is an attempt to “prove” existence by means of non-existence, and consciousness by means of unconsciousness.)" -Ayn Rand

So are you saying that axioms have something to do with this subject? From my readings of her philosophy she attempts to describe axioms quite explicitly, as I have quoted above. What you are saying seems strange to me at this point. It seems to me that if I follow her reasoning on "axiomatic concepts" and apply it to what you have stated, it would seem to follow that to understand your position I would need to know exactly which concept or concepts you regard as self evident and axiomatic in this discussion?

Life

There is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or non-existence—and it pertains to a single class of entities: to living organisms. The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, the existence of life is not: it depends on a specific course of action. Matter is indestructible, it changes its forms, but it cannot cease to exist. It is only a living organism that faces a constant alternative: the issue of life or death. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action. If an organism fails in that action, it dies; its chemical elements remain, but its life goes out of existence. It is only the concept of “Life” that makes the concept of “Value” possible. It is only to a living entity that things can be good or evil.

Galt’s Speech, For the New Intellectual, 121


Human reproductive understanding and medicine, I think one can state, was in its infancy during Ayn Rand's early and middle life. I think it is also accurate to conclude that she was influenced by the emergence of women's rights during her lifetime and celebrated women being accepted as more than chattel, or property, in all walks of life, at least in western post industrial societies.

Science has now provided mankind with the full understanding that at the moment of conception, the full genetic and chromosomal content of a new life is created; it can be nothing else but human and it can be defined in no other way than, 'life', human life, and as such is protected by our laws that acknowledged that the 'right to life', is innate and unalienable.

There are many pages in the archives of this forum, pages I have offered in explanation and definition of my position on this issue and I have remained consistent throughout, since late 2003, and I have been speaking and writing about this issue since the Supreme Court passed Roe V Wade, in 1973.

I trust that addresses your question?

I don't think what you have stated so far is at all decisive. In light of the passages I quoted, these statements seem very indirect and do not demonstrate to me that you have coherently explicated why you are validated (logically) in your divergence from her ethical view on the subject of "abortion", while seemingly holding to other Objectivist views.

Obviously the outcome of the "abortion debate" in most forms depends upon the defining of an organisms humanity through the processes of it's conception. You are advocating that it is a human by definition from it's inception, seemingly regardless of consideration of a vigorous definition of a human beings essential constitutional properties, from what I gather from the few posts I have witnessed on this thread. Without a vigorous examination of what constitutes the definition of human being it is extremely presumptuous to label it so, and grant this organism a "right to life". I am also unsure as to what you mean by "right to life" in this context, it doesn't seem resonate with what Rand stated on the concept. Could you define your meaning?

You seem to be also advocating that value judgments (among many other considerations) should be ignored in favor of the preservation of it's "right to life". A "right to life" that overrides the rights of the very woman who created it. This being from inception has dominance over it's creator in this respect. Essentially the woman is a slave to this organism inside her and is expected to be subservient and provide to it's needs, and she has no say in this matter, despite that this thing has nothing even resembling cognitive ability in comparison to hers at this point in time. It hardly resembles anything close to an actual human being, except perhaps it's base makeup. By a similar type of reasoning we could argue that more primitive animals and organisms of all sorts deserve an equivalent "right to life" as humans. We kill varieties of tiny organisms simply by stepping on a field of grass, so it seems ludicrous to even consider arguments of this nature.

I agree with Ayn Rand on this issue: "to equate a potential with an actual, is vicious". I think my ethical position is far from similar to your own amicus. You may be able to answer some of these areas in which I disagree with you, and I welcome a discussion in greater depth at a later date when it is the core topic of the thread. I don't want to divert this thread too much more off the core topic in your OP, so I will let you have the last word on this issue if you wish. I will not be replying much further on this subject here, other than to pursue the "axiomatic concepts" discussion to a small extent.

 

[sr71plt]

Now children, play nice. What a shame we don't have a penalty box or a yellow chair for timeouts.

You're new here, aren't you?

 

[stephen55]

ami, you're making this too easy...can you do better?

The 'three fucks in a row', will just fume and fizzle, as they always do, but please observe the fundamental fallacies exposed by their vitriol: and understand that to them, there is no 'truth' in anything (why even have the word), and nothing is absolute; not the periodic chart of elements or the fact that H2 plus O is water.
Amicus

ami, when I express the opinion that I'm not impressed with your take on philosophy and that I'm equally unimpressed by your inability to think in any way other than polarized opposites, I'm not fuming and fizzling. I'm also not spewing vitriol. As for the possibility that I'm expressing fundamental fallacies, I suppose that might be true, but only if I buy into your argument that you have the sole right to be correct.

There is truth in a lot of things. On rare occasions, it is in you. That said, the Periodic Table of the Elements is a work in progress. I recently compared my high school era copy to the one in my daughter's current high school chemistry text. Wow! There are about thirty new entries. I know how difficult this will be for you ami, but said Periodic Table of the Elements is not absolute. The one that Mendeleev originally came up with had blank spots he purposely left in to leave room for future new discoveries. My guess is that there will be more additions as time goes on.

And while a molecule of water is in fact composed of two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen, hydrogen and oxygen can get together to form hydrogen peroxide. It can be purchased inexpensively in a pharmacy but, if you care to, you can make your own. Hydrogen and oxygen also get together to make hydroxyl ions.

So far then, the only fundamental fallacies in your post are your own.

As for vitriol, it does refer to a caustic or virulent tone in speech or writing. In chemistry, it also refers to a sulfate of any of various metals (such as copper, iron, or zinc), especially a glassy hydrate of such a sulfate. Oil of Vitriol is an old term for sulphuric acid.

So vitriol has several meanings. As with many other things, it also is not absolute.

 

[stephen55]

another day, another half dozen epithets in two sentences...

When you point out to ami that one or more of his arguments don't hold water, one of two things will happen. He will ignore it or he will come back and call you a soulless socialist, a usual suspect, a brainless minion of the intellectually bankrupt left or anyone of his dozen or so favorite epithets. When he gets wound up, he'll use about half a dozen in the space of two sentences.

What a lack of difference a day makes...

I suspected that responding to your post would lead to another snide reply. I had hoped, in this one case where you seemed sincere in your exposition, that it would be otherwise. But, sadly, you confirm my earlier suspicions that you are without character, honor and integrity.

You not only read my Posts in depth, you study them, each word, each concept, always looking for a way out of your amoral, agnostic, boxed in corner of existence and when you fail to conceive a decent, rational response, like a rat in a cage, you strike out.
Amicus (in response to sr71plt)

ami, as I've pointed out before, taking shots at you is now second nature to me. The question is, why do you make it so damned easy?

as for..."Who cares. You don't get a second chance."...(again) I know how difficult this is for you ami, but pretending to call the shots and calling the shots are different. Now, is that an absolute truth or what!!

 

[amicus]

Tetriscera, reference your Post #206...

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/abortion.html

http://www.oocities.com/rationalargumentator/obstruction.html

The first link is Ayn Rand's argument supporting abortion, the second link mirrors my refutation, using the same reference to Rand that I did, the following quote:

Life

There is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or non-existence—and it pertains to a single class of entities: to living organisms. The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, the existence of life is not: it depends on a specific course of action. Matter is indestructible, it changes its forms, but it cannot cease to exist. It is only a living organism that faces a constant alternative: the issue of life or death. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action. If an organism fails in that action, it dies; its chemical elements remain, but its life goes out of existence. It is only the concept of “Life” that makes the concept of “Value” possible. It is only to a living entity that things can be good or evil.

Galt’s Speech, For the New Intellectual, 121

~~~

I reaffirm my stated position in opppostion to Rand on the subject of abortion; she was in error.

~~~

To return to the subject of this Thread, "On Being Atheist", I return to the definition and explanation of 'Agnostic':

Agnosticism

[There is] a widespread approach to ideas which Objectivism repudiates altogether: agnosticism. I mean this term in a sense which applies to the question of God, but to many other issues also, such as extra-sensory perception or the claim that the stars influence man’s destiny. In regard to all such claims, the agnostic is the type who says, “I can’t prove these claims are true, but you can’t prove they are false, so the only proper conclusion is: I don’t know; no one knows; no one can know one way or the other.”

The agnostic viewpoint poses as fair, impartial, and balanced. See how many fallacies you can find in it. Here are a few obvious ones: First, the agnostic allows the arbitrary into the realm of human cognition. He treats arbitrary claims as ideas proper to consider, discuss, evaluate—and then he regretfully says, “I don’t know,” instead of dismissing the arbitrary out of hand. Second, the onus-of-proof issue: the agnostic demands proof of a negative in a context where there is no evidence for the positive. “It’s up to you,” he says, “to prove that the fourth moon of Jupiter did not cause your sex life and that it was not a result of your previous incarnation as the Pharaoh of Egypt.” Third, the agnostic says, “Maybe these things will one day be proved.” In other words, he asserts possibilities or hypotheses with no jot of evidential basis.

The agnostic miscalculates. He thinks he is avoiding any position that will antagonize anybody. In fact, he is taking a position which is much more irrational than that of a man who takes a definite but mistaken stand on a given issue, because the agnostic treats arbitrary claims as meriting cognitive consideration and epistemological respect. He treats the arbitrary as on a par with the rational and evidentially supported. So he is the ultimate epistemological egalitarian: he equates the groundless and the proved. As such, he is an epistemological destroyer. The agnostic thinks that he is not taking any stand at all and therefore that he is safe, secure, invulnerable to attack. The fact is that his view is one of the falsest—and most cowardly—stands there can be.[/QUOTE]

Leonard Peikoff, “The Philosophy of Objectivism”
lecture series (1976), Lecture

~~~

One either advocates reason and knowledge, or faith and mysticism, there is no middle ground. Just as in the abortion controversy, one either supports 'life' as a primary value, or one does not, there is no middle ground.

Amicus

 

[1sickbastard]

I read this eariler today, and thought of you Amicus;

"Moral certainty is always a sign of cultural inferiority. The more uncivilized the man, the surer he is that he knows precisely what is right and what is wrong. All human progress, even in morals, has been the work of men who have doubted the current moral values, not of men who have whooped them up and tried to enforce them. The truly civilized man is always skeptical and tolerant, in this field as in all others. His culture is based on "I am not too sure.""-H.L.Mencken

 

[amicus]

I read this eariler today, and thought of you Amicus;

"Moral certainty is always a sign of cultural inferiority. The more uncivilized the man, the surer he is that he knows precisely what is right and what is wrong. All human progress, even in morals, has been the work of men who have doubted the current moral values, not of men who have whooped them up and tried to enforce them. The truly civilized man is always skeptical and tolerant, in this field as in all others. His culture is based on "I am not too sure.""-H.L.Mencken

~~~

There are many students who do their Doctoral Dissertation on H.L. Mencken; an interesting man.

"...Mencken recommended for publication the first novel by Ayn Rand, We the Living, calling it "a really excellent piece of work." Shortly after, Rand addressed him in correspondence as "the greatest representative of a philosophy" to which she wanted to dedicate her life, "individualism," and, later, listed him as her favorite columnist.

Satire is a dicey profession and requires a wide knowledge of the context of the times one lives in and historical precedent. But...it seems to me, sort of a 'second hand' profession, living off the thoughts and words of others and usually in a disdainful fashion.

Sighs...I should have quoted your Post....so,,,I went back and got it...

'Flip', meaning flippant, best describes Mencken and those who find it always it safe to be uncertain of their moral premises. Skepticism, like Agnosticism, are each evasions from taking a moral stand on issues that require moral certainty.

You would have to define, 'cultural inferiority'; I suppose you would include all true believers in God as such, and perhaps there is a small truth there.

There is also a 'small' truth in 'questioning moral values', in terms of trends and imposed moral premises, but in general, the rational human being holds certain moral universals as absolute and treasures the constancy of life, liberty and the freedom to pursue one's own vision of happiness.

There was a period in Literature and Literary Criticism, when it was considered sophisticated to be a skeptical pundit, of the Mencken,, Oscar Wilde, Oscar Levant and Walter Lippman style. That pretty much ended with the Great Depression and ther horror of World War Two and the Atomic Bomb; nothing has been quite the same since.

On a metaphysical level, the entire purpose of existence is motivated by the necessity of learning and knowing about the world we live in and the nature of our one personal existence. To shrug off that quest of life with a flippant, "I don't know.." seems to me to be dismissive of the central theme of life; to learn.

Plato, the Republic:

"As for me, all I know is that I know nothing, for when I don't know what justice is, I'll hardly know whether it is a kind of virtue or not, or whether a person who has it is happy or unhappy.

On the other hand, Aristotle said, somewhere in his writings, 'that the greatest of all the joys of man, is to learn...'

Que sara, sara, what will be, will be, might be fine for some, I prefer to know where my foot will land with the next step I take.

Amicus

 

[estragon]

You're new here, aren't you?

SR71, flare out and cool it. Is that remark of yours your variant on "You ain't from around yere, boy, are ya?" Maybe so, or maybe not, but everyone here is, or should be, capable of mannerly, if not civilized, conversation.

As for the "not sure" argument of Henry L. Menken, Oliver Wendell Homes was quoted as saying, "If I had to write down everything I know on a single sheet of legal paper, I'd get halfway down the page, and then write 'and I ain't so damn sure of that either'."

 

[amicus]

SR71, flare out and cool it. Is that remark of yours your variant on "You ain't from around yere, boy, are ya?" Maybe so, or maybe not, but everyone here is, or should be, capable of mannerly, if not civilized, conversation.

As for the "not sure" argument of Henry L. Menken, Oliver Wendell Homes was quoted as saying, "If I had to write down everything I know on a single sheet of legal paper, I'd get halfway down the page, and then write 'and I ain't so damn sure of that either'."[/QUOTE]

~~~

Now I am getting curious, what with more agreeing and Oliver Wendell Holmes thrown into the mix...

Why, I ask in all sincerity, is it considered intellectual, sophicated and wise, to admit ignorance?

Would it be humility before the less capable? Would it be tolerance for the masses, the majority or those in power?

Could it possibly be, as Rand suggests, a 'fractured' learning process that tends to confuse rather than clarify?

Could it be a factor of aging or maturity, there ain't no more room in my head for new ideas?

A couple 'wags' one noting the periodic chart of elements and another stating that 'science is a process', one never completed thus...nothing is absolute; the basic fundamental axiomatic nature of the periodic chart remains unchanged; why would one consider amplification or adding to a truth, deny the the truth?

The science of astronomy began small...does the modern radio telescope erase the absolute truths of Galilleo and Copernicus? Of course they don't. Science is absolute and fact and truth and it remains open ended, as it should.

None of that even approaches the psychological imperative that a man 'know' as much about everything as he can and know it with certainty.

Amicus

 

[Stella_Omega]

Why, I ask in all sincerity, is it considered intellectual, sophicated and wise, to admit ignorance?

It's considered honest, and honesty is a virtue-- of which you do seem to be bereft.

Science is a process of learning about facts, and truths.

The product of science is knowledge. Knowledge kills belief, because there is no need for "belief" in the face of facts.

Your belief in absolutes can only be maintained by a refusal to acquire knowledge.

But we already knew that.

 

[amicus]

Because I think you really and truly, 'don't get it', I will invest a moment or so to enlighten you.

First; axioms, learn what the concept identifies.

"Existence exists—and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: that something exists which one perceives and that one exists possessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists."

You are not required to 'believe' in axiomatic truths, one can not 'prove' scientifically, a self evident truth; the concept is metaphysical you must use your mind to comprehend it. You can't touch it or fondle it or manipulate it, you actually have to use your mental ability to perceive it.

You should also acknowledge that science and scientific method are both products of the human mind; both are abstract conceptualizations that do not exist in nature, only man has the cognitive ability to focus his mind and that is by choice.

Amicus

 

[stephen55]

"...Mencken recommended for publication the first novel by Ayn Rand, We the Living, calling it "a really excellent piece of work." Shortly after, Rand addressed him in correspondence as "the greatest representative of a philosophy" to which she wanted to dedicate her life, "individualism," and, later, listed him as her favorite columnist."

If Mencken can be described as anything, besides a columnist, it would be contrariwise. He changed his opinion on a regular basis, usually in order to distance himself from, well, everybody. Ayn Rand found him to be a hero, and a model of her philosophy, which I find a chuckle, given how inconsistent his opinions were.

Mencken was noted for his ability to insult you while you thought you were being praised. In my opinion, if he called We the Living "a really excellent piece of work", I'm sure he meant it as in "Well aren't you a real piece of work". That is to say, I'm sure he considered it to be crap.

As Dorothy Parker once said about one of Rand's novels, Atlas Shrugged, “This is not a novel to be tossed aside lightly. It should be thrown with great force.”

 

[1sickbastard]

You should also acknowledge that science and scientific method are both products of the human mind; both are abstract conceptualizations that do not exist in nature, only man has the cognitive ability to focus his mind and that is by choice.

The same can be said for logic, reason, and rational thought. Or morality for that matter.

 

[1sickbastard]

If Mencken can be described as anything, besides a columnist, it would be contrariwise. He changed his opinion on a regular basis, usually in order to distance himself from, well, everybody.

He was also the first to admit just that.

As Dorothy Parker once said about one of Rand's novels, Atlas Shrugged, “This is not a novel to be tossed aside lightly. It should be thrown with great force.”

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 

[amicus]

Quote:
Originally Posted by amicus
You should also acknowledge that science and scientific method are both products of the human mind; both are abstract conceptualizations that do not exist in nature, only man has the cognitive ability to focus his mind and that is by choice.

The same can be said for logic, reason, and rational thought. Or morality for that matter.

~~~

Your point being...?

Ah, well...a memory came drifting back which I will share...

It took one single hour show on a Sunday afternoon in Honolulu before I was hired to conduct a program in prime time 'morning drive' radio.

It took about a week of programs before I noticed something curious...all the incoming telephone lines began to light up during the national newscast that preceded my program. People just couldn't wait to get at me.

In twenty years of moderating a talk radio program, it never changed and I never tired of it...well...a bit...at the very end...perhaps...

The customers then and there were quite like the ones here and now, all opposed and argumentative, one after another and it never ended...the lines were full before I opened the microphone and four hours later, they were full as I closed the program.

There were lighthearted moments...one when I interviewed a new breast implant patient who insisted I touch her and compare the feeling to the 'real thing'(s), and second, when the entire four hours was spent debating whether toilet paper rolls should be positioned to feed from the top or the bottom...I did learn the importance of humor in my efforts and it has served me well....

So...bring it on! Listers, I eagerly await thee!

ami

 

[Stella_Omega]

Because I think you really and truly, 'don't get it', I will invest a moment or so to enlighten you.

First; axioms, learn what the concept identifies.



You are not required to 'believe' in axiomatic truths, one can not 'prove' scientifically, a self evident truth; the concept is metaphysical you must use your mind to comprehend it. You can't touch it or fondle it or manipulate it, you actually have to use your mental ability to perceive it.

You should also acknowledge that science and scientific method are both products of the human mind; both are abstract conceptualizations that do not exist in nature, only man has the cognitive ability to focus his mind and that is by choice.

Amicus

ALL statements, even axioms and self-evident truths, are either: provable, or: not factual. But there is no self-evidence in metaphysics, which is baloney and bullshit from the word go.

So far, you've given us some samples of what you consider self evident, such as that ALL women who have had abortions undergo a Post Abortion syndrome. This is provably false, so not factual.

Another one of your favorite axioms is that there are absolute moralities. You're going to say this does not need proof, I know. That means-- it's not true.

And yet another is that anyone who disagrees with you is a sick and vicious human being. This is a perfect example of blind faith, and shows, as I've said before, that the only thing that makes an atheist is a disbelief in gods-- you can have as many goofy other quirks and superstitions as you like.

 

[sr71plt]

SR71, flare out and cool it. Is that remark of yours your variant on "You ain't from around yere, boy, are ya?" Maybe so, or maybe not, but everyone here is, or should be, capable of mannerly, if not civilized, conversation.

As for the "not sure" argument of Henry L. Menken, Oliver Wendell Homes was quoted as saying, "If I had to write down everything I know on a single sheet of legal paper, I'd get halfway down the page, and then write 'and I ain't so damn sure of that either'."

No, it's from years of being subjected to Amicus. Maybe you'll figure it out yourself someday if you stay around for a bit.

 

[DarianBlack]

Answer to the entire thread number 1:

Perception. The entire universe is AS WE SEE IT. It can never be anything more, regardless of what people try to tell themselves.


Answer to the entire thread number 2:

Repeat after me. "I don't know. I probably will never know... And I am OK with that."



^_^

 

[amicus]

To save yourself further embarrassment, you should know that you are not intellectually capable of being in this discussion. Go back to your Porn threads where you are qualified to speak.

I used to hang up on every third caller just to piss people off.

Amicus

 

[Stella_Omega]

The customers then and there were quite like the ones here and now, all opposed and argumentative, one after another and it never ended...the lines were full before I opened the microphone and four hours later, they were full as I closed the program.

Ah, In other words, you craaaaave attention with a cravenly cravingness.

Well, we knew that, too. Once in a while we give you what you crave. because we are nice guys that way.

And my next novel is going to have a hella antagonist. I could never make you up in my head, I'm grateful to have an example before me.