Atheist!

[amicus]

If you read more, you might understand more of the one you choose to criticize.

"...as long as you don't try to sell them as objective truths to me..."

Therein is the true departure point for you, in all things, as you have stated there are no 'objective truths'.

You post from a learned viewpoint, which is always appreciated, but I have the feeling that education robbed you of whatever faith or self esteem, objective self esteem, that you may have once held.

Liberal Arts education is famous for destroying all belief in all things and leaving the recipient with only questions and doubt. Then they 'sell' that as a virtue, to claim not to know, and many seem to have bought it.

A proper education should question belief and knowledge, but it should also reward one with the ability to think objectively and to perceive reality as it is, without bias or prejudice.

You come to me with an offer to debate philosophy in a formal manner but you ask that I leave my mind outside the door. You openly reject reality and axiomatic truth as a fundamental universal, a foundation for knowledge and expect me to accept that nothing is real, words have no absolute meaning or existence and that one can not 'know' truth.

Any rational person would decline that offer as I did.

Call it a rant, call it whatever you wish, but do not ever take it seriously and actually give it thought; it would blow your mind.

As I warned the poster wmrs2 that to acknowledge objective truth is to set your faith aside; one cannot both 'believe' and know, simultaneously. The same caveat applies to progressive liberals who have a belief apparatus that functions in the same manner; they reject reality, objectivity and human individual existence to embrace a communal ethic that glorifies the greater good at the sacrifice of the individual.

There is no definition for your beliefs, of you own choosing, nothing is absolute or definable in objective terms. Nothing one could critique about anything you post would hold weight for you, as you consider all but your own belief to be just the opinion of another.

And opinions are a dime a dozen or cheaper.

Which is why extended discussion with true believers of your sort is always fruitless. You have nothing to offer but criticism, regardless the point offered or made, unless it coincides with your preferred current flavor.

Amicus...

 

[past_perfect]

If you read more, you might understand more of the one you choose to criticize.



Therein is the true departure point for you, in all things, as you have stated there are no 'objective truths'.

You post from a learned viewpoint, which is always appreciated, but I have the feeling that education robbed you of whatever faith or self esteem, objective self esteem, that you may have once held.

Liberal Arts education is famous for destroying all belief in all things and leaving the recipient with only questions and doubt. Then they 'sell' that as a virtue, to claim not to know, and many seem to have bought it.

A proper education should question belief and knowledge, but it should also reward one with the ability to think objectively and to perceive reality as it is, without bias or prejudice.

You come to me with an offer to debate philosophy in a formal manner but you ask that I leave my mind outside the door. You openly reject reality and axiomatic truth as a fundamental universal, a foundation for knowledge and expect me to accept that nothing is real, words have no absolute meaning or existence and that one can not 'know' truth.

Any rational person would decline that offer as I did.

Call it a rant, call it whatever you wish, but do not ever take it seriously and actually give it thought; it would blow your mind.

As I warned the poster wmrs2 that to acknowledge objective truth is to set your faith aside; one cannot both 'believe' and know, simultaneously. The same caveat applies to progressive liberals who have a belief apparatus that functions in the same manner; they reject reality, objectivity and human individual existence to embrace a communal ethic that glorifies the greater good at the sacrifice of the individual.

There is no definition for your beliefs, of you own choosing, nothing is absolute or definable in objective terms. Nothing one could critique about anything you post would hold weight for you, as you consider all but your own belief to be just the opinion of another.

And opinions are a dime a dozen or cheaper.

Which is why extended discussion with true believers of your sort is always fruitless. You have nothing to offer but criticism, regardless the point offered or made, unless it coincides with your preferred current flavor.

Amicus...

Nope, I haven't stated that there are no objective truths. They are called facts, as I have stated before. I know those are an anathema to you, but I like and cherish them.

I started giving you definitions, you cringed and bailed out as soon as I asked for at least one of yours.

I have beliefs just like everyone else, however, I leave them at the cloakroom as soon as I enter a philosophical debate, for there they are simply unwanted. You are happy judging me from whatever twisted opinion you have formed in your mind about me - that is your prerogative - but if you really do want to have a rational discussion with me, stick to facts, definitions and logic and I will accommodate you.

 

[amicus]

Facts, definitions and logic are my stock in trade, as the saying goes. If that be true for both of us, some is amiss somewhere, eh?

Amicus...

 

[Pure]

note

ami: Therein is the true departure point for you, in all things, as you have stated there are no 'objective truths'.

You post from a learned viewpoint, which is always appreciated, but I have the feeling that education robbed you of whatever faith or self esteem, objective self esteem, that you may have once held.

the question isn't so much 'are there objective truths'-- e.g the earth is an oblate sphere-- as which of them we know, if any. even us socialists admit that the earth is an oblate sphere and say that we know it from scientific investigation! probably the "socialist" (liberal), Obama, does, too.

the second question is, 'are there objective truths in morals'; and again do we know them. for instance ami "knows" it's always wrong to sacrifice oneself for 'the greater good,' e.g. even for 'the American way of life and freedom.' ami "knows" it's wrong if the gov't grabs some of your bank account if don't pay the taxes passed by elected legistlature. or if it allows women to vote. ami "knows" it's wrong to torture unless, of course, a it's a terrorist suspect with important information.

ami "knows" a number of principles of sexual conduct to be right; the list is roughly the same as the Pope's. gay is wrong, straight and monogamous is right, etc. teen's use of birth control is wrong.

 

[amicus]

Why not just come and say what you mean, Pure, for all to see and think on.

You and most of your persuasion will grudgingly admit that 'some' objective truths concerning concrete reality may exist and we may or may be able to, 'know' them.

But you draw the line, an absolute, no trespass line, at the threshold that begins with concepts and abstractions; they remain, in your view, unknowable and always, relative to subjective perception.

You reject even the fundamental expression of concepts for the same reason and it is difficult at times, for one to comprehend why you do not see the concept of the number 1, as an unchanging, absolute perceived and abstracted and lo and behold, even communicated accurately between human minds.

I know why you reject the concept of universals; it is because if you accepted even one, one as fundamental as 1, then the floodgates of rational thought would overwhelm your closeted little mind and destroy all the personal fantasies you have created to replace reality and the ability of the mind to create concrete concepts and abstractions based upon that perception of reality.

Got it?

End of lesson for today.

Take two Amicus and call me in the morning.

amicus...

 

[john-the-author]

And also Og.

She's a ridiculous little twit.

Or a serious alt, working hard on a dumbed-down mentality.

I was really impressed with someone calling everyone trolls, particularly when the list included people that others have actually met.

I considered if this was an alt or a real person and I decided it really didn't matter. If it's a real person, then they're completely fucking pathetic, in desperate need of medication for at least a couple of conditions (as well as a bunch of social training to break them out of their self-destructive patterns). And then, I thought that if this is an alt for someone trolling... well, I think that the same judgement applies all the way 'round, even though the underlying pathos is for slightly different reasons.

So, the bottom line is "Who cares? They're a complete douche either way."

P.S. And the concerts went GREAT! We've got some return gigs and we're apparently now slated to perform for 800 National Guard people at the beginning of April who are getting shipped out to Iraq.

 

[Pure]

note to ami

ami You reject even the fundamental expression of concepts for the same reason and it is difficult at times, for one to comprehend why you do not see the concept of the number 1, as an unchanging, absolute perceived and abstracted and lo and behold, even communicated accurately between human minds.

I know why you reject the concept of universals;

here's another thing ami "knows", that ain't so. I LOVE the universals of math [am a bit of a Platonist] and an happy with the objective truth of

e**[i*pi] + 1 = 0.

the equation links the basic constants of mathematics, in a beautiful way.

yes, and for ami, something easier, 1+1 = 2. objectively true.

why exactly this means gay sex is wrong, however is unclear to me; perhaps ami will give us the objective reasoning from the above to that conclusion.

 

[amicus]

Well, the 'little twit', to use one of the kinder terms thrown her way, sure stirred up the mud in the frog pond now, didn't she?

Been good for about ten pages now, give or take, so if she returns she will have some catching up to do with all the insults and such.

If her very pointed criticisms of the liberals and psuedo atheists were so off the mark, then why did you pay any attention at all?

just curious...

Amicus...

 

[amicus]

Well, accept this small lesson as pro bono, oh, Pure one.

Since you admit to the reality of a concept, the number 1; and since you even extended that to an abstraction, one plus one, and even reached a true/false, right/wrong, good/bad, conclusion, then you have established the groundwork for your own destruction.

Using just that small amount of rationality and logic, you could, with just a little effort, extend and expand your consciousness to include the morality and ethical nature of all human actions.

I mean, could you stoop so low? I mean even if every other philosopher in the entire history of time chose to deal with the innate ethics of human action, would you really take your stab at it?

Gee, do let us know of your rational and logic conclusions, please!

Amicus...

 

[jomar]

This struck a chord with me, Ami. I am not a religious person, but I have faith. My faith is based on the premise that no matter how dark it gets "things will work out." The interesting thing is that this faith is based in reality. That is, in my life, the data has shown that no matter how challenging it gets...things will work out. So do I have a reality based faith or a faith based reality? Maybe I'll start a church...I've always wanted to live at the beach.

~~~

I got slapped up alongside the head with your example of 'faith', a long time ago, and this is intended as an agreement of sorts, not a refutation.

That the sun rises each day and always has, is no guarantee that it will rise tomorrow, we have, 'faith' that it will.

I propose that we must have that kind of continuity in life, for to imagine that an asteroid would fall from the sky and take our life indescriminately and to think that, each night upon retiring, would be a burden after a while.

It seems the more that is known about the nature of earth, the solar system and indeed the universe, what with solar flares and gamma bursts, that human life is tenacious enough without unduly worrying about it.

amicus...

Well, when it comes to asteroids and train wrecks...I've always thought denial to be an underrated defense mechanism if one's rational brain fails to serve.

But one can find grace and serenity even in serious illness.

 

[past_perfect]

Facts, definitions and logic are my stock in trade, as the saying goes. If that be true for both of us, some is amiss somewhere, eh?

Amicus...

Yeah, well, what seems to be amiss is that I am still waiting for your definitions. So far I heard you using grand words and claiming their dictionary meaning must suffice as definitions.

Facts tend to be what science uncovers and draws conclusions from, so my natural conclusion was that we couldn't stop at what science had uncovered in the fifties, but probably have to take into account what we know now - your standpoint seems to differ somewhat there, although I can't really make out any rational explanation as to why that could be the case.

Logic is a tool that not only can be used but must be used in a rational argument, and I am still waiting for evidence that you are capable of such. What you might find somewhat limiting is that you can't jump to conclusions. So it doesn't really work like: A= true; B= true; D=socialist; if D claims A+B=C then C= false.

@Pure
Yeah, I know where we would be heading at one point, but so far I am not even sure amicus and I speak the same language. Never thought I would say this, but I miss Roxanne - at least she tried to adhere to the rational principles she held dear and attempted to be clear and occasionally even concise.

 

[sr71plt]

One other thing: Why do you all think that wmrs2 is a young girl? All she said was that her education ended at the 6th grade - which could have been due to a lot of things. She claims to be a published author, having read Kant asf - so the assumption that she is still young wouldn't really be founded in anything she said. Since very few parents have the DSM IV lying around I would suppose she is coming from a family of medical professionals also.

Frankly, I don't even think, let alone assume, that wmrs2 is female. This seems more a male Internet game to me.

 

[sadangel]

Frankly, I don't even think, let alone assume, that wmrs2 is female. This seems more a male Internet game to me.

I assume it's a girl because in one post, either in this thread or in the holy porn thread, she mentioned that she is "a sixth grade girl". Of course, in another post in the same thread, she said her husband could kick our asses. So I don't know nor do I care if wrms is a female or male.

 

[sr71plt]

I assume it's a girl because in one post, either in this thread or in the holy porn thread, she mentioned that she is "a sixth grade girl". Of course, in another post in the same thread, she said her husband could kick our asses. So I don't know nor do I care if wrms is a female or male.

Oh, laying such false clues is part of the game. The problem is that this type of gamester isn't good enough a writer to maintain continuity. You can usually pick out the false clues because they are so alien to the gamester that he/she can't stay in that character. The "sixth grade girl" and "my husband" comments would be classic examples of that. If the characteristic chosen was the same gender and circumstance as the writer, they would naturally be able to stay in that character.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I'd say it's a man, but i can't quite isolate the text clues that lead me to say that-- although one of them, I totally admit, is the thought that Ami spoke of it as a young girl!

In keeping with his accuracy rate, this troll should be mid-fifties, balding and bearded.

I mean, here's a guy who says that (1+1=2) = absolute morality.

 

[rgraham666]

I mean, here's a guy who says that (1+1=2) = absolute morality.

It's easier than thinking.

 

[freshface]

I simply judge him by his behavior. I am not a newbie at understanding insults whether these be from Og or you. I am happy that you were honest enough to identify with the trolls. It is possible that I have miss judged Og, time will tell. If so, I will be the first to apologize. As you point out, I am a newbie and still learning who to respect. I know these damn trolls are not worthy of anybody's respect. People are what they are and what they do. And freshface that applies to you and me both. Thanks for the heads up on Og and thanks for dropping by.

By the way, if you think what I have posted is really bizarre, outline why and enter the discussion like a gentleman and I will respect you. Otherwise, I will consider you another troll coming to the rescue of his buddies.
wmrs2

If my choices are to identify with you or to identify with the people you call trolls, then I take my troll hat with honor. I don't know why it surprises me that you define troll as poorly as everything else.

I haven't seen you actually discuss anything yet. You've thrown out your beliefs as unyielding facts and insulted everyone who's failed to see your "truth". I learned long ago that there's no point discussing religion with zealots, because they are so convinced that they are right that they can't understand that others might have alternate truths that are just as valid. It is, in fact, people like you who are driving me away from religion. You keep nattering away. I'll be off chatting with my fellow trolls.

 

[rengadeirishman]

for shame, you should all be drinking instead of arguing about religion

 

[TheeGoatPig]

I have never been drunk, and haven't consumed alcohol in 22 years since I was around 11.

 

[Guest]

for shame, you should all be drinking instead of arguing about religion

Starting in about 24 hours . . .

 

[rengadeirishman]

I have never been drunk, and haven't consumed alcohol in 22 years since I was around 11.

well you also aren't arguing about religion

and why 24 hours sarah?

 

[Guest]

well you also aren't arguing about religion

and why 24 hours sarah?

Because I'll be checking into the hotel in Chicago.

 

[rengadeirishman]

ah, no st. paddy's drinking?

 

[Guest]

ah, no st. paddy's drinking?

We toasted with mojitos last night and took the kids to the Blarney Breakfast fundraiser this morning. Our buddy Fumbles the Clown made balloon animals and we were serenaded by a little old lady playing Irish tunes on a violin.

Tonight, alas, I must get to bed early. Long drive tomorrow.

 

[rengadeirishman]

ah, well have fun then. One day i will attend a litogether, because it would be nice to meet people.