On Being Atheist...

[sr71plt]

Don't feel sad, DarianBlack. I'm sure Amicus was directing that last brilliant barb at me. He kept it short, so I read it.

Sounds like someone's gotten his goat and he can't find it.

 

[DarianBlack]

Don't feel sad, DarianBlack. I'm sure Amicus was directing that last brilliant barb at me. He kept it short, so I read it.

Sounds like someone's gotten his goat and he can't find it.

Don't worry about it. It really doesn't come down to a matter of Faith, intelligence, or voodoo. It's all about "Does it REALLY fucking matter?"

I typically avoid such philosophical debates now. Because no, it really isn't important. What's important is what each of us ACTUALLY does with our lives. In another respect - how we perceive our lives and our universe is the only thing of any importance. And there is no right or wrong to that.

So what's everyone arguing about?

 

[amicus]

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."

^_^

~~~

Hello, DarianBlack, that has a nice sound to it spoken out loud....

Welcome to the forum...let us see how long you hang around and if you have anything of substance to offer.

'as we see it', of course, but a caveat, we can see it as it is, reality that is and if we need a little help with the macro and the micro, we invent telescopes & microscopes, ain't that a gas?

You sound like a cow in a herd of cows, don't know, don't want to know, where are the oats?

heh

ami

 

[DarianBlack]

You sound like a cow in a herd of cows, don't know, don't want to know, where are the oats?

heh

ami

What's wrong with that? The cow that runs about fretting over what's in the slaughterhouse still has to go there at the end of the day. Knowing his fate doesn't change it.

 

[sr71plt]

I typically avoid such philosophical debates now. Because no, it really isn't important. What's important is what each of us ACTUALLY does with our lives. In another respect - how we perceive our lives and our universe is the only thing of any importance. And there is no right or wrong to that.

Amen to that.

I only dip into these threads occasionally myself to check on whether Amicus is still being arrogant, insufferable, and delusional. So far, he always is.

 

[amicus]

What's wrong with that? The cow that runs about fretting over what's in the slaughterhouse still has to go there at the end of the day. Knowing his fate doesn't change it.

~~~

Yeah, yeah, yeah, but a man is not a cow and he does think of the end of the day and he does fret over it.

To question, is one of the defining characteristics of being human, c'mon, join the race!

Amicus

 

[DarianBlack]

~~~

Yeah, yeah, yeah, but a man is not a cow and he does think of the end of the day and he does fret over it.

To question, is one of the defining characteristics of being human, c'mon, join the race!

Amicus

I absolutely, irrevocably, and with utmost intensity - REFUSE.

Humans are fucking stupid -_-'

 

[amicus]

Y'know, someday on this forum, someone will put into words why they hate the human race so much.

Personally, I am proud beyond words at the magnificence of man and his achievements, but then, thas me, I guess.

Amicus Veritas

 

[DarianBlack]

Y'know, someday on this forum, someone will put into words why they hate the human race so much.

Personally, I am proud beyond words at the magnificence of man and his achievements, but then, thas me, I guess.

Amicus Veritas

Don't get me wrong - I don't hate Homo Sapiens. It's a proud species with a great history. They're funny and creative and delightfully odd.

However, there is NO getting past the fact that they are indeed, fucking stupid. And I'll not be a part, no thank you very much. I'm sitting this one out. I'll participate next species/lifetime.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Y'know, someday on this forum, someone will put into words why they hate the human race so much.

Personally, I am proud beyond words at the magnificence of man and his achievements, but then, thas me, I guess.

Amicus Veritas

Right. You admire mankind. But you sure pack a lot of hatred for people.

 

[sr71plt]

Y'know, someday on this forum, someone will put into words why they hate the human race so much.

I think a lot of the human race. That's why I reject you. You tempt me to be ashamed of a certain segment of the human race (where you, in your obdurate ignorance and selfishness, reside).

 

[1sickbastard]

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...?

That your whole premise for your atheism, and for the moraility you've been spouting
a) are products of the human mind-specifically your mind, and
b) don't exist in nature.

So by your own admission, your entire arguement is based on an illusion.
In other words, you're full of shit.

Oh, go on, go ahead and deny it. You're only fooling yourself at this point.
It's just so damn funny!

 

[stephen55]

Why, I ask in all sincerity, is it considered intellectual, sophicated(sic) 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(sic) 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

Let's see...

Of that which one is not knowledgeable...why not say so. Someone who is at the very cutting edge of bacterial genetic engineering, but doesn't know quantum mechanics from auto mechanics...would it hurt to admit it? For that someone to admit it would not be considered sophisticated (don't you have a spell check, ami?), or intellectual, much less wise. It would be academic honesty. "Look, I'm a biologist. If you want to know about quantum mechanics, try the physics department." Such tolerance for the masses, such humility before the less able.

I'll leave Ayn Rand alone for now and your intolerance for new ideas is legend around here.

Moving on...the Periodic Table of the Elements is incomplete, therefore, according to me, nothing is absolute...drivel, ami, pure drivel.

By the way, there is nothing axiomatic about the nature of said Table. An axiom is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but considered to be either self-evident, or subject to necessary decision. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted. The underlying nature of the Periodic Table is based on the availability of electrons in any element, in the outermost orbital, to make chemical bonds with other elements. Thus, the Table is based on well tested theory. Axiom has nothing to do with it.

Damn, but I wish you would stop tossing around grandiloquent and hopelessly incorrect verbiage!

I must admit it takes a certain type of skill to draw such bullshit conclusions from simple premises. Aristotle's syllogistic logic...what the fuck is that and why should I care!!

I believe it was Stella who told you that science is a process. She is correct. Again, that hardly means that nothing is absolute. Let me put it into large font and bright color...

Everything that is not absolute is absolute.

Unfortunately for you, ami, most things are not absolute.

And before anyone else gets upset, I admit to paraphrasing Carl Sagan.

And, what the hell...one more shot at absolute truths in science. Galileo (that is how it's spelled) would be the first to scoff at absolute truths in science, but then, he was amongst other things, a scientist. And as for the absolute truths of Copernicus (I assume you're referring to his Heliocentric theory, first put forward by Aristarchus of Samos, almost two millennium before Copernicus), his truths were far from absolute. He believed that the planets went around the Sun, moving on Celestial Spheres, moving in perfect circular orbits. There are no Celestial Spheres and the orbits are elliptical, not circular. Getting one out of three does not make for an absolute truth.

"the psychological imperative that a man 'know' as much about everything as he can and know it with certainty."

Knock yourself out, ami, and give my disregards to Leonard Peikoff.

 

[Guest]

*deleted*

 

[amicus]

Starting this Thread, "On Being Atheist", was done to elicit commentary on what it means to live without a faith in any Deity and the accompanying moral and ethical code of any particular religion.

Without Supernal guidance, how does man determine that which is right and that which is wrong, and act accordingly?

The response has been a mixed bag at best and disappointing at least and I am curious as to why?

I don't remember who introducted abortion as a moral issue; perhaps it was me, perhaps not, but it serves as well, perhaps better, than any other issue because it remains such a controversial subject.

I understand the reluctance of most to address the issue; absolute morality in the Church has led to horrors beyond comprehension as have the absolute ideologies of the past and present. Thus, few will even consider that any ethical or moral considerations could be absolute, universal and unchanging; I get all that.

Life itself, which all possess, for the moment, anyway, requires action to sustain life and those actions must be judged as good or bad or indifferent, perhaps, for our agnostics, but still, living requires choosing and to choose, man must have either faith or knowledge guide him in his choices.

As an overview, I would direct you to this link: http://www.americanhumanist.org/Who_We_Are/About_Humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_I

I searched 'humanist manifesto', the link above provides 15 statements that you might find interesting and some of which, most actually, have been reflected in this Thread.

Religion, as a source of moral guidance, has been waning since the age of Darwin, if not before, so...the quest for moral guidance outside Theology, has been going on for a good hundred years and more.

It was never my intention to offer an ethical or moral agenda, merely to establish two things; one, such a code is necessary, and two, it can be achieved.

Ayn Rand comes into the equation because she offered, in her works, an approach to understanding human actions in absolute terms. But Rand is not a source of 'belief', rather as a guide to rational thought directed toward human morals and ethics.

I have been equally chastized for being a follower of Rand, which I am not, and as an heretic, for daring to disagree with Rand, which I do.

I also reject the majority of the Humanist Manifesto statements, and if need be, I can go through them one at a time and tell you why.

Amicus

 

[amicus]

And for women.

Well, unless they are verrrry young.

~~~

Ahhh...Sweets...is it because you are past your prime as many female Litsters are, old Hippies, who are upset that men choose younger women over older?

In a world wide study that I presented years ago, men from all over the world were presented photos of women and asked to choose which they found more attractive. Ya know what they all chose? The young, the nubile, the healthy, and the golden ratio of breasts to waists to hips...is it any wonder I chose that category to write about and glorify?

And you are right, I like em young. A young Brooke Shields, a young Kristen Stewart in the current 'Twilight' phenonenon, but you know what, so does almost every male on the planet.

So, get over yourself and your obsession with painting me as a pedophile, I am not and never have been. I do like to write in the 'first time' category, and that usually implies youth and since my focus is on the individual and my insistence that every human being is unique and special, then my field of subjects is unlimited and enticing.

I could care less about the arbitrary 18 year age barrier as young love starts much younger than that and if you simply obey the rules, then you limit yourself and miss the most important formative years of sexual awareness and fulfillment.

I sense it also disturbs you that I find women to be more emotional than men and certainly more open and spontaneous and immently seductible, given the right circumstances and time of month and I suppose you hate being female and subject to your emotional rollercoaster...tough titty...



ami

 

[Stella_Omega]

The response has been a mixed bag at best and disappointing at least and I am curious as to why?

because nobody is exclaiming over your genius. Your fat old ego is on a diet.

I don't remember who introducted abortion as a moral issue; perhaps it was me, perhaps not, but it serves as well, perhaps better, than any other issue because it remains such a controversial subject.

it would be devastatingly easy for you to go back a few pages and check, you lazy pile of shit.

It was never my intention to offer an ethical or moral agenda, merely to establish two things; one, such a code is necessary, and two, it can be achieved.

You couldn't stop yourself, though, could you? Not only that, but many people said the same thing but you didn't take notice. What a surprise.

Ayn Rand comes into the equation because she offered, in her works, an approach to understanding human actions in absolute terms. But Rand is not a source of 'belief', rather as a guide to rational thought directed toward human morals and ethics.

Only if you believe her. Which you obviously do, or you wouldn't make statements like this.

I also reject the majority of the Humanist Manifesto statements, and if need be, I can go through them one at a time and tell you why.

HAHAHA. Of COURSE, I'm sure, "need be" is fast approaching. Five... Four... Three... Two... One...

Tell us ami! Bring on the teal deer!

 

[stephen55]

~~~

Ahhh...Sweets...is it because you are past your prime as many female Litsters are, old Hippies, who are upset that men choose younger women over older?

In a world wide study that I presented years ago, men from all over the world were presented photos of women and asked to choose which they found more attractive. Ya know what they all chose? The young, the nubile, the healthy, and the golden ratio of breasts to waists to hips...is it any wonder I chose that category to write about and glorify?

And you are right, I like em young. A young Brooke Shields, a young Kristen Stewart in the current 'Twilight' phenonenon, but you know what, so does almost every male on the planet.

So, get over yourself and your obsession with painting me as a pedophile, I am not and never have been. I do like to write in the 'first time' category, and that usually implies youth and since my focus is on the individual and my insistence that every human being is unique and special, then my field of subjects is unlimited and enticing.

I could care less about the arbitrary 18 year age barrier as young love starts much younger than that and if you simply obey the rules, then you limit yourself and miss the most important formative years of sexual awareness and fulfillment.

I sense it also disturbs you that I find women to be more emotional than men and certainly more open and spontaneous and immently seductible, given the right circumstances and time of month and I suppose you hate being female and subject to your emotional rollercoaster...tough titty...



ami

Can you say misogynist?

Can you put it on a postcard?

Can you send the postcard to ami?

Of course you can't send the postcard to ami.


Can you post, here at Lit?

Of course you can post here at Lit.

 

[Stella_Omega]

It's a beautiful day in the neighborhood for Aqualung.

 

[stephen55]

It's a beautiful day in the neighborhood for Aqualung.

Sitting on a park bench
Eying up little girls with bad intent
Snots running down his nose
Greasy fingers smearing shabby clothes, hey, Aqualung


There's more, but you get the idea.

 

[1sickbastard]

Sitting on a park bench
Eying up little girls with bad intent
Snots running down his nose
Greasy fingers smearing shabby clothes, hey, Aqualung


There's more, but you get the idea.

Continuing with the music lyric theme-

Legend in his own lunchtime,
It ain't even easy to be the apex,
In a kingdom of one.

From Jesco the Dancing Outlaw by Sam Blackchurch

 

[stephen55]

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.
Amicus

I have never had anything to do with commercial radio, but I'll guess that a radio station that has a call in/talk show has only one real concern; that people actually call in. I believe it has something to do with ratings.

My second guess is that the radio station didn't hire ami for his sparkling intellect and his Ph.D. in Formal Philosophy.

ami, the reason people couldn't wait to get at you is because you are a special kind of moron. Somewhere along the line, you learned a lot of big words which taxed your limits to the point you weren't able to learn their meaning, much less how to put a few of them into a sentence without proclaiming to all your moronicity.

My third guess, ami, is that people called in because you annoyed them. Just like those intellectually challenged morons in first year university that are always trying to get you to argue, then flunked out, so you don't have to put up with them in second year. Now I know where they go after flunking out.

 

[amicus]

I have an amusing anecdote about 'formal philosophy', that taught at University by faggot professors who are usually buggering their effete Grad students that teach most of the classes.

It was the first question on the Final Exam of my 4th year with sufficient upper level courses to earn the Paper; "Who was Plato's mother?"

Well...that pissed me off...first, because I hadn't a clue, and secondly because I had 'crammed' all night on aspects of 'The Republic' and felt well prepared for the Exam. But being who I am, I crumpled the Exam folder into a ball and dropped it, ceremoniously into the trash can by the Professors desk.

I had planned to teach, but even before that incident, already had my doubts if I could indeed lower myself to the politics of departmental intrigue and the bastardization of Philosophy into flowery rhetoric on Marxism.

I did look up the name of Plato's mother, (I thought he came about by spontaneous generation) her name was Perictione; fitting, I thought.

Amicus

 

[Stella_Omega]

This meaningless anecdote was brought to you by the letters "P" and "U" and number-2

and by ami's infantile eagerness to get in a homophobic slur if he possibly can.

*takes notes for my novel* What's really fun about this character is the way my other characters bounce off of him. I get to write lots of dropped jaws, and turning away to hide the smiles, and people collapsing in laughter after he's left the room.

 

[Guest]

*deleted*