pashley - **pashley: "You're right, you cannot deny Him! What would Freud say about that slip up?" That isn't a slip, my friend. What you don't seem to realize is that if I cannot deny a god by any means due to a principle of his supposed existence, neither can you prove him by any means. **pashley: "But I believe, and will argue, that we can detect him through logical arguments." Then you simply do not understand the basis of logic. Logic, as Ayn Rand so often puts it, is the art of non-contradictory identification. The two important parts of that are 'non-contradictory' and 'identification'. You cannot identify god, nor can you deduce him from 'logical arguments'. Ultimately, you must accept a deity on a feeling, a belief, or a choice to abandon logic. **pashley: "If I went thru an old abandoned warehouse, find a package, open it, and find a beautiful painting, a wondeful landscape, painted with oils, is it not logical to assume, that a human painted it?" I've heard this far too many times, so I might as well put an end to it here. You skip several important logical steps in this implication of a deity. You must first assume or prove the existence of humans before you can go through the steps to determine whether they caused the painting. So, you must first assume the existence of a god to assume that a god created the universe. Therefore, since you have already assumed what you are trying to prove, you invalidate the argument. **pashley: "Do I sense an anger from you because you feel people are trying to force you to believe something? If you don't believe it, fine, just let it go." I'm not quite sure why you sense anger from me. I suppose its just the way in which I compose these posts.. either way, I assure you I bear no anger towards you. As for rationality, if you can find a logical flaw in my arguments, point it out.. Sincerely, FyreStar [This message has been edited by FyreStar (edited May 08, 2000).]
Well, I guess I could make that argument, calling all events a process of God, because He started the whole thing! A good intro to my next topic, a cosmological argument. I think this thread has pretty much run it's course. ------------------ "It was there, at the edge of the black abyss, that I found myself." -Patrick Ashley
Well, I disagree. God can be detected from logical arguments, as I will show in the cosmological argument thread when I come back from vacation. Also, some of his nature can be gleaned from what he has done. Well, first, I think we can all agree humans exist, can't we (LOL!)! Do you want to challenge that, and get into a non-productive existential quagmire? C'mon. And BTW, there was no implication of a deity in that argument. The core of that argument is cause and effect, again, leading into my cosmological argument. I'm going to have a tough time with you in that thread, aren't I? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ------------------ "It was there, at the edge of the black abyss, that I found myself." -Patrick Ashley
pashley - **pashley: "God can be detected from logical arguments, as I will show in the cosmological argument thread when I come back from vacation. " I'd like to see it. **pashley: "Well, first, I think we can all agree humans exist, can't we (LOL!)! " You missed the entire point! What I showed was that the existence of the painting does not prove the existence of humanity. Furthermore, since, as you said, we can't seem to 'put god in a can', we cannot do the same in your argument. As for cause and effect.. When we observe an effect, we can say that there was a cause. However, before we can attribute it to a particular cause, we must first prove the existence of that cause, and then prove that it could be only that particular cause. It all comes back to the Law of Identity. **pashley: "I'm going to have a tough time with you in that thread, aren't I?" You bet Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Sincerely, FyreStar
Although you cleanse the outside, inside you are filled with plunder and evil. Did not the maker of the outside also make the inside? As to what is within, give alms, and behold, everything will be clean for you. You pay your tithes and taxes but you pay no attention to judgement and to love for God. These you should do without overlooking the others. You love seats of honor and greetings in marketplaces. Woe to you! You are like unseen graves over which people unknowingly walk. You impose on people burdens hard to carry but you do not lift one finger to touch them. You build the memorials of the prophets whom your ancestors killed. Consequently, you bear witness and give consent to the deeds of your ancestors, for they killed them and you do the building. Yes, I tell you, this generation will be charged with their blood! Woe to you, scholars of the law! You have taken away the key of knowledge. You yourselves did not enter and you stopped those trying to enter. ------------------ This is The Word of God
Word, all I see is death and destruction. Your words are like trumpets of chaos. If you do not sway from your stance, this is the ultimate outcome of fudamentalism.
Fyrestar: The meaning of words change constantly. The job of lexicographers is to make dictionaries reflect the meanings of words current with the times. The way in which all of us understand reality is by generalization and individualization. If you can that judgement, we are all guilty. It’s just that I have found that many people that belong to certain categories choose to euphemize the meaning of their particular group. Whenever you “pigeon-hole” someone you are placing him or her in a group. If they say that they belong to that group they have “pigeon-holed” themselves. It was not my intention to offend, far from it. For some reason what I said struck a nerve. I find that interesting. Every person is an individual that belongs to many different groups. I find nothing judgmental about that unless you mean: Judgement: The capacity to assess situations or circumstances and draw sound conclusions; good sense. American Heritage Dictionary. A good case can be made for the confusion some in the scientific community create when they misuse the word "evolution". They start they argument with the meaning "change in the allele frequencies" and later in the argument they change their meaning to " man evolved from apelike creatures". We all need to be as careful as we can with the words we use. Anything less causes problems.
Word, Perhaps your intentions are meant in the best way...BUT, I feel that all you are accomplishing is pushing people further away... as someone said in another thread it would be best if you could be somewhat more "real".
One does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes forth from the mouth of God. ------------------ This is The Word of God
Flash-- It seems I forgot to say "Welcome" when I saw your name in another post. Or maybe I thought you were gone for longer than you were. Anyway, nice to see you 'round these days. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ------------------ We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)
Adlerian - First of all, your dictionary stinks. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The definition of judgement, most obviously is 'the act of judging'. It does NOT imply good sense, nor does it imply sound conclusions. The KKK judges all blacks to be bad.. would you consider that good and sound? Second, you are hiding behind so-called 'changing meanings'. What you did with your example, and implied that you do consistantly is judge people based on nothing more than what your own biases insist that their names mean, and what your so-named Heretic to English dictionary tells you. By doing that you seperate humanity's varieties into a few easy to digest forms. I agree that we must be careful with our words; however, words are not the be-all end-all of existence. They are merely concrete representations of concepts. You are simply finding a way of generalizing that isn't immediately obvious. If you had objective, constant definitions used by objective people, and then considered them without personal bias (with which your statement about satanism is loaded), such rules might apply. I know it wasn't your intention to offend, and I was not offended. Shocked, perhaps, and disappointed, but not offended. The 'nerve' you struck was my respect for individualism. [This message has been edited by FyreStar (edited May 11, 2000).]
Fryestar: Interestingly you seem to gravitate to individualism when you, like me, belong to certain groups. If generalization didn't work we would be unable to know anything. And marketing, particularly POLITICAL marketing, wouldn't work. It does and that is how elections are won, focus groups and poll-taking. Demographically speaking, it works. If that shocks you, then I am shocked, for I KNOW you are brighter than that. The dictionary I used is a common one. I should have chosen a better example. How about this one? Would you let the members of NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association) define themselves? Or would you rather a dictionary do it? Being a member of that organization carries with it certain unsavory baggage. I hope that doesn't shock you as well. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Being a Satanist also carries with it unsavory baggage that most intelligent people understand. I know very few parents who would let a Satanist babysit for them or housesit for them or even watch their pets while they are on vacation. If that shocks you as well, than I am shocked too. Ratiocination is born of common sense, as when you use the term, judgement. "She has good judgement" is a compliment to a person, perhaps that meant that she as a attactive blonde female she didn't walk down a dimly lit street in an all Negro neighborhood in the middle of the night. Just some thoughts to brighten your day! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Hey Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Awwwwww...thank you for the welcome back. That was very sweet. It's good to see that you are still here!! You have a way of cracking me up ...you are too funny my good man. Take care, Flash
Adlerian - You are still missing the point. Dictionaries give definitions, but not in the vast, morally encompassing way you seem to think. If they do, they are prejudiced. If people don't allow Satanists, for example, to babysit their kids simply because they are Satanists, thats ridiculous. If I had kids that needed babysitting, I would try to find the best person for the job, whatever their religious beliefs. I wouldn't let a militant Satanists watch my kids, but neither would I let an overzealous Christian watch them. To make each judgement, I would have to meet and know something about the people involved beyond their titles. If I hear that some person is labelled as 'Has Good Judgement', I wouldn't let them near my kids until I had verified that. You still don't seem to realize what you are doing. You evidently have some hatred or disgust for certain groups, and you use that to validate your own moral stereotyping. How is that different from the mindsets that caused slavery and genocide? FyreStar
You are still missing the point. Dictionaries give definitions, but not in the vast, morally encompassing way you seem to think. If they do, they are prejudiced. If people don't allow Satanists, for example, to babysit their kids simply because they are Satanists, thats ridiculous. If I had kids that needed babysitting, I would try to find the best person for the job, whatever their religious beliefs. I wouldn't let a militant Satanists watch my kids, but neither would I let an overzealous Christian watch them. To make each judgement, I would have to meet and know something about the people involved beyond their titles. If I hear that some person is labelled as 'Has Good Judgement', I wouldn't let them near my kids until I had verified that. You still don't seem to realize what you are doing. You evidently have some hatred or disgust for certain groups, and you use that to validate your own moral stereotyping. How is that different from the mindsets that caused slavery and genocide? FyreStar: Please elaborate on this: Evidently you don't have children. It would be wiser to say what you would or would not do in a given situation when you have the opportunity to be in the that situation, to say otherwise is to speculate and assume. Please name the various groups you embrace. What are your feelings for religious fundamentalists? What about the KKK? You seem to have some animosity toward them or you wouldn't have said, "The KKK judges all blacks to be bad.. " such statements are judgmental. How many KKK members have you known personally? So you think it is wise to judge them on hearsay? As far as my feelings about groups are concern, I eshew them all with equal disdain including the ones I belong to. You seem to be under the misperception that to embrace groups is to be morally sound. Nothing could be further from the truth. Gangs and mob mentality are born of groups. Like dogs they run in packs. Vicious and untamable they produce most of the misery and sorrow we as a human race has experienced. Groups are known by the similar attributes they possess amoung the members of the groups in toto. When I dislike a certain attribute that the group has I do not like the group. This is a long list: Religious fundamentalists, whites, blacks, women, men, children, dogs, cats, Homophobes, Gays, etc, etc, etc ad infinitum. Do ya get me, sweetheart? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! As far as my actions toward others are concerned I weigh what I know about the group they belong to and watch to see if they as an individual either retain the attribute or not, then based on that I interact with them accordingly. As far as personal safety is concerned, I don't place myself in dangerous or injurious situations whenever I can help it. That is the mandate of common sense. I am not tolerant of groups I am tolerant of individuals. Each is judged according to their actions as far as the mandates of common sense will allow. Is that clear to you? Adlerian
Adlerian - **Adlerian: "It would be wiser to say what you would or would not do in a given situation when you have the opportunity to be in the that situation, to say otherwise is to speculate and assume." Well, not for those of us who have solid principles. But anyways, you are basically calling me a liar here, so I won't bother to respond. **Adlerian: "You seem to be under the misperception that to embrace groups is to be morally sound. " Glad to see you've been reading my posts... **Adlerian: "Please name the various groups you embrace" My friends, my family, and people who share my views. **Adlerian: "As far as my actions toward others are concerned I weigh what I know about the group they belong to and watch to see if they as an individual either retain the attribute or not, then based on that I interact with them accordingly. " Now that you've turned almost 180 degrees, we have little to discuss. One more thing maybe.. **Adlerian: "Gangs and mob mentality are born of groups. Like dogs they run in packs. Vicious and untamable they produce most of the misery and sorrow we as a human race has experienced." And thats exactly what you were trying to do to people: group them. Ok one more Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! **Adlerian: "You seem to have some animosity toward them or you wouldn't have said, "The KKK judges all blacks to be bad.. " such statements are judgmental." You are confusing judgement and definition again. FyreStar
FryeStar: It is easy to see that you haven't the slightest clue what generalizing means. In so far as that it true it follows that I would be wasting my time and yours to try to explain what I am talking about. If you wish to have Satanists babysit your children (when and if you have some) you may do as you wish for we all have autonomy, albeit limited, in this life. And when your lack of discernment causes you to lose custody to a state organization you will have no one to blame but yourself, though I doubt you have ever placed any blame there. For now and the future you may keep your moralizing to yourself. Though I understand what you are saying I also know just how much sense it makes. Pity you don't. It would be best for both of us to keep our comments to each other to ourselves and save each other the embarrassment that any continued dialogue would ensure though I doubt that your ego will be able to resist commenting to me again. Let us hope I am wrong, though it is unlikely. I come here to learn and teach. You haven't anything to teach me and you are unable to understand even a modicum of my thought. Therefore, let us live in peace and keep a silence between us. If you are unable to stop yourself from responding to this, just realize that I am not listening to you and will not respond to anything you write, ever. Peace, Adlerian
Alderian-- Can I stick my little nose in here? It's just that certain things you and Fyre have written in your recent exchange have caught my interest of late. There's a few things here: * NAMBLA is a political organization, pure and simple. A member of NAMBLA subscribes to its charter/mission/whatever. Therefore, you know that babysitter coming through that door advocates the idea of men and children having sex. However .... * That leads me to ask upon what you base your idea of "Satanism"? After all, history demonstrates that being a Christian carries its own unsavory moral baggage. In fact, any human endeavor carries unsavory moral baggage. Have you been a practicing Satanist? Are you familiar with the modern works of LaVey, Michael Aquinas, and others? Do you know why Ayn Rand and Mark Twain are considered important writers among modern American Satanists? In fact, I'm curious to hear what it is you know about Satanism, since you've already learned enough to make moral judgements about Satanists. (Oh, and remember--for every wacky murder in the middle of nowhere when some stupid teen says, "The Devil made me do it; we listened to Judas Priest until it told us to kill", well, there's, oh, let's just say many unjust murders committed because someone thought God told them to do it. So your barbs at Satanism apply to any such religion which might be guilty of the same observable acts.) * How many of those parents that you know who wouldn't let a Satanist babysit their kids know anything about the religion that doesn't come from the family preacher, anti-expressionist literature, or isn't otherwise immersed in some subtle hysteria? Regarding "all-Negro neighborhoods" ... how, exactly, does that fit? It seems out of place, somehow. Venemous. Next time, take a poll, see who has kids and who doesn't, and then skip the question altogether. Seriously, if you resent your impression that Fyre doesn't have kids, then drop your impression. At least one speculating on their own self isn't speculating and slandering the character of others. Besides, our individual selves are all that we, as individuals have. If you don't find people's opinions valid, then I suppose that's your own issue to deal with. But come on ... I might remind that you asked the question to begin with, as far as I can tell: I refer you to your own quote about NAMBLA and Satanists. Isn't that a little bitter? Are you suggesting that people should have their children taken away based on the religions of their friends and associates (boldfaced section in quote.) I mean, why don't we just skip it straight to the ducking stool? Now here I have nothing to offer except questions. What would you like to learn and teach, and within what constraints? We're always happy to make some positive ground, but it's always tough getting that particular jet out of the gate. I'm sure there are plenty of people who are willing to exchange with you ideas with which you are more familiar and comfortable. And I'll even take part, in the long run. For now, though, in case it hadn't become apparent, a couple of things you've written irked me some, but that's cool, 'cuz I'm well aware that there might be something I'm missing in your argument. But otherwise I'll hush now, and return this thread to its regularly-scheduled debating. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ------------------ We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke) [This message has been edited by tiassa (edited May 16, 2000).]
Tiassa: I am not interested in debating any subject other than to exchange ideas and see how sound they are when it comes to logic. Whatever a person’s view are, provided they can be defended using logic, are valid. If they cannot be defended using logic they are not valid and quite likely to be worthless when dialoguing. I will do my best to answer your questions. But I am curious. Why are you asking the questions? Are you really that interested in what I have to say? Are you looking dispassionately for answers? Do you wish to be taught? What is it that makes my answers to your questions important, AT ALL? If your interest is in arguing or proving me wrong because your ego has certain ideas about people like (in case you have ME in some kind of box) I am NOT interested in discussing such matters. The original point was that it is better to look for definitions in the dictionary rather than rely on what people say about their group. Till then, Adlerian Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Adlerian - **Adlerian: "If you wish to have Satanists babysit your children (when and if you have some) you may do as you wish for we all have autonomy, albeit limited, in this life. And when your lack of discernment causes you to lose custody to a state organization you will have no one to blame but yourself" Well, I've obviously offended you, and I don't know how to overcome your personal bias, so I'll simply say that I disagree. **Adlerian:" though I doubt you have ever placed any blame there" Wow, I must have really made you mad. **Adlerian: "For now and the future you may keep your moralizing to yourself." Do you still not understand that moralizing is what I've been arguing against this whole time? **Adlerian: "I doubt that your ego will be able to resist commenting to me again." Bingo. Is it wrong for me to stand up for what I know is right? **Adlerian: "I come here to learn and teach. You haven't anything to teach me and you are unable to understand even a modicum of my thought." Ya know, despite how you dress it up, 'Yer an idiot' still lacks any argumentative clout. **Adlerian: "Therefore, let us live in peace and keep a silence between us." Side note to tiassa: This sound familiar? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Was I being this blind when I said that to you? **Adlerian: "If you are unable to stop yourself from responding to this, just realize that I am not listening to you and will not respond to anything you write, ever." Free country. Have a nice 'ever', FyreStar
