Samhain

Walrus:

*sigh*

You put yourself into that position by arguing two contradictory philosophical ideas on existence.

Even if they blatantly contradict each other? I mean, yes, I'll hold that utilitarian ideas are a good basis for some things, but I am largely against utilitarianism as a whole, myself. But your contradiction seems just gratuitous.

Ridiculous. If you don't want us to "pigeon-hole" you, then you might want to stay away from different philosophies which deny your idea. As stated numerous times before, you can't hold these two ideas since they are completely contradictory. You either feel solipsism is correct, or you don't. As I asked before, how in the hell can you compromise these two obviously contradictory ideas? If you can't, then yes, you must choose one or the other, we all have. This is the same question of atheism/theism. You are either an atheist or a theist, you can't really compromise god belief with no god belief, as they contradict other statements.

WJ

Sam!

I have no idea why you are hanging your hat on these philosphic concepts. The metaphor or analogy I referred to yesterday, which may or may not be germain you tell me, is that you can't separate pure reason from sentient existence (ie, conscious existence) in the cognitive process. They are all mixed together in an illogical formula of Being, or existing.

What's more, initially, when I meant 'de-construct' I meant that a little Derrida will do ya! And so, I would have also taken more of a psychological approach to this issue of existence and the atheist's belief system.

No matter, either you yourself are trying to find a straw man to argue over or with, or you're just arguing for the sake of same. I never said I was a Solipsist. So, what's your point now?

Walrus

Edit; I think Koy and/or you have confused or linked deconstructionalism with solipsism.

[ May 22, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]</p>

Samhain

Walrus:

My problems with your arguments boil down to a few things. One of them has to do with acceptable objectivity. If we do not allow any ideas to be objective because all is based upon our own perceptions, then this argument is pointless and absurd, and if this is your stance, then I fail to see why you're here arguing anything in the first place. Such a stance in this argument makes no points, and is utterly idiotic. As I said before, if all is based upon human perception, then yes, there is "objectivity" based upon human perception, and therefore we can make such arguments against god(s). If you pick and choose when to allow "objectivity" then it garbles up this "debate" and in the end makes the whole "debate" one big waste of time and effort. The point in making you choose either for or against solipsism gives us all a little insight into how you think and what stance you'll be taking. Without any kind of base for the pillar, we cannot begin to even understand your position, let alone accept it. Your arguments have ranged from everything from theistic existentialism, to fideism, to a tad bit of solipsism, to who knows what else. Just what kind of stand are you taking? What are you trying to prove? Anything? You posts have been a seemingly endless garble of philosophical ideas and abstract neo-nihilistic viewpoints. I say "neo" since it's unlike any other view that I've ever heard before, and frankly, it makes no sense to me. As I said about 20-30 posts ago, there is a thing called "substance" which you might want to work on putting into your posts.

-Samhain

WJ

Sam!

I don't mean to sound redundant, but the concept of Deity by its very nature is quite comprehensive. BTW, you forgot to add certain laws in physics and logic to my list. You know, you guy's kill me. You come across as know it all's, then when the going gets tough, you want me to show all my cards. Not that I'm an expert by any stretch, but like I said, if you want to pigeon hole me, I might could be convinced to put exclusive stock in SK or WJ for such support, but I like the free form method as it were.

Anyway, I appreciate your information as it relates to the apparent confusion. Maybe the simplist way to start would be for each other to share their definitions of Objectivism or Objectivist thinking. First, by its 'essence' alone, do you feel being objective (approaching a something, concept, idea, etc. with that criteria in mind) is personal or impersonal? I have some examples of the ol' subjectivism/objectivism ways of thinking and learning viz. SK and rationalism... ?

But my point will be that dichotomizing the two will fail, ultimately (though I lean more towards subjectivism in this discussion). We need both objectivism and subjectivism in a sort of balance to get close to any sort of coherent answer.

Should we start there? Or is that old news? Or is it incorrect, my interpretation of our problem?

Walrus

Koyaanisqatsi

As was mine.

You have no intention of engaging in any kind of serious debate at all and are merely multi posting because:
<ol type="a">[*] You are getting some sort of bizarre kick out of lobbing as many nonsensical, non-sequitur pot shots at concepts and ideas about which you ultimately have no real understanding or comprehension, because[*] You are defensively multi-posting in a desperate attempt to keep "mystical thinking" plates spinning; the rationale being that so long as you shoot for a stalemate, the inevitable conclusion of atheism won't "get you."[/list=a]

I call it cult shrapnel.

Here's proof of your irrational defensiveness:

Please describe to me how my asking you to define your position prior to debate could be considered, "dangling the carrot?"

Here's more evidence of your paranoid defensive posturing, indicative of cognitive dissonance induced fear, based on the subconscious knowledge that we're correct:

As you point out in your very next sentence, I was doing nothing of the kind:

Which is precisely what I was asking you to do at least ten times. I've noticed you still have not done so, as we see from your next paragraph:

Then how, pray tell, do you plan on "debating," since by its very nature, debate means that you take a position on a proposition and present your case for it?

Not to mention the fact that I shouldn't have to "force" you to do anything at all. You are the one who challenged me to a debate and then proceeded with incessant diversionary tactics to summarily avoid that debate, ending with this paranoid rambling that speaks volumes.

I don't have to "convince" you of anything at all. You, on the other hand, must take a position (no matter what it is) so that we can debate it, yes?

As I pointed out repeatedly, it is not possible to debate solipsism, so if that is the position you choose, then the debate is instantly over before it can begin.

I don't care what you "feel comfortable borrowing" as long as you take a position. That's the purpose of debate; you argue one side of a topic and I counter it.

More evidence of your subconscious fear? Backpedaling before we've begun...?

As I have explained to you many times, I have no such "faith" or "hope" in science and/or logic.

Wrong. The "issues" (whatever those may be) relative to consciousness and/or materialism will either be discovered or not. Faith and/or hope have no bearing on that fact and the question of whether or not said "issues" are ever discovered or not likewise does not concern me.

As always, it does not matter to the use or application of the cognitive tools of logic and the scientific method whether or not mankind ever knows with any degree of certainty how consciousness "works," so your continued side-track on this issue is irrelevant and therefore, summarily discarded.

If "I" want to argue? Once again, it was you that had issued the challenge, not I. I simply picked up your gauntlet and asked you to choose a coherent position to debate.

You still have not done so.

If you want to know about my hopes and/or faith, then here would be a good application; I have no hope and no faith that you will ever do so.

Again, as I have stated countless times before, logic and science do not have it "all figured out," nor is there any requirement for "them" to do so.

They are tools of cognition, not beings whose existential status is in question, such as would be the case of a claim of fictional creatures from ancient mythology factually existing.

The question you raised is not in contention. We are agreed that "science" and "logic" do not have it "all figured out."

What we are not in agreement over (i.e., what is in contention) is your repeated implication that this is somehow relevant to anything at all.

It is not.

You mean, "don't force me to recognize that my position does not exist and my arguments do not support my contentions?"

That sentence states nothing and makes no sense. What "overall concept of God" are you talking about and what argument is there regarding it for you to proclaim (before any debate has become), that you can not successfully argue it "as such," let alone "fairly?"

I would suggest you take a long hard look in a mirror, my friend, and ask yourself just exactly what it is you're talking about, because so far you have only betrayed a paranoid, defensive, subconscious admission that we know what we're talking about, but you haven't a clue, other than a desperation that you must, somehow, derail it.

As Shakespeare so aptly put it, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

[ May 22, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

Samhain

Walrus:

Well, that's dependent upon which diety you're talking about or what attributes signify something being a diety, doesn't it?

Considering your stance on questioning the objectivity of logic and reason, how do you justify calling these things "laws" for yourself?

Flattery will get you nowhere.

That's not the problem. I don't put exclusive stock into Sartrean-existentialism, though, I do use it more than other philosophies, and hold more stock in it for that reason, but many of my ideas would be considered "free-form" as I don't set myself on Sartrean-existentialism. The problem has to do with consistency. I don't argue Sartrean-existentialism and then turn around and argue for hard determinism. Though, while I'll admit, some of your ideas have some good points, I grow tired of the constant shifting and jumping between different and often times, contradicting views. You seem to speak out a lot for nihilistic ideas, but that would contradict your theism, wouldn't it?

That depends upon the universiality ( ? ) of the something. We could concur that some objective things are impersonal, but some are personal. Objective qualities in the universe vs. personal objective qualities. For some reason, though, I don't think that's what you're talking about. Let's put it this way, all is based off of human perceptions, making it personal, but human perceptions are universal, making it somewhat impersonal. Therefore an objective quality is seperate from the personal/impersonal ideas. Let me know if I'm missing something here.

How about we just start with you telling us just what it is you're trying to prove. No cryptic bullshit, no double-think, no mystical-mythical nonsense. Just come outright and list a point which you wish to debate, whatever it is. I mean, for f*cks sake man, you've failed to portray any substance in your posts as of yet, let's stop screwing around with the nuances of language and snap back to reality. You want to argue a point or not? Until you give us some kind of stance, then your arguments mean nothing, and this fails to be a "debate". Running around posting for the purposes of trying to confuse everyone with your cryptic and mystical nonsense proves nothing. So, if you have something which you'd like to debate, then get on with it, if you want to sit around and throw words around for the sake of incoherence and confusion, then I'd say, get a life?

Koyaanisqatsi

Well, there you have it, WJ from Sam/Koy.

What are you trying to prove?

WJ

....guys, guys. I told you I already recieved my so-called answers, to not only my original question/concerns but I even learned more about atheism in the process. As you know, I wasn't 'selling' theism as such and wanted to understand what it means and/or how and why one holds a particular belief-atheism. I think you would agree we answered that for each other- in around about way with the help from other's. Of course in the process the rationale surfaced, which in turn caused all heated debate, confusion and such.

This sort of post script stuff is for the sake of discussion, on my part anyway. So now that I'm satisfied with my original point, if you wish to ask me questions or otherwise, feel free. To that end, Sam, you did ask me about contradiction and such which of course exists in this life, but particularly as it relates to my nihilistic ideas, as was characterized by you. And you said it conflicted with my belief system. As we discussed before i think, certain elements of existential philosophy fits in well with the theist, believer, etc.(I don't consider myself a theist proper). So without a big long winded reason, anyone who has read the likes of Pascal, SK, and other religious existentialists (which I know you have) would know that both atheist and theist have an initual/mutual understanding of the general problem [human condition] yet the reconciliation or results or choices or subsequent connections are mirror opposites.


i will say that I have truly enjoyed the discussion thus far, and have certainly expanded on my finite knowledge of these sort of concepts of existence and so forth. perhaps I got more out of this than you did, I'm not sure. I quess if we want to start a new topic or if you want to debate specifically on something about Deity, or what (and/or why) causes humans to believe what they believe, or whatever, let me know. I find the topic of religion (or God) very interesting (obviously).

Did I miss the obvious? Are there unresolved issues that I've not or needed to address?

Walrus

Koyaanisqatsi

Did you now? And what would those be?

Un hunh...

FOR THE TEN BILLIONTH TIME IT ISN'T A "BELIEF" SYSTEM!

You are a coward, plain and simple. You know we nailed you to the wall and you have no more weasel tactics left, but this one; to pretend you were just here to get a few answers and no harm done and don't mind me or respond to anything I was saying because I really didn't mean anything, ok guys? Guys...?

Pathetic.

"Each other?" "We?" What the hell are you talking about?

You came here with an arrogant agenda--challenging me to a debate, no less--and the second we finally pinned you down, you pull this horseshit.

Nothing was addressed here other than your true character.

Bullshit! YOU were the one poking the bear and now that he's awake and angry and focused on you peeing your pants in the corner, you're turning tail and running.

At least have the dignity to admit it.

Discussion of WHAT? That you evaded and misconstrued and danced and pranced around ever making any kind of point at all and then demanded that we get into the ring together only to chicken out in this way?

F*CK OFF!

Cotton candy.

An extremely safe bet to make.



No, no, little boy, you can scurry back into the sewage pipes now.

You've been marked.

[ May 23, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

WJ

Your halarious. If no thing is absolute, then why do you choose to believe God doesn't exist? Your belief is not then absolute, and neither is mine. It just is. What is it then? Are you a solipsist in disguise?

BTW, I find your potty mouth quite intertaining. What do you do for a living? Just curious? Are you a comedian or clown?