BadBadBad

I don't believe that. You don't just cease to exist. You die. You decompose. The chemicals and energy that were your body and mind live on forever. That's within the realm of my understanding. Is that living on forever thing with respect to the energy, atoms, and molecules of my body Christian Heaven or Hell? That is infinitely beyond my comprehension, yours, and all of humanity. Should I believe the corrupted translations of ignorant, naive, and gullable men to explain this concept which is infinitely beyond my comprehension? Maybe some think I should, but nope, I just don't.

Joseph Backs

Dearest philosophists, I question your motives, especially this Bree in actually "deleting" my response to Capn' Kirk. Can you believe Bree did that, Aimee? Can any of you be proud to be a part of a forum where the "open" is taken out as soon as the "sparks" fly?

I question your need to censor and ignore the "assholes" which I most certainly am not one. My currency is my mind, and my expression is pure.

My passionate rant was merely an expression of anger which I focused upon one or two whose propositions were so remarkably contardictory that their arrogance just did not equal the pseudo-conviction of their illogical statements.

Now, I have not only behaved in the manner of any good philospher - manipulating not the intangible but the tangible by proving to you that you are exactly as I claimed you are - intellects who cannot transcend your arrogance to see the truth of logical conclusions.

In gods name, who would delete a paragraph wherein the strongest word used was "moron"? and be able to sleep with themselves as reasonable insightful human beings? Of course, this letter has no such vitriol in it. No such "rhetoric."

The equation is easy to see. Descartes' irrefutable proof, is exactly that. It is irrefutable. How is it possible that we can argue with an arguement for which many of our world's pseudo-authority has glossed over with "rhetoric" but never succeeded in contradicting?

Of course all of us KNOW that the appeal to authority is the best and most honest way to go. Because all of us MUST know that authority in philosophy is given the most logical conclusions, and only those.

This is how Empires were built and endured for millenia. Recall that the argument that takes into account all angles and argues for the most logical is the authority to which all reasoning men and woman must accord.

Why indeed, if this information - something about how modern "philosphers" (nameless as they are in Beyelzu's weak composition) disagree with the logical and irrefutable conclusions of our "father of modern philosophy" - this special data that is still new to my mind - was presented to me, and to the world, directly and clearly, well wouldn't I have changed my tone by now? I'm not that unreasonable, Aimee, men, women, and philosophers, if any are out there ... oh please take pity, I used the word "moron" and we all were taken aback.

But, indeed the proof IS irrefutable, just as Beyelzu explained so eloquently.

And I'm no Christian. I just know the facts. But the facts are too difficult to explain to a glossed over discipline, I suppose. Maybe I'm the only one who was ever surprised when the Philosophers ever "proved" anything. Hmm. Could be.

After all the intermixing of both the concepts "prove" from which all authorities work proper conclusions, and "manipulation of intangibles" that captains of regress propose for philosophy certainly present one with a dilemma, if one were to be polite and take both at face value. But a philosopher cannot. He is not such a "moron."

Now that this is out of the way, let's start a new thread. Afterall, the actuality of the situation, as Aimee can surely see - for she seems most open to logic here - can turn even the most arrogant intellect away from his pretense and give him something to believe in.

Joseph Backs most sincerely (P.S. please don't censor people for having strong feelings - they do that in Iraq)

BadBadBad

Amerigin,

I was just thinking the other day that I'm hard wired not to believe in God. My mind is just not wired at all the same way as christians. I can't believe in religion any more than I can draw a painting or write with my left hand. I like your concept. I'm genetically defective. I'm missing the God gene. God made me that way. He has hardened my heart against himself. Therefore I'm perfect. God made me perfectly so he could pre-destine me to burn in Hell forever. Yes, I like that.

Amie

Hi brettc
Well I would not do it, if that means my faith is not strong enough then I accept that. I do not think i could ever intentionally hurt other people. I believe God knows all, he *must* know this about me and would certainly not ask this of me. If he did my answer would have to be no.

beoba

Rawrrr.

beyelzu

First off, Joseph, Bree edited my response to your post, I think I cussed at you, but I am not sure. I believe that she didnt just delete it because I was responding to your rhetoric and I made a couple of valid points.
Does this mean that we all engage in sophistry or did you make a spelling error. If our arguments are invalid, why dont you point that out? ps. if you are saying that we are all sophists, that is yet anothe personal attack.


BREE, IS THAT WHY YOU EDITED?



But regardless moderation is necessary. I think that here at ii moderation is done only to remove personal attacks and langauge that is extreme. The mods do not remove posts because of ideology or point of view. If you just make personal attacks and call people morons, what do you actually offer to the discussion?

So you want to run this irrefutable proof by me again. I have seen other "irrefutable proofs" by other xians, and, to be honest, none of them really impressed me.

I dont actually understand what you mean by the second sentence. but the first one is extremely bogus. Logical arguments should be powered by their "logic" not who created them.



I will start with Bertrand Russell, then I will proceed to Carl Sagan. You want me to go on. Just because someone is the "father of modern whatever" doesnt make them right. a good example is Freud, most psycohologists think that he was incredibly wrong about alot of stuff, but hey he's the father of modern psychology so I guess he was right. I still havent heard this earth shattering proof.


I dont remember explaining any proof or saying that it was irrefutable. Especially considering I have not seen such a proof.

I am not going to respond to the rest of your post, I dont really think that it had any points in it. Seemed more like rhetoric.



one question though,

you are a theist right, after all you know an irrefutable proof for gods existence. what kind of theist are you?

BadBadBad

If he asked you to do it, perhaps he feels he knows best. Is he not God? Who knows better you or God? Perhaps he might feel that with his power to guide you, you'll do just fine. Perhaps he feels that he made you in his image and that with his help, you can slaughter right along with the best in the Bible. The Bible says, God asked men to do exactly this. They didn't have the audacity to question the almighty God. God's not squeemish about mass murder, why should you be? Should you rely on God's absolute morality or your earthly understanding of it? With the gleam of the Holy Spirit in their eyes the men of the Bible mass murdered men women and children for the glory of God. Do you believe in the power of God to lead men to do his work? If you couldn't commit mass murder, what if he just wanted you to butcher your child before him to demonstrate your faith? You know how he loves that sweet savor! If he came to you just like this and asked no more than what he asked of the simple men in the Bible, would you consider him good or evil? Would you think he was God or Satan, and how could you tell?

What say you now Amie? He's not a figment of your imagination. He's not a hallucination. There's no need for faith now. He's real and the face of our almighty God is upon you. What would it take for you to believe in the power and glory of God? What would it take for you to surrender your heart, soul, and earthly knowledge of righteousness and morality to God? What evidence would you need?

Joseph Backs

Glad we need to put me in little boxes, like "theist" and "non-theist."

Thank you for admitting that you didn't understand my second sentence, because the first sentence is tied right into the second one.

And finally, thank "god" for not censoring me like we're in the dark ages and can't bear a little cussing.

You see what I mean by "authority" is that only plain and direct thinking - such as that plainly employed by Sextus Empiricus, Descartes, Hume, and Nagel - can be said to have any authority to which we humble philosophists must adhere.

Until any of us can admit that we cannot deny such authority - based on the strength of an argument that CANNOT be contradicted - such as "I think therefore I am" - then we are only blowing hot air.

By the way, I wouldn't mind if any of you called ME a moron. So that's a valid point. And I don't care if you call me other names either. Names mean nothing to me.

My own name isn't real - it's a fake on this forum. And so is yours. And we all know names are symbols for nothing - definitions within themselves with no reference to anything.

What's important is that nothing can "negate" thought. Therefore, nothing can "negate" God ... which is infinite thought ... infinite good ... infinity.

You see, I'm a human being, and weak at that. That being the case Beyelzu, I'm not so arrogant as to plead censorship cases. So come on and lay it on me, you CUSSED and they EDITED THAT OUT!!!! Don't they understand that the cussing has as much point as the argument - or is this beneath them?

Why would they censor something that has no meaning in it - like names (which can never hurt you or I) - while keeping the most meaningful messes up here to pollute people's minds?

This is not logical either. Apply it to the practical and you'll see how wicked reason can be.

Don't hinder me anymore. Remember, I know what I mean, and what I mean is what the "authority of logic" means.

Authority of logic, Beyelzu. That's the authority, that's the meaning of the two sentences, making the first one so far from bogus it's not even funny. You like to quote my sentences and pick them apart, without first understanding what I'm getting at.

What I'm getting at is that any clear and direct conclusion supported by the purely reasoning being using deduction is the only proof we need.

Bertrand Russel is a ridiculous clown who at first impressed me with his methodology, and then let me down by stating there is no god. That's ridiculous.

If I can deduce that something is ... it must be believed to be. We do not know in what form. We do not know for what purpose.

But we do know it must be.

Either way, this discussion gives me cause to quit this discussion because it gives me cause to quit this discussion.

Do you like circlular arguments? Irrefutable. You're damn right. Read up on the proof for god ... again ... and believe it next time. I don't need to define god for you, you and I are already talking about him.

I don't really care about believing in him, I just know it's a correct conclusion that he exists. I'm not a theist.

God's a fact because logic is a fact. Period. It's the same as we know a house is gonna stand after we build up the foundation. And check it out, it does stand.

Why? What are you going to say to remove those foundations? Nothing.

Unfortunately, you can reject those foundations for some subjective whim that comes by in the wind. But I don't have the inclination to explain myself any further at this time.

I just need the intellectual stimulation. It's just like a little teasing before the orgasm ... which, in terms of intellect, I have never experienced with anyone. Was hoping the forum would surprise me but alas I'm still without a cigar, and this philosophical realm without the taste of my smoke.

So that's that.

This Bree should mind to matters of importance. Let's come up with some damn fine propositions, or shall we all give in to the funk of our modern mele?

Arrogance is not intellect. My arrogance is meaningless, only my intellect has any value, and you're ignoring it because you choose to focus on any kind of qualm and pointlessness that catches your eye.

We all enjoy tearing and breaking down - but the foundation still stands while we dig around it into the mud. Useless. I know it. I know what deduction can do.

It builds the world, and our thoughts. Freud knows you and I have a subconcious - and it would be stupid to argue that we don't. No matter how dumb his penis-envy was, let's stick to the mainstay of his use - he benefits me when I follow the pace of my own deep recesses of my own mind.

Now, if you want to continue cussing at me, which is fine, go for broke or ... if you would like to cook up some other interesting propositions that would be spectacular.

By the way, I just wanted to add that Bertrand Russel is an idiot.
I wish I had been there to bury him - let's all hope that he's dead.

I need the stimulation. You see, I'm a moron as much as anyone, if not worse. Aimie's thoughts are the only thoughts that intrigued me so far.

But I assure you they will not censor me for calling myself down. That's not a problem, because my own response to my self-degradation means naught.

Think about it. And don't you ever call anything that pours out onto this page "rhetoric" again. I'm a master at "rhetoric" and would never work so hard to express anything rhetorically in this medium.

sincerely

J. B.

Philosoft

Joseph,

You seem to have a knack for disjointed posting. Is there any particular reason you try to make seventeen separate arguments per post?

In any case, now that you have so kindly "established" that God exists, can I ask which God it is that is now an existential fact?

BadBadBad

Numbers 15:32-41

And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.

And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation.

And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him.

And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.

And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.

And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

Speak unto the children of Israel, and bid them that they make them fringes in the borders of their garments throughout their generations, and that they put upon the fringe of the borders a ribband of blue:

And it shall be unto you for a fringe, that ye may look upon it, and remember all the commandments of the LORD, and do them; and that ye seek not after your own heart and your own eyes , after which ye use to go a whoring:

That ye may remember, and do all my commandments, and be holy unto your God.

I am the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: I am the LORD your God.