Materialists

Quote from rowenwood:

What do you think of my reply to your reply yesterday?
More...


Here ya go

MY OWN HATRED OF GOD IDIOTS HAS MANY SIMILARITIES TO THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF THE GOD IDIOTS.

So you start by admitting that your own self-righteousness is similar to the self-righteousness of those you criticize. That's a good start.

INSTEAD OF HEAVEN I'VE TRANSCENDANCE THROUGH INTELLIGENCE. INSTEAD OF PRAYER I'VE SELF LOVE.

You have transcendance of what exactly?

ONLY WHEN WE PLAY THE GAME OF LOGIC WILL I SEEM (HENCE THE WORD SEEM BECAUSE THERE IS NO ULTIMATE TRUTH) SUPERIOR TO A GOD IDIOT. MY HATRED OF GOD IDIOTS ISN'TONLY DUE TO THE LOGIC BUT ALSO BECUASE OF MY EXTREME AVERSION OF THE AESTHETICS OF SPIRITUALITY. I FIND SPIRITUALISM TO BE SO BANAL THAT I'M UTTERLY OPPOSED TO IT AS AN ARTIST, AND AS A PERSON CAPABLE OF REASONING.


You haven't demonstrated any logic in your hatred so far- indeed the whole "logic game" is a farce if everything is right / wrong both / and as you previously stated.

So we'll proceed on the aesthetics angle: you are opposed to spirituality because you find it banal, i.e. drearily commonplace and often predictable; trite. So what if you ran into someone more intelligent than you who found theology and metaphysics to be incredibly interesting, useful, uplifting, and even practical as an everyday source of motivation and strength? It would seem that your rejection of God is on entirely personal and subjective grounds; fine for you, but illogical to extend to others.


MY AESTHETIC OPINION, MY AESTHETIC REASONING LEADS ME TO INFER THAT AESTHETICALLY I'M RIGHT AND GOD IDIOTS ARE WRONG. AESTHETICALLY AND LOGICALLY I'M ANNOYED BY GOD IDIOTS. I HOPE THIS MAKES SENSE. I'VE NOT THE PATIENCE TO WRITE A LINEAR ESSAY. IF YOU'D LIKE TO KNOW MORE ABOUT HOW I THINK, GO READ MY -POEM- THREAD; FIND IT ONE CHITCHAT PAGE TWO OR THREE.

Your use of words like "right" and "wrong" is entirely hypocritical in comparison to statements such as "truth is a concept" and "everything, nothing, and all other things are right, wrong, both, and every other possibility." In declaring truth to be a malleable concept and then proceeding in a debate as if truth were absolute, you only succeed in mocking yourself.


Dark can throw any line he wants at me and I'll deduce it for him. Why don't you paste some Wittgenstein? Your nihilism was exploded in the sixties, get over it. POMO has been here, and is the now.

Note: no one can beat me. If dark were as pedantic with the right material he would be more advanced in philosophical thought than me. Unfortunately his ideas are antiquated which means all his pedantry is worthless against my less academic but more current and more powerful philosophy.

I'm not the nihilist; I believe in God, remember? You, as an atheist, are the nihilist, whether you choose to bravely accept that inevitable conclusion or not.

I have no interest in "pasting Wittgenstein" because I'm perfectly happy presenting my own thoughts rather than regurgitating the half understood writings of someone else.

Whether or not anyone can "beat" you is completely irrelevant, and such a statement only shows your immaturity. In talking about this or that material and throwing out names, all you are doing is showing your lack of real knowledge and trying to mask it with a puerile appeal to authority. You further compound your ignorance by throwing out pointless criticisms and declaring yourself "more current" and "more powerful."

In declaring yourself more intelligent than everyone else, more modern than everyone else, and then failing to back up any of your statements with your own words, you are practically a self parody. You sound like a philosopher wannabe, a trendy dilettante who sits around in coffeeshops wearing a black turtleneck, rejoicing in your "intellectual superiority" and only pretending to understand what you read.

You, Rowenwood, have so far demonstrted yourself to be an immature poser and a self-obsessed grandstander. I find your empty replies banal, your appeals to authority banal, your logical inconsistencies banal.
 
Quote from Turok:


Though many in pursuit of democracy (within this country in particular) have committed mass murders and other attroctities, I would sure like you to find me documents that support this philosphy as "intrinsic" to democracy.
More...


Yes indeed, the old testament is very bloody. The teachings of Christ, however, are not.

I didn't say it was intrinsic to democracy, I said it was intrinsic to human nature. Meaning, you have the potential for mass murder and atrocity to occur in the name of any culture and any belief system, including materialistic democracy, because any belief system can be distorted or manipulated to try and justify a desired end.
 
Dark:
>In declaring yourself more intelligent than everyone else,
>more modern than everyone else, and then failing to back
>up any of your statements with your own words, you are >practically a self parody. You sound like a philosopher
>wannabe, a trendy dilettante who sits around in coffeeshops
>wearing a black turtleneck, rejoicing in your "intellectual
>superiority" and only pretending to understand what
>you read.

ROFLAO!! That is Row in a nutshell.


>You, as an atheist, are the nihilist, whether you
>choose to bravely accept that inevitable conclusion
>or not.

Another one I'm gonna call you out on. Why do you believe that an atheist is "inevitably" a nihilist? Am I misunderstanding you?

Care to share?

JB
 
Intrinsic to the stories and teachings throughout the bible is a revengeful, mass murdering philosophy in the name of the christian god. (yeah, go ahead and say it's not true and make me start trotting out the scripture).
Turok
___________________________________________

Isn't this only half of the story? Weren't there atrocities committed by those on whom vengeance was directed?

If what you say is true, then the execution of a mass murderer today would be revengeful and his prior actions would never be mentioned with a purpose of discrediting whatever entity ordered his execution.
 
Quote from axeman:



COULD??? Do we have a history of such actions or are
you simply stating a highly unlikely possibility??

Gee.... im an atheist who doesnt believe in an after life and
thoughts of mass suicide never cross MY mind? I wonder why? :D
Because its STUPID thats why.

If your asserting that without "spiritual stuff" it is more likely to
wipe itself out, please backup that assertion.

On the other hand.... there is a clear historical correlation
between religion and bloodshed. Even today in 2004.
Religion being ONE of many such systems that correlate with bloodshed.

peace

axeman
More...

Axe:

Genocide and suicide are not the same thing. Genocide is defined as "The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group." Usually referring to a group other than your own.

A modern society could, for entirely pragmatic or political reasons, decide to perpetrate and promote genocide if the end results were seen to be in their benefit. Take the most recent full scale genocide attempt in Africa, the Hutu massacre of Tutsis in Rwanda. That event was carefully planned and executed by a small group of politicians and military men to justify their own completely materialistic ends. They literally had thousands of crates of machetes stored in warehouses, ready for distribution when the time was right.

I agree with you that religion has been "one of many" systems to perpetrate bloodshed. In otherwords, it has been hijacked to do the bidding of an intrinsic human tendency, just like any other system could be, including democracy, and independent of the tenets of the belief system itself.
 
dark:You, as an atheist, are the nihilist, whether you
choose to bravely accept that inevitable conclusion
or not.


Wow! Thanks for telling me dark!
I had NO IDEA that I was nihilist!

Wheeeeeeew... I better do something about that quick! :p

LMAOOO.... where do you get this stuff?

Nothing could be further from the truth.



peace

axeman
 
Dark;
>Yes indeed, the old testament is very bloody.
>The teachings of Christ, however, are not.

No, let's get this notion of revengeful brutality limited to the old testament out of here. Have you read Revelations? That book happens to come along about as far as you can get in the 'evolution' of the bible.

For the record, this book tells of all the brutal and revengeful things that christ's dad will do to you if you don't follow the peaceful teachings of the son.

So, Christ..."I'm all about love and peace and fairness (well, except that part where my Dad kills you when you don't do as I say)"

People who try to separate out christ from his father (who christ went comfortably home to after spreading his "teachings" that people so adore) amuse me.

JB
 
So what? Ok... so the teachings of christ were NOT bloody
but GODS were??? Whooopiiie... :p

Who you gonna listen to? Gods son or god?
Oh wait, he's god too...no wait... what about the holy ghost?
Whos that guy? Oh wait... they are all one entity..
Oh wait.... no wonder your totally confused. :p

Man....greek MYTHOLOGY is so much more interesting than
chrisitan mythology :D The christians needed better writers.
Not even their mythology makes any sense :p

peace

axeman



Quote from darkhorse:

Yes indeed, the old testament is very bloody. The teachings of Christ, however, are not.
More...
 
Quote from darkhorse:

Here ya go

MY OWN HATRED OF GOD IDIOTS HAS MANY SIMILARITIES TO THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF THE GOD IDIOTS.

So you start by admitting that your own self-righteousness is similar to the self-righteousness of those you criticize. That's a good start.

INSTEAD OF HEAVEN I'VE transcendence THROUGH INTELLIGENCE. INSTEAD OF PRAYER I'VE SELF LOVE.

You have transcendence of what exactly?

ONLY WHEN WE PLAY THE GAME OF LOGIC WILL I SEEM (HENCE THE WORD SEEM BECAUSE THERE IS NO ULTIMATE TRUTH) SUPERIOR TO A GOD IDIOT. MY HATRED OF GOD IDIOTS ISN'TONLY DUE TO THE LOGIC BUT ALSO because OF MY EXTREME AVERSION OF THE AESTHETICS OF SPIRITUALITY. I FIND SPIRITUALISM TO BE SO BANAL THAT I'M UTTERLY OPPOSED TO IT AS AN ARTIST, AND AS A PERSON CAPABLE OF REASONING.


You haven't demonstrated any logic in your hatred so far- indeed the whole "logic game" is a farce if everything is right / wrong both / and as you previously stated.

So we'll proceed on the aesthetics angle: you are opposed to spirituality because you find it banal, i.e. drearily commonplace and often predictable; trite. So what if you ran into someone more intelligent than you who found theology and metaphysics to be incredibly interesting, useful, uplifting, and even practical as an everyday source of motivation and strength? It would seem that your rejection of God is on entirely personal and subjective grounds; fine for you, but illogical to extend to others.


MY AESTHETIC OPINION, MY AESTHETIC REASONING LEADS ME TO INFER THAT AESTHETICALLY I'M RIGHT AND GOD IDIOTS ARE WRONG. AESTHETICALLY AND LOGICALLY I'M ANNOYED BY GOD IDIOTS. I HOPE THIS MAKES SENSE. I'VE NOT THE PATIENCE TO WRITE A LINEAR ESSAY. IF YOU'D LIKE TO KNOW MORE ABOUT HOW I THINK, GO READ MY -POEM- THREAD; FIND IT ONE CHITCHAT PAGE TWO OR THREE.

Your use of words like "right" and "wrong" is entirely hypocritical in comparison to statements such as "truth is a concept" and "everything, nothing, and all other things are right, wrong, both, and every other possibility." In declaring truth to be a malleable concept and then proceeding in a debate as if truth were absolute, you only succeed in mocking yourself.


Dark can throw any line he wants at me and I'll deduce it for him. Why don't you paste some Wittgenstein? Your nihilism was exploded in the sixties, get over it. POMO has been here, and is the now.

Note: no one can beat me. If dark were as pedantic with the right material he would be more advanced in philosophical thought than me. Unfortunately his ideas are antiquated which means all his pedantry is worthless against my less academic but more current and more powerful philosophy.

I'm not the nihilist; I believe in God, remember? You, as an atheist, are the nihilist, whether you choose to bravely accept that inevitable conclusion or not.

I have no interest in "pasting Wittgenstein" because I'm perfectly happy presenting my own thoughts rather than regurgitating the half understood writings of someone else.

Whether or not anyone can "beat" you is completely irrelevant, and such a statement only shows your immaturity. In talking about this or that material and throwing out names, all you are doing is showing your lack of real knowledge and trying to mask it with a puerile appeal to authority. You further compound your ignorance by throwing out pointless criticisms and declaring yourself "more current" and "more powerful."

In declaring yourself more intelligent than everyone else, more modern than everyone else, and then failing to back up any of your statements with your own words, you are practically a self parody. You sound like a philosopher wannabe, a trendy dilettante who sits around in coffeeshops wearing a black turtleneck, rejoicing in your "intellectual superiority" and only pretending to understand what you read.

You, Rowenwood, have so far demonstrated yourself to be an immature poser and a self-obsessed grandstander. I find your empty replies banal, your appeals to authority banal, your logical inconsistencies banal.
More...

Good reply. Firstly you don't understand me or what I've attempted to convey. Secondly you misinterpret my sarcasm to be my mistakes. thirdly, my philosophy is my own creation.

Bottom line, you don't seem to understand me at all. Whether it's my fault or not, sorry for your confusion.

Logic is an opinion. Nothing can be absolutely proven.

Therefore to create thoughts, ideas and concepts, we're literally using a logic set knowing that it's just a theory.

So like an elaborate novel I've an elaborate fictional system of logic which is more elaborate and articulate than older systems of logic. This system of logic has been formed from analyzations whilst playing the societal logic game. The societal logic game is pretending that what we're doing is logical yet the logic isn't proven.

Last point, regarding the aesthetics response: I've never met a person more artistically advanced than me. I've read some books which indicate that there is a possibility that such a person exists, but it's unlikely that they will be much more advanced than me. Their advancement will probably be due to the fact that I've had less time creating concepts than them which means that I'm likely to never encounter a truly artistically superior mind. Don't misunderstand truly. Now what I've just written is in the idea that this aesthetic competition is part of our pretending to live under an absolute logic. Also please understand that I use the word competition somewhat sarcastically.

I hope this helps you. I don't drink coffee.

You don't seem to know about POMO because you continue to refer to nihilism. My philosophy is POMO. If you were to read an overview of POMO you'd understand this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top