Humans learn about time when they are about five years old from the monster that lives under their bed.
Actually, I think that we piece together our idea of what time is, as we are developing, from the days inexhorably going by, birthdays, christmasses, thanksgivings and so on, corresponding to an opening up of our minds, an expansion of personal possibilities, down to time to get up, eating times etc.
We learn to look forward to, or dread an event by counting down to it, as if it were, because it is, in fact, a kind of prediction.
But what is time? What is time like? When we reach a certain state of education we learn that time is not as straightforward a process as we have, up 'til now, imagined.
We are told that time is relative to movement. For example two clocks set to the same time, if one is accelerated relative to the other one, the time-frame will change, things happen slower for one, or less time goes by for one, depending on the perspective you want to use.
This is a kind of useless fact for most of us. I hardly think that I'd be willing to be accelerated around the Sun in order for less time to go by in comparison to everyone else.
Nevertheless, in thought experiments about this phenomenon, we're inclined to be puzzled about the idea that, if we get in a vehicle that accelerates away from the Earth, we can come back, "in the future".
I think this puzzlement is, while an honest and fair reaction, a mixing of the idea that one is 'travelling' and that one is returning to a planet where more time has passed.
Simply because we ALWAYS live in this one time-frame, it is very difficult to imagine that there are countless time-frames 'out there', each relative to ours, depending on how fast the object in question is accelerating compared to us.
Basically, time is not a thing. Time is not lack of a thing. Time is simply the rate of events going by, in the local environment.
When we treat fairly steady events, such as a clock ticking by or a body ageing as the basis from which we measure events, and we've learned to do this since taking our first breath remember, then we imbue time with an essence that it does not have, universally.
Or to put it another way, time does not have a universal rhythm, just a relative rhythm.
I'm wondering what this means for the ideas that the universe is 'so many' billions of years old, but that's a question for another day, boys and girls. (Won't you be my neighbor?)
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Friday, October 8, 2010
Philosophy is drivel.
This is an exerpt from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy here:-
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existence/
"Like many philosophically interesting notions, existence is at once familiar and rather elusive."
No. No it's not, you pompous ass.(Well it is if you want to include God as 'existing', which you do.)
"Although we have no more trouble with using the verb ‘exists’ than with the two-times table, there is more than a little difficulty in saying just what existence is."
I don't think that we do.
"Existing seems to be at least as mundane as walking or being hungry. Yet, when we say ‘Tom is hungry’ or ‘Tom is walking’, it may be news to those not in Tom's vicinity, whereas ‘Tom exists’ would be news to no one who knew Tom, and merely puzzling to anyone who did not."
Keep in mind that there's a supposedly, really fuckin' smart guy behind this entry into this encyclopedia! Nevertheless, it seems obvious to me that, "Tom exists." could be an elliptical, implying that he 'still' lives and such, so used in that manner it WOULD be news to anyone who knew Tom but wasn't sure about his state of existence. Similarly, it might be clarifying to someone that didn't know if 'Tom' in a story was real or fictitious etc.
" Again, we know what it is like to be hungry or to walk, but what is it like to exist, what kind of experience is that?"
Once again, 'Who are these people?'
" Is it perhaps the experience of being oneself, of being identical with oneself? Yet again, we can readily indicate what is meant by Tom's walking, but surely Tom's existing is not something we can indicate to anyone."
REALLY? We cannot 'indicate' to anyone that Tom exists because you, you pompous ass think that you have frittered away any meaning in the sentence, "Tom exists."???
" On the face of it, there would seem to be no way at all in which we can explain what existing is."
Bullshit! Existing is being, and includes a lot of implication. For example Tom, is usually the name of another human being, likely a male, and emphasizing that he 'exists' is saying that he's not imaginary or fictional.
"It may be tempting to think that ‘Tom exists’ means merely ‘Tom is real’. In fact, this could be distinctly appealing, for ‘real’ is what has been called an ‘excluder’ predicate, meaning thereby that it attributes nothing positive to Tom, but operates in a purely negative fashion simply to exclude Tom from being imaginary, mythical, fictional, and the like."
Okay, shithead, fine then. That would make 'exists' an 'excluder' predicate meaning etc. etc. no?
" To say that ‘exists’ meant ‘is real’ would be to say inter alia that it attributed nothing positive to Tom; and that would do much to relieve our frustration at being so fluent in our use of ‘exists’ despite having no idea of its attributing anything positive to Tom."
I'm thinking that since we think, in what i call 'thoughts'(write that down if you have to) and these thoughts don't necessarilly correspond to facts and reality, to communicate that something 'exists' certainly does attribute the positivity of Tom 'existing'.
"It would be a relief to discover that ‘exists’ attributes nothing positive to him at all."
This is following your other reasoning which I already disagree with.
"Unfortunately, this won't do; for among all the negatives that ‘is real’ might be applying to Tom would be not only ‘not imaginary’, ‘not mythical’, etc., but also ‘not nonexistent’."
Not nonexistent = not unreal. (simple)
" Now, suppose a seer predicted that in two years that a son would be born to Bill and Mary, and that he would be called ‘Tom’. When the prediction was finally fulfilled, we might imagine the seer announcing triumphantly ‘At last Tom exists, exactly as I predicted he would’. If ‘exists’ were an excluder like ‘is real’, then the seer could only be understood as excluding something from Tom; and in this case it would be non-existence."
This is what I'm talking about. This fuckin' jerk-off can't 'figure' what 'to exist' means but he's introducing stories with 'people who can foretell the future' now, as IF they exist outside of fiction, as if they are REAL??? What is this guy's agenda here?
" As said by the seer, therefore, ‘At last Tom exists’ could only mean ‘At last Tom is not-nonexistent’. And if he really were to mean that, we should be entitled to ask him just when Tom could ever have been said to be nonexistent, i.e. never to have existed. In fact, before he existed Tom could never even have been referred to, and hence at that time nothing at all could have been attributed to him, not even the property of being nonexistent."
Now he's denying the entire idea of predicting the future which he himself brought up in the first place!
" Promising as it may have seemed, therefore, ‘Tom exists’ is not to be understood simply as ‘Tom is real’."
BULLSHITTER!
"Of course, the failure of attempts to understand ‘exists’ as ‘is real’ leaves plenty of room for other suggestions, each proposing to substitute one or more terms for ‘exists’, and thereby to show why our original disquiet about it and existence has been sadly misplaced."
Now follows a list of alternatives, we'd be disappointed to learn, NOT!
" If one thinks that ‘exists’ is readily dispensable in favour of some other (less troublesome) expression, then there will be no difficulty in dismissing the thought of there being some such property or attribute as existence."
It's a wonder this jerk can communicate anything at all as he has no trouble using words like 'is', 'being' and 'existence' as though they are well understood to us.
" Alternatively, if one thinks that ‘exists’ is not to be dispensed with in this way, then one might be inclined to continue pursuing the puzzle of just what existence is."
There's no puzzle! You just invoked a puzzle by spouting this half-sense drivel.
"It is probably now reasonably clear that the question of existence is inextricably intertwined with the question of ‘exists’."
Well, you could have knocked me over with a non-existent feather at this point!
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existence/
"Like many philosophically interesting notions, existence is at once familiar and rather elusive."
No. No it's not, you pompous ass.(Well it is if you want to include God as 'existing', which you do.)
"Although we have no more trouble with using the verb ‘exists’ than with the two-times table, there is more than a little difficulty in saying just what existence is."
I don't think that we do.
"Existing seems to be at least as mundane as walking or being hungry. Yet, when we say ‘Tom is hungry’ or ‘Tom is walking’, it may be news to those not in Tom's vicinity, whereas ‘Tom exists’ would be news to no one who knew Tom, and merely puzzling to anyone who did not."
Keep in mind that there's a supposedly, really fuckin' smart guy behind this entry into this encyclopedia! Nevertheless, it seems obvious to me that, "Tom exists." could be an elliptical, implying that he 'still' lives and such, so used in that manner it WOULD be news to anyone who knew Tom but wasn't sure about his state of existence. Similarly, it might be clarifying to someone that didn't know if 'Tom' in a story was real or fictitious etc.
" Again, we know what it is like to be hungry or to walk, but what is it like to exist, what kind of experience is that?"
Once again, 'Who are these people?'
" Is it perhaps the experience of being oneself, of being identical with oneself? Yet again, we can readily indicate what is meant by Tom's walking, but surely Tom's existing is not something we can indicate to anyone."
REALLY? We cannot 'indicate' to anyone that Tom exists because you, you pompous ass think that you have frittered away any meaning in the sentence, "Tom exists."???
" On the face of it, there would seem to be no way at all in which we can explain what existing is."
Bullshit! Existing is being, and includes a lot of implication. For example Tom, is usually the name of another human being, likely a male, and emphasizing that he 'exists' is saying that he's not imaginary or fictional.
"It may be tempting to think that ‘Tom exists’ means merely ‘Tom is real’. In fact, this could be distinctly appealing, for ‘real’ is what has been called an ‘excluder’ predicate, meaning thereby that it attributes nothing positive to Tom, but operates in a purely negative fashion simply to exclude Tom from being imaginary, mythical, fictional, and the like."
Okay, shithead, fine then. That would make 'exists' an 'excluder' predicate meaning etc. etc. no?
" To say that ‘exists’ meant ‘is real’ would be to say inter alia that it attributed nothing positive to Tom; and that would do much to relieve our frustration at being so fluent in our use of ‘exists’ despite having no idea of its attributing anything positive to Tom."
I'm thinking that since we think, in what i call 'thoughts'(write that down if you have to) and these thoughts don't necessarilly correspond to facts and reality, to communicate that something 'exists' certainly does attribute the positivity of Tom 'existing'.
"It would be a relief to discover that ‘exists’ attributes nothing positive to him at all."
This is following your other reasoning which I already disagree with.
"Unfortunately, this won't do; for among all the negatives that ‘is real’ might be applying to Tom would be not only ‘not imaginary’, ‘not mythical’, etc., but also ‘not nonexistent’."
Not nonexistent = not unreal. (simple)
" Now, suppose a seer predicted that in two years that a son would be born to Bill and Mary, and that he would be called ‘Tom’. When the prediction was finally fulfilled, we might imagine the seer announcing triumphantly ‘At last Tom exists, exactly as I predicted he would’. If ‘exists’ were an excluder like ‘is real’, then the seer could only be understood as excluding something from Tom; and in this case it would be non-existence."
This is what I'm talking about. This fuckin' jerk-off can't 'figure' what 'to exist' means but he's introducing stories with 'people who can foretell the future' now, as IF they exist outside of fiction, as if they are REAL??? What is this guy's agenda here?
" As said by the seer, therefore, ‘At last Tom exists’ could only mean ‘At last Tom is not-nonexistent’. And if he really were to mean that, we should be entitled to ask him just when Tom could ever have been said to be nonexistent, i.e. never to have existed. In fact, before he existed Tom could never even have been referred to, and hence at that time nothing at all could have been attributed to him, not even the property of being nonexistent."
Now he's denying the entire idea of predicting the future which he himself brought up in the first place!
" Promising as it may have seemed, therefore, ‘Tom exists’ is not to be understood simply as ‘Tom is real’."
BULLSHITTER!
"Of course, the failure of attempts to understand ‘exists’ as ‘is real’ leaves plenty of room for other suggestions, each proposing to substitute one or more terms for ‘exists’, and thereby to show why our original disquiet about it and existence has been sadly misplaced."
Now follows a list of alternatives, we'd be disappointed to learn, NOT!
" If one thinks that ‘exists’ is readily dispensable in favour of some other (less troublesome) expression, then there will be no difficulty in dismissing the thought of there being some such property or attribute as existence."
It's a wonder this jerk can communicate anything at all as he has no trouble using words like 'is', 'being' and 'existence' as though they are well understood to us.
" Alternatively, if one thinks that ‘exists’ is not to be dispensed with in this way, then one might be inclined to continue pursuing the puzzle of just what existence is."
There's no puzzle! You just invoked a puzzle by spouting this half-sense drivel.
"It is probably now reasonably clear that the question of existence is inextricably intertwined with the question of ‘exists’."
Well, you could have knocked me over with a non-existent feather at this point!
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Panache! (no substitute for evidence)
Some Atheistic Arguments Answered
By Wayne Jackson
(http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/405-some-atheistic-arguments-answered)
"In establishing the case for the existence of God, we attempt to present clear reasoning that will lead to a rational conclusion, namely, that the universe, mankind, etc., are not self-explanatory. Rather, logical minds must conclude that a Supreme Being exists. In our approach, we are affirming a proposition for which positive evidence exists."
We have our main points, 'Case for the existence of God', 'Clear reasoning' and 'rational conclusion'. That rational conclusion being that a Supreme Being exists!
I'm not sure of the significance of the 'self-explanatory' bit is though? Is a rock self-explanatory? I think that this might be a bit of rhetoric, implying that atheist 'doctrine' is that the Universe is self-explanatory, perhaps.
"Atheism, on the other hand, is a totally negative system."
I think that this 'point' would be just as good a place for old Wayne to tell us 'case closed' and be done with it, as any other point, but we'll move along.
" It denies much and affirms nothing."
Atheists deny the existence of gods and that's that. What Wayne seems to want is an affirmation of God.
" It robs one of hope and offers emptiness in exchange,..."
As an atheist, I'm hopeful of different things, but once again Wayne seems to be thinking of some kind of 'fullness' which he feels that only God can offer.
".. asserting that there is no transcendent Cause for the universe, and that man is a fortuitous combination of molecules."
Sounds bad for atheists until you 'remember' that he's just defining atheists at this point, painting them in a dismal light.
" Morality does not exist..."
Ahh, now a lie, an outright barefaced lie.
".., or if it does, man, as his own god, determines its nature."
Followed by other horn of a false dilemma. Apparently there either is no morality OR man is 'being god'. Certainly men determine the nature of morality, but Wayne slips in that we need to be in 'god mode' to do it. He sets it up that Either God defines morality or 'man in god mode' defines morality, distancing morality from being a set of customs for the benefit of society.
"Atheism is a philosophical system of contradiction and confusion."
Bold statement. How does 'There are no gods.', become this system of confusion etc.?
" Atheists do, however, attempt to argue their case."
I thought Wayne said that he was going to prove his case. Now he seems to be taking his 'case' as a 'given', 'proven'?
"In this article, we will analyze two of the popular arguments employed in defense of atheism."
Wow, Wayne is setting his bar as low as he can go here, proving to his own satisfaction that a couple of atheist 'attempts to argue their case' don't measure up to his standards.
"Non-Design Negates God?"
Atheist, we 'hear' in this three and a half word sentence attempt to disprove the tautology of 'Designer therefore design, design therefore designer.'
"In contending for the existence of God, theists utilize the design argument, which postulates that where there is purposeful design, there must be a designer."
Panache anyone? I feel as if I'm being panache-pied in the face with all this 'contending' and 'utilizing' and 'postulating' of a silly 'definition' argument(purposeful design implies designer).
"That this type of reasoning is valid is not in doubt,..."
Rolling on the floor, laughing my fucking ass off. A word game, 'design' therefore 'designer'.
" especially for those who respect the authority of the Scriptures (which an atheist obviously would not)"
Paint your opponents as disrespectful and anti-authoritarian, WHILE painting the Bible AS a respected authority! (double whammy)
".., since it is employed by an inspired writer. Paul, in his epistle to the Roman saints, declared:
For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse (1:20)."
But this is an appeal to authority and hardly the logical evidence that Wayne was touting earlier.
"Thus, we may argue logically:
Premise #1: If the universe evinces purposeful design, there must have been a designer. "
Indeed if anything at all 'evinces' purposeful design, it must, BY DEFINITION have a designer. But you are simply posing the question AS the answer.
"Premise #2: The universe does evince purposeful design."
No, it doesn't.
"Conclusion: Thus, the universe must have had a Designer."
Wayne is simply repeating the word game, 'purposefully designed things have a designer', when the question of whether the universe IS designed IS the question. No God, no design.
"The basic point of contention, from the atheistic vantage point, would be the minor premise."
PANACHE alert! Waynes couches his second premise as 'minor', as if we've already proven from the tautology, "Purposefully designed things have a designer!", that the Universe IS purposefully designed!
" The infidel denies that the universe reveals purposeful design."
More panache! 'The infidel' no less! What a joke. And of course he finally reaches the nub of the argument. No, Wayne, you don't 'get away with' saying that there must be a design because there's a God, and there must be a God because the Universe is designed by HIM, and try to pawn that off as logical evidence.
"He feels that he can reverse the argument and make his point against the existence of God."
Why would anyone feel the need to reverse this circular argument?
" He would reason (incorrectly) as follows:
Premise #1: If the universe evinces traits of non-design, there is no Designer.
Premise #2: The universe does evince non-design.
Conclusion: Thus, the universe had no Designer."
What? Why would any atheist try to reverse a circular argument?
"The atheist’s argument is invalid for several reasons."
I'm thinking that Wayne has said 'atheist' when he's meaning 'straw man' here.
"In arguing our case for design, we are not obligated to show obvious design in every single feature of the universe."
Wayne wasn't obligated to write any of this drivel. Looking at some exact opposite ludricous point of view and claiming that this is(must be?) what atheists think is devious because Christians are likely to agree that Wayne's 'opposite' argument must be what 'the atheist' thinks, and we can all laugh at 'the atheist's' silly point of view now.
"We need only a reasonable number of sufficient evidences to establish design, hence, a Designer."
We haven't been exposed to ONE in this monologue.
" Here are two vital principles that must be kept in view:
It is possible that an object possesses purposeful design but that its design is not recognized by the observer. "
Are we down to asking ourselves if it's 'possible' that there 'might' be a God now?
"It is possible that an object once clearly reflected purposeful design, but that through the process of degeneration, its obvious design has been erased. "
Wow! Wayne seems to be readying an escape hatch against any evidence of anything that, if designed, are BADLY designed!
But, there was truck-loads of panache, and disdain. Not so much 'proof' though. No doubt 'faith' steps in to pose as 'proof' later in Wayne's "Case for the Existence of God!"
By Wayne Jackson
(http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/405-some-atheistic-arguments-answered)
"In establishing the case for the existence of God, we attempt to present clear reasoning that will lead to a rational conclusion, namely, that the universe, mankind, etc., are not self-explanatory. Rather, logical minds must conclude that a Supreme Being exists. In our approach, we are affirming a proposition for which positive evidence exists."
We have our main points, 'Case for the existence of God', 'Clear reasoning' and 'rational conclusion'. That rational conclusion being that a Supreme Being exists!
I'm not sure of the significance of the 'self-explanatory' bit is though? Is a rock self-explanatory? I think that this might be a bit of rhetoric, implying that atheist 'doctrine' is that the Universe is self-explanatory, perhaps.
"Atheism, on the other hand, is a totally negative system."
I think that this 'point' would be just as good a place for old Wayne to tell us 'case closed' and be done with it, as any other point, but we'll move along.
" It denies much and affirms nothing."
Atheists deny the existence of gods and that's that. What Wayne seems to want is an affirmation of God.
" It robs one of hope and offers emptiness in exchange,..."
As an atheist, I'm hopeful of different things, but once again Wayne seems to be thinking of some kind of 'fullness' which he feels that only God can offer.
".. asserting that there is no transcendent Cause for the universe, and that man is a fortuitous combination of molecules."
Sounds bad for atheists until you 'remember' that he's just defining atheists at this point, painting them in a dismal light.
" Morality does not exist..."
Ahh, now a lie, an outright barefaced lie.
".., or if it does, man, as his own god, determines its nature."
Followed by other horn of a false dilemma. Apparently there either is no morality OR man is 'being god'. Certainly men determine the nature of morality, but Wayne slips in that we need to be in 'god mode' to do it. He sets it up that Either God defines morality or 'man in god mode' defines morality, distancing morality from being a set of customs for the benefit of society.
"Atheism is a philosophical system of contradiction and confusion."
Bold statement. How does 'There are no gods.', become this system of confusion etc.?
" Atheists do, however, attempt to argue their case."
I thought Wayne said that he was going to prove his case. Now he seems to be taking his 'case' as a 'given', 'proven'?
"In this article, we will analyze two of the popular arguments employed in defense of atheism."
Wow, Wayne is setting his bar as low as he can go here, proving to his own satisfaction that a couple of atheist 'attempts to argue their case' don't measure up to his standards.
"Non-Design Negates God?"
Atheist, we 'hear' in this three and a half word sentence attempt to disprove the tautology of 'Designer therefore design, design therefore designer.'
"In contending for the existence of God, theists utilize the design argument, which postulates that where there is purposeful design, there must be a designer."
Panache anyone? I feel as if I'm being panache-pied in the face with all this 'contending' and 'utilizing' and 'postulating' of a silly 'definition' argument(purposeful design implies designer).
"That this type of reasoning is valid is not in doubt,..."
Rolling on the floor, laughing my fucking ass off. A word game, 'design' therefore 'designer'.
" especially for those who respect the authority of the Scriptures (which an atheist obviously would not)"
Paint your opponents as disrespectful and anti-authoritarian, WHILE painting the Bible AS a respected authority! (double whammy)
".., since it is employed by an inspired writer. Paul, in his epistle to the Roman saints, declared:
For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse (1:20)."
But this is an appeal to authority and hardly the logical evidence that Wayne was touting earlier.
"Thus, we may argue logically:
Premise #1: If the universe evinces purposeful design, there must have been a designer. "
Indeed if anything at all 'evinces' purposeful design, it must, BY DEFINITION have a designer. But you are simply posing the question AS the answer.
"Premise #2: The universe does evince purposeful design."
No, it doesn't.
"Conclusion: Thus, the universe must have had a Designer."
Wayne is simply repeating the word game, 'purposefully designed things have a designer', when the question of whether the universe IS designed IS the question. No God, no design.
"The basic point of contention, from the atheistic vantage point, would be the minor premise."
PANACHE alert! Waynes couches his second premise as 'minor', as if we've already proven from the tautology, "Purposefully designed things have a designer!", that the Universe IS purposefully designed!
" The infidel denies that the universe reveals purposeful design."
More panache! 'The infidel' no less! What a joke. And of course he finally reaches the nub of the argument. No, Wayne, you don't 'get away with' saying that there must be a design because there's a God, and there must be a God because the Universe is designed by HIM, and try to pawn that off as logical evidence.
"He feels that he can reverse the argument and make his point against the existence of God."
Why would anyone feel the need to reverse this circular argument?
" He would reason (incorrectly) as follows:
Premise #1: If the universe evinces traits of non-design, there is no Designer.
Premise #2: The universe does evince non-design.
Conclusion: Thus, the universe had no Designer."
What? Why would any atheist try to reverse a circular argument?
"The atheist’s argument is invalid for several reasons."
I'm thinking that Wayne has said 'atheist' when he's meaning 'straw man' here.
"In arguing our case for design, we are not obligated to show obvious design in every single feature of the universe."
Wayne wasn't obligated to write any of this drivel. Looking at some exact opposite ludricous point of view and claiming that this is(must be?) what atheists think is devious because Christians are likely to agree that Wayne's 'opposite' argument must be what 'the atheist' thinks, and we can all laugh at 'the atheist's' silly point of view now.
"We need only a reasonable number of sufficient evidences to establish design, hence, a Designer."
We haven't been exposed to ONE in this monologue.
" Here are two vital principles that must be kept in view:
It is possible that an object possesses purposeful design but that its design is not recognized by the observer. "
Are we down to asking ourselves if it's 'possible' that there 'might' be a God now?
"It is possible that an object once clearly reflected purposeful design, but that through the process of degeneration, its obvious design has been erased. "
Wow! Wayne seems to be readying an escape hatch against any evidence of anything that, if designed, are BADLY designed!
But, there was truck-loads of panache, and disdain. Not so much 'proof' though. No doubt 'faith' steps in to pose as 'proof' later in Wayne's "Case for the Existence of God!"
Saturday, June 19, 2010
The wall.
Seems to me that they have a wall of defense, ranging from the ludricous, "We speak in tongues, science is the Devil's tool!", to, "Christianity is philosophically correct, how can we NOT believe?"
Now while most do not care for the first argument(rolling eyes), most do not try to understand the second one!
Seems if one is smart enough to defend the philosophical arguments made over the millenia, one is also smart enough to use every trick in 'the book' to defend them.
Mostly, I'm thinking, it's diversion. Move the argument away from itself, so to speak.
Which philosophical religionist among is isn't willing to settle for a draw? You can't PROVE me wrong and I can't PROVE you wrong, therefore my position is as valid as yours! On the other hand, we have a couple of thousand years of 'the best minds' on our side, the ontological argument, the teleological argument etc. etc.
Even supposing that each one isn't a 'proof', let's say that they're 99% convincing(to me), then 3 X 99% is 297% convincing, isn't it? (Well, no.)
This is the wall. If one argument doesn't seem to be 'standing up', don't worry, it's not a brick wall, it's more like a force-field! If in doubt, simply accuse your accuser of being unintelligible, if not least because your sources are genius!( and who 'doesn't know' that geniuses are always right!?)
But we don't see these geniuses arguing against their own reason and logic, no.
Why ISN'T the World the Centre of the Universe like religious logic dictates??(It MUST have to have been considered TRUTH for so long, right?)
Guess the reason they took so long to come to a conclusion was not just to put the people they burned well into the past, but also to put that 'irrefutable' logic which they used to burn people, 'well into the past'' too! If we put the irrefutable logic that the World is the Centre of the Universe, 'in context', back when we were all 'morons', then that about covers it.
BUT, but at the same time we can still use that EXACT SAME logic to govern our beliefs now! JUST NOT the 'Earth centrist thing, that is bullshit!"
But while all this is going on, some theists also take the far right religionist positions, running interference for the so-called philosophical, sophisticated arguments, which by and large are the same old, "You can't PROVE we're wrong!", shit, that they've always been spouting, 'genius' or 'no genius'.
Now while most do not care for the first argument(rolling eyes), most do not try to understand the second one!
Seems if one is smart enough to defend the philosophical arguments made over the millenia, one is also smart enough to use every trick in 'the book' to defend them.
Mostly, I'm thinking, it's diversion. Move the argument away from itself, so to speak.
Which philosophical religionist among is isn't willing to settle for a draw? You can't PROVE me wrong and I can't PROVE you wrong, therefore my position is as valid as yours! On the other hand, we have a couple of thousand years of 'the best minds' on our side, the ontological argument, the teleological argument etc. etc.
Even supposing that each one isn't a 'proof', let's say that they're 99% convincing(to me), then 3 X 99% is 297% convincing, isn't it? (Well, no.)
This is the wall. If one argument doesn't seem to be 'standing up', don't worry, it's not a brick wall, it's more like a force-field! If in doubt, simply accuse your accuser of being unintelligible, if not least because your sources are genius!( and who 'doesn't know' that geniuses are always right!?)
But we don't see these geniuses arguing against their own reason and logic, no.
Why ISN'T the World the Centre of the Universe like religious logic dictates??(It MUST have to have been considered TRUTH for so long, right?)
Guess the reason they took so long to come to a conclusion was not just to put the people they burned well into the past, but also to put that 'irrefutable' logic which they used to burn people, 'well into the past'' too! If we put the irrefutable logic that the World is the Centre of the Universe, 'in context', back when we were all 'morons', then that about covers it.
BUT, but at the same time we can still use that EXACT SAME logic to govern our beliefs now! JUST NOT the 'Earth centrist thing, that is bullshit!"
But while all this is going on, some theists also take the far right religionist positions, running interference for the so-called philosophical, sophisticated arguments, which by and large are the same old, "You can't PROVE we're wrong!", shit, that they've always been spouting, 'genius' or 'no genius'.
Friday, May 7, 2010
Flowers for Harry C. Pharisee!
(ahem)... Flowers!
I remember sitting in the bar one day, having a beer with Kenny and Dennis. I had been studying Spanish for a bit so, out of my mouth came, "Hey, Kenny, you're from Flores Island, did YOU know that that means 'Flowers' Island!?"
Kenny was a pretty tough kind of manly man, with a heart of gold, but his expression said, "If you weren't my pal, I'd punch you on the nose for saying that!"
Dennis spotted that too and decided to 'back Kenny up', "You are WRONG, because Flores Island was named after a Spaniard named Flores!"
Dennis considers himself a bit of a brain, which is cool 'cos we've had some good conversations, you know, for 'bar conversation', and he was sure that he 'had me there'.
So, not even having to think about it, I piped up, "Well, HIS name was Mr. Flowers though, so it's STILL Flowers' Island, right?"
(YES! Two points for Ian, YAY!)
I was wondering why anyone might consider it 'sissy' to have been brought up on 'Flowers' Island'?
Would Kenny have prefered it to have been named, "EvilBastard Island", or "Ironman Island", or like THAT, perhaps in Spanish?
We just don't know!
Happy b'day Harry!
I remember sitting in the bar one day, having a beer with Kenny and Dennis. I had been studying Spanish for a bit so, out of my mouth came, "Hey, Kenny, you're from Flores Island, did YOU know that that means 'Flowers' Island!?"
Kenny was a pretty tough kind of manly man, with a heart of gold, but his expression said, "If you weren't my pal, I'd punch you on the nose for saying that!"
Dennis spotted that too and decided to 'back Kenny up', "You are WRONG, because Flores Island was named after a Spaniard named Flores!"
Dennis considers himself a bit of a brain, which is cool 'cos we've had some good conversations, you know, for 'bar conversation', and he was sure that he 'had me there'.
So, not even having to think about it, I piped up, "Well, HIS name was Mr. Flowers though, so it's STILL Flowers' Island, right?"
(YES! Two points for Ian, YAY!)
I was wondering why anyone might consider it 'sissy' to have been brought up on 'Flowers' Island'?
Would Kenny have prefered it to have been named, "EvilBastard Island", or "Ironman Island", or like THAT, perhaps in Spanish?
We just don't know!
Happy b'day Harry!
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Emotion = Magick
Seems to me that people are the same in one regard World-wide, from the tiniest baby to the oldest 'fossil'. Emotion. We delight in the delight of others and are horrified at the horror of other and we can delight in the horror of others and can be horrified at the delight of others.
I think that the terms 'spiritual', magickal and emotional are 'inter-confused' very easily and that we are more or less willing participants in this self-confusion and confusing of others.
I wonder if it is true that whoever makes you feel bad is evil, or at least being evil?
Is anyone that is making you feel good a good person or at least doing good?
I'm not sure if the story of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is the 'greatest story ever told' but it certainly is constructed to invoke as many emotions as we have, deliberately(?) mixing emotions, mixing the idea of spirituality and emotions.
Jesus body, we hear, after being horribly tortured to death(sadness, anger, sense of unfairness etc.) is brought to a nearby tomb(sense of decency, right thing to do etc.) and the disciples are worried(aren't you?) that something might happen to it.(the body)
The solution is to have it guarded by some unbiased, unimpeachable 'policemen' of the time, Roman soldiers!(law, order, strictness following orders to the letter etc.)
During their watch, Jesus rises from the dead!(wonder, promise of dreams come true, justification of belief, we WILL meet our loved ones again and forever etc.)
((This doesn't necessarilly follow really, depending on whether you imagine another earthly life and not some kind of other-dimensional plane kind of everlasting life.))
But the Roman guards are bribed to lie about it. (disappointment, betrayal etc.)
At this crucial moment in the Christian faith, in this particular version, the guards are to be thought of as unimpeachable, unbiased witnesses to one thing(Jesus' body BEING there) AND impeachable, biased, easily corruptible, lying scoundrels when it comes to seeing Jesus' body come back to life! Or is it being accurate in their statement that no-one came took the body?(well, the essence of evil really.)
Are we encouraged to feel mixed emotions towards the only ACTUAL witnesses to Jesus' physical ressurection? Of course we are. Are we supposed to NOTICE that we're being encouraged to have profoundly mixed feelings towards those guards?
Well, I think that we're supposed to find spirituality in this mixed message, somewhere in this mix of feeling(that KNOWING) that authority is unimpeachable and that authority is(the KNOWING that authority is), at the exact same time, an illusion really, only as strong as the weakest link, men's avarice, in this case.
Meh, I dunno.(sadness)
I think that the terms 'spiritual', magickal and emotional are 'inter-confused' very easily and that we are more or less willing participants in this self-confusion and confusing of others.
I wonder if it is true that whoever makes you feel bad is evil, or at least being evil?
Is anyone that is making you feel good a good person or at least doing good?
I'm not sure if the story of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is the 'greatest story ever told' but it certainly is constructed to invoke as many emotions as we have, deliberately(?) mixing emotions, mixing the idea of spirituality and emotions.
Jesus body, we hear, after being horribly tortured to death(sadness, anger, sense of unfairness etc.) is brought to a nearby tomb(sense of decency, right thing to do etc.) and the disciples are worried(aren't you?) that something might happen to it.(the body)
The solution is to have it guarded by some unbiased, unimpeachable 'policemen' of the time, Roman soldiers!(law, order, strictness following orders to the letter etc.)
During their watch, Jesus rises from the dead!(wonder, promise of dreams come true, justification of belief, we WILL meet our loved ones again and forever etc.)
((This doesn't necessarilly follow really, depending on whether you imagine another earthly life and not some kind of other-dimensional plane kind of everlasting life.))
But the Roman guards are bribed to lie about it. (disappointment, betrayal etc.)
At this crucial moment in the Christian faith, in this particular version, the guards are to be thought of as unimpeachable, unbiased witnesses to one thing(Jesus' body BEING there) AND impeachable, biased, easily corruptible, lying scoundrels when it comes to seeing Jesus' body come back to life! Or is it being accurate in their statement that no-one came took the body?(well, the essence of evil really.)
Are we encouraged to feel mixed emotions towards the only ACTUAL witnesses to Jesus' physical ressurection? Of course we are. Are we supposed to NOTICE that we're being encouraged to have profoundly mixed feelings towards those guards?
Well, I think that we're supposed to find spirituality in this mixed message, somewhere in this mix of feeling(that KNOWING) that authority is unimpeachable and that authority is(the KNOWING that authority is), at the exact same time, an illusion really, only as strong as the weakest link, men's avarice, in this case.
Meh, I dunno.(sadness)
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Politics in the U.S.A.
I haven't involved myself in the day to day minutia(sp?) of politics. From what I gathered growing up it seemed more like controlling people's attitudes than anything else.
I believe that in general, people, the majority on the bottom of the heap, lean, at least slightly to the left of centre. No matter how many businessmen or right-wing academics or pundits claim that the capitalist system will look after them, time and time again we've seen that the 'haves' tend to look after themselves and completely ignore the 'have-nots'.
I have been watching the political news on television lately, noticing what a drama it all is.
Passing the health-care bill is hailed a giant success for the people of the U.S.A. who, according to (at least) right-wing pundits isn't going over well with those people who stand to gain from these new rules.
Anyway I feel that there is a big picture here, where the control of the U.S.A has been compromised by corporations who hire ex-government employees for large dollars to help them control overall outcomes. I understand that it is dynamic, situations are mobile and such but it seems to me that Bush and his gang got in and rolled over the 'will' of the American people so hard that they got themselves booted from power.
Does this hobble the corporate interests? Not in the least. Seems the the left can be kept in check AND pushed to aquiece(sp?) to their agenda by simply paying right-wing extremists, propagandists and media to help block any forward movement of government while ALSO having watered down, right of centre bills passed and being hailed as great victories for the left.
Seems to me that part of PNAC's agenda was, and is, to bankrupt the U.S.A, a libertarian agenda, where they deliberately bankrupt the government, fulfilling their own prophecy that 'government' doesn't 'work'.
Apparently NOTHING has changed, in this regard, after a solid year of the new, so-called left-wing majority in the three branches of government in the U.S.A.
The new POTUS seems to be prepared to give lip service to the coming environmental catastrophe likely due to global warming, while 'negotiating' using environmentally risky ventures, for the sake of bipartisanship? Bipartisanerry? (Don't know, who cares?)
But trying to please the libertarian agenda of NO government is ludricous, isn't it? There is no middle ground. There's either good government or bad government, not some good government and some no government.
Obama is a fool for trying to compromise on an issue that has no compromise, on an issue where there IS NO compromise to be had.
I believe that in general, people, the majority on the bottom of the heap, lean, at least slightly to the left of centre. No matter how many businessmen or right-wing academics or pundits claim that the capitalist system will look after them, time and time again we've seen that the 'haves' tend to look after themselves and completely ignore the 'have-nots'.
I have been watching the political news on television lately, noticing what a drama it all is.
Passing the health-care bill is hailed a giant success for the people of the U.S.A. who, according to (at least) right-wing pundits isn't going over well with those people who stand to gain from these new rules.
Anyway I feel that there is a big picture here, where the control of the U.S.A has been compromised by corporations who hire ex-government employees for large dollars to help them control overall outcomes. I understand that it is dynamic, situations are mobile and such but it seems to me that Bush and his gang got in and rolled over the 'will' of the American people so hard that they got themselves booted from power.
Does this hobble the corporate interests? Not in the least. Seems the the left can be kept in check AND pushed to aquiece(sp?) to their agenda by simply paying right-wing extremists, propagandists and media to help block any forward movement of government while ALSO having watered down, right of centre bills passed and being hailed as great victories for the left.
Seems to me that part of PNAC's agenda was, and is, to bankrupt the U.S.A, a libertarian agenda, where they deliberately bankrupt the government, fulfilling their own prophecy that 'government' doesn't 'work'.
Apparently NOTHING has changed, in this regard, after a solid year of the new, so-called left-wing majority in the three branches of government in the U.S.A.
The new POTUS seems to be prepared to give lip service to the coming environmental catastrophe likely due to global warming, while 'negotiating' using environmentally risky ventures, for the sake of bipartisanship? Bipartisanerry? (Don't know, who cares?)
But trying to please the libertarian agenda of NO government is ludricous, isn't it? There is no middle ground. There's either good government or bad government, not some good government and some no government.
Obama is a fool for trying to compromise on an issue that has no compromise, on an issue where there IS NO compromise to be had.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)