Reply With Quote
In order for Mary to be free of sin should could not have ed. Its by that logical extension that it had to be a virgin birth. The two are inseparable in christian theology.
ITs exactly these inconsistencies that should make people realize that its all made up. This is not god working in mysterious ways, its someone feeding you bull .
And Paul would just write whatever he thought someone wanted to hear. Talking to Corinth? Tell them women are property. Rome? Of course the state is supreme.
Paul was a politician and a damn good one. Christianity's early promotion went a long way.
In order for Mary to be free of sin should could not have ed. Its by that logical extension that it had to be a virgin birth. The two are inseparable in christian theology.
and get out of your parent's basement and get to a library. i never once argued any biblical content here. i made an observation about your inability to create any decent syllogism and yet camoflauge that as 'argument'. the least you can do is offer us a better tautology. if your intent is to ridicule the fundamentalist's blind loyalty to sunday school indoctrinations then the irony is that, in the process, you committed the same inability to create a discourse, unless your standard of debate is defined by a sequence of contradictions and fallacies of abuse.Get off your high horse dummy and go read your bible
your inferences are as bad as your wit too if your assumption is that i am someone who swears by the bible.
defining the period of the enlightenment by one philosopher (and one very 'readers digest' synopsis of his beliefs at that) is akin to regarding the postmodernists as the singular extension of derrida's works on deconstructionalism. locke was but one philosopher of many whose intent was to develop an age of reason, of which the epicenter was france, not england. the discourse that the philosophers of that time engaged in (voltaire, hobbes, locke, rosseau..) were vested in the question of the state of man in nature and how this applied to government and individual rights. i never advocated one philosopher over the other. i simply pointed out (in what i thought was mostly a sardonic tone at that) that the thought process of the time was to question more and think in a more analytical fashion. this was not unique to this time period, of course, but it was the prevailing tone and this was demonstrated by even the scientists of the time such as leibniz, galileo and newton.
bertrand russell was really no different. he was a man of math who championed logic and was deeply concerned with the morality of man. if anything, his metaphysical assertions would stand in contradiction to your generalizations about locke. if after all, you find fault with locke's treatise on ethics, why would you bring up russell (a philosopher who also could not escape the metaphysical narrative) ? in other words, if you think the discourse of the enlightenment is atavistic, then why not extend that same regard for the school of the logical positivists?
Last edited by rjv; 10-13-2010 at 10:20 AM.
I wonder how the Bible would be if it was translated for president Obama instead of King James?
Hobbes' Leviathan is an exercise in royalist political ass kissing. He was a political theorist and not a very good one.
Russell's metaphysical assertion is completely contradictory to Locke. The state of nature according to Locke is that left to his own devices, man is a good altruistic being which he backs up extensively with biblical literalism. His logic to justify social contract is a joke. Russell elaborates on this extensively.
Locke was in no way metaphysical beyond biblical literalism. He reached political conclusions. Seriously read Two Treatise on Government, the first one is a response to a royalist where he refutes almost exclusively on biblical grounds. Its Adam this and Garden of Eden that.
In my view the only thing that Locke has going for him is that Jefferson referenced him in the Declaration of Independence.
If anything Russell tended towards Hume and used modern science to extend on Hume's thoughts on the relationship between sensory organs, reality and thought. Thats the basis of his overall philosophy. While you may not be able to prove causation as Hume demonstrates you have to go with Kant's idea of a priori or else reality is meaningless.
Rousseau was interesting in as far as passion and motivation which was fleshed out by Sartre but in terms of insightful I give him a backseat to the modern Jung and Freud, well and Sartre for that matter.
I see your Leibniz, Newton and Galileo and raise you Hawking, Einstein, Bohr, Fermi, Planck, Heisenberg, Feynman, Maxwell and Faraday.
The difference between those that depend on observations of reality and those that came in the time period between the fall of Rome and the 1800s was that the latter blindly followed the church, Aristotelian logic and Platonic bull . Its the blind followers like Descartes, Kierkegaard and Locke that I take issue with.
Really how you can talk about 18th century philosophical enlightenment and not talk about Hume and Kant is beyond me.
Syllogism? Really? I see none of them from you and its not like they are the ultimate form of argument. Loigcal thought does not have to come from 3's.
DAMM TERRORIST!!!!!
that really does not make much sense.
and you would find that even the scientists you praise would extol their predecessors and also depend upon them for their own current contemporary theories. and even amongst your own pantheon there are disputes and disagreements. einstein never fully accepted quantum physics and while hawking uses the theory of relativity he even now has to admit that either the theory is flawed or our current use of it as applied to our present day model of the universe is. science is not a static endeavor. chances are some other 'in the box' thinker will make the same patronizing remarks about your own group.I see your Leibniz, Newton and Galileo and raise you Hawking, Einstein, Bohr, Fermi, Planck, Heisenberg, Feynman, Maxwell and Faraday.
now your acting like quantum reality because you're all over the place. how did plato and aristotle enter the equation? (not that the theory of forms and the notion of elementary particles do not have at least some relevance in modern physics. not mathematically of course, but at least superficially)The difference between those that depend on observations of reality and those that came in the time period between the fall of Rome and the 1800s was that the latter blindly followed the church, Aristotelian logic and Platonic bull . Its the blind followers like Descartes, Kierkegaard and Locke that I take issue with.
this was never supposed to be about the enlightenment. it was a response to another response on how the discourse in this forum lacks the feel of any real argument. the enlightenment comment was a sarcastic pun. and then you went on some really incongruous tangent.Really how you can talk about 18th century philosophical enlightenment and not talk about Hume and Kant is beyond me.
i've really just been playing along here but i still really do not get your point. i never advocated the bible or any one philosopher or school of thought for that matter. you're the one setting up boundaries here, based on a very unverifiable stance at that (or just your own pretentiousness).
since when does tautology cons ute an argument? that was my point. that most of the rhetoric in here is mere observation. i even qualified that my own comment was observation.
most of this always turns out to be just a series of contradictory statements with very little substance in between all of this. what you and i are doing is no different, with the exception that we are just having a pissing contest on who seems to know more about philosophy.
if you somehow think i am not right about that you can offer some examples of posts that suggest otherwise. that would certainly be more to the point at hand than some five cent lecture about locke.
Last edited by rjv; 10-13-2010 at 07:16 PM.
You can really not understand how study of existence cannot be based on taking the literal interpretation of the bible? thats pretty sad.
Locke bases his entire state of nature on the story of genesis. You know, original sin and all that bull ? He goes on about it extensively. Actually read him sometime.
Sure they do. Einstein had pictures of Faraday, Newton and Maxwell in his office. Makes sense because they were the foundation of his science.and you would find that even the scientists you praise would extol their predecessors and also depend upon them for their own current contemporary theories. and even amongst your own pantheon there are disputes and disagreements. einstein never fully accepted quantum physics and while hawking uses the theory of relativity he even now has to admit that either the theory is flawed or our current use of it as applied to our present day model of the universe is. science is not a static endeavor. chances are some other 'in the box' thinker will make the same patronizing remarks about your own group.
This is actually you being all over the place.
The original argument was about looking to the 18th century for enlightenment which is where you started. Now you have gone onto this luddite ancestor worship tripe. While that certainly makes you easy to place in a demographic it hardly contributes much. Feeling your mortality a little bit are we?
No you just fail to understand. The theory of forms or more specifically perfect forms is used extensively in Augustine's City of God.now your acting like quantum reality because you're all over the place. how did plato and aristotle enter the equation? (not that the theory of forms and the notion of elementary particles do not have at least some relevance in modern physics. not mathematically of course, but at least superficially)
Your ideas on Aristotle are less than compelling. Democritus of Thales was the one that first came up with the concept of the atom. He smelled bread or something. I cannot remember. What made Aristotle important was his need to categorize EVERYTHING and his pigeonholing argumentation into the form of a syllogism which is apparently a box you are incapable of seeing out of.
It was this methodology that was all the rage back in the 18th century. His comments on the nature of matter inhibited scientific development for centuries.
The point is that up to and including
No this is about what you actually said:this was never supposed to be about the enlightenment. it was a response to another response on how the discourse in this forum lacks the feel of any real argument. the enlightenment comment was a sarcastic pun. and then you went on some really incongruous tangent.
I am just pointing out that its not like the 18th century was any more enlightened than the modern age. Its doubly apt for this topic because of the limitations of thought because of the church's control of scholars during that time period.if you're looking for enlightenment go back to the 1700's. it's a bit ahead of most of the content in these parts.
Youre just trying to use your failure to understand as a refutation?
I'm setting the boundaries? Really your the one that mentioned those philosophers. Your the one that brought up the 18th century. I just happened to think it was funny that you cite the likes of Hobbes for 18th century enlightenment.i've really just been playing along here but i still really do not get your point. i never advocated the bible or any one philosopher or school of thought for that matter. you're the one setting up boundaries here, based on a very unverifiable stance at that (or just your own pretentiousness).
And how you can cry pretentious when you hide behind diction is laughable. That might work against other people but I actually know what a syllogism is and know how to use them as well as their limitations. I know what tautology and atavism is.
You are clearly not talking to your audience. You are just trying to hide behind diction that most people are not aware of so you can seems to be more in a position of authority. Your not very good at it.
Who died and made you the arbiter of ST?
Tautology and observation? What? If you are going to use 50 cent words at least know what they mean.
You fail at argumentation. You are using diction as bluster and now you are resorting to ad hominem.
Where is my contradiction? What statements am I representing as indisputable? If you see that type of thing then point it out. Do not be an intellectual coward by this passive aggressive bull . I dub thee the dissembler.
What do you expect? The original statement was basically you calling everyone here stupid. Now you are crying pissing contest? What a pussy.
You made the comment about 18th century enlightenment. I responded by actually discussing thought in the 18th century. Oh noes!
I agree with amarelooms: get off your high horse. You certainly cannot justify it more than anyone else around here. Me notwithstanding.
cosigned
bump
u guys know the bible, how come it only talks about when jesus was born and then when he starts his journey???
how come it doesnt talk about his childhood? wtf was there a timeskip to his adulthood?
Religion can lick my ballsack
Seriously, you need to know of what you speak
The theory, as proposed by the Catholic Church -but is NOT in the Bible is that Mary's parents did not have sex to conceive Mary; that she was immaculately conceived, and thus without sin. Many denominations do not believe that sex is a sin, nor do they believe that Mary was without sin. This all dates back to Victorian times, and the rise of "Marianists". Look it up.
As for the rest of this thread; pretty much an agnostic/atheistic cliched circle jerk. Props to you so intelligent, enlightened people.
Funny.
i have read him. what made no sense was your statement about locke not being any more metaphysical beyond biblical literalism. even locke's discussions on politics are technically metaphysical. you have a very narrow definition of metaphysics for someone who claims to be a follower of russell.
argument? what argument. you must have the personality of kant if you thought for a second that the remark "if you're looking for enlightenment go back to the 1700's. it's a bit ahead of most of the content in these parts. " as a response to the comment: "enlighten us oh wise one " was anything other than a play on words. no wonder you are such an opponent of aristotelian logic (despite the fact that your discussion bears a striking resembance to the socratic method). with over the top inferences such as getting from this that i was advocating the works of john locke is beyond me. or perhaps this is just you getting on your own high horse and trying to play good will hunting here. you missed the point if that is the role you are playing. you're being as haughty as any one else only you don't have the sense to admit it. i mean if you want to cast yourself as the patron saint of the spurs talk posters and get your panties in a wad because someone else in this forum has the audacity to make a value judgment then enjoy reveling in your own hypocrisy. and i don't know how a comment on the shifting paradigms of science merits another one of your mediocre takes, this time from the school of freud. maybe thomas kuhn just feared losing his place in this lineage of time you have created.Sure they do. Einstein had pictures of Faraday, Newton and Maxwell in his office. Makes sense because they were the foundation of his science.
This is actually you being all over the place.
The original argument was about looking to the 18th century for enlightenment which is where you started. Now you have gone onto this luddite ancestor worship tripe. While that certainly makes you easy to place in a demographic it hardly contributes much. Feeling your mortality a little bit are we?
i never realized that aristotle was the sole gauntlet to the advancement of science. good thing galileo and copernicus somehow managed to escape the universal atavism of the enlightenment which you have yourself pigeonholed as some sort of ironic tribute to aristotle. leibniz and newton sure did not need any sort of formal logic to create the foundation for calculus either. considering that modern day cosmology pretty much took off from this point one would have to second guess whatever personal issues you have with any thinker outside of your preferred pantheon.No you just fail to understand. The theory of forms or more specifically perfect forms is used extensively in Augustine's City of God.
Your ideas on Aristotle are less than compelling. Democritus of Thales was the one that first came up with the concept of the atom. He smelled bread or something. I cannot remember. What made Aristotle important was his need to categorize EVERYTHING and his pigeonholing argumentation into the form of a syllogism which is apparently a box you are incapable of seeing out of.
It was this methodology that was all the rage back in the 18th century. His comments on the nature of matter inhibited scientific development for centuries.
no, this is what i really said, mr. strawman: "i never advocated one philosopher over the other. i simply pointed out (in what i thought was mostly a sardonic tone at that) that the thought process of the time was to question more and think in a more analytical fashion. this was not unique to this time period, of course, but it was the prevailing tone and this was demonstrated by even the scientists of the time such as leibniz, galileo and newton."No this is about what you actually said:
I am just pointing out that its not like the 18th century was any more enlightened than the modern age. Its doubly apt for this topic because of the limitations of thought because of the church's control of scholars during that time period.
Youre just trying to use your failure to understand as a refutation?
sounds like you are as guilty of the church when it comes to playing politics with thought.
all you have to do is go back and look over the thread again. the first one to bring up a philosopher was you when you mentioned locke. if i have to point out again what i actually stated and in what context then i would just be being repe ive to the point of absurdity (now you don't have to start talking about camus and sarte here. i am not bringing up the subject of existentialism!)I'm setting the boundaries? Really your the one that mentioned those philosophers. Your the one that brought up the 18th century. I just happened to think it was funny that you cite the likes of Hobbes for 18th century enlightenment.
And how you can cry pretentious when you hide behind diction is laughable. That might work against other people but I actually know what a syllogism is and know how to use them as well as their limitations. I know what tautology and atavism is.
You are clearly not talking to your audience. You are just trying to hide behind diction that most people are not aware of so you can seems to be more in a position of authority. Your not very good at it.
and i'm glad you know some subjects and words. do you want some sort of badge for that? the very fact that you stated "That might work against other people " strongly suggests that the real point i was actually making all along (that this forum often starts threads such as these which really amount to nothing more than moronic back and forths tantamount to the "oh yeah, but what are you" rituals of the 3rd grade) has merit.
what makes you so sensitive? did you just now come out of some cave (now this must mean that i am talking about plato then i suppose)? you came in here to do the same. to piss all over people who read the bible (to which amarelooms somehow got from this that i read the bible or am religious). i guess your high horse is the only acceptable one. i'll at least have the honesty to admit i'm an arrogant SOB and not hide behind this working class hero rhetoric you want to champion. and if you think that most of the posts here really do offer anything more than tautology then enjoy the great debate. i'm sure there will be another thread just like this one within a week that will yield the exact same results all the others have.Who died and made you the arbiter of ST?
Tautology and observation? What? If you are going to use 50 cent words at least know what they mean.
You fail at argumentation. You are using diction as bluster and now you are resorting to ad hominem.
Where is my contradiction? What statements am I representing as indisputable? If you see that type of thing then point it out. Do not be an intellectual coward by this passive aggressive bull . I dub thee the dissembler.
What do you expect? The original statement was basically you calling everyone here stupid. Now you are crying pissing contest? What a pussy.
You made the comment about 18th century enlightenment. I responded by actually discussing thought in the 18th century. Oh noes!
I agree with amarelooms: get off your high horse. You certainly cannot justify it more than anyone else around here. Me notwithstanding.
great, you agree with another poster. either you think i care, you're taking a personal poll or this is just a bad attempt at a might makes right premise.
rather than going off on another tangent about some other philosopher that you decide to arbitrarily pick and make another commentary on (really, aren't you just being like the english professor who critiques literature but could never have the imagination or talent to create your own body of work?) why not stick to the actual subject at hand. it was not an argument. it was an observation. one that claimed that this was just: "another crappy 'religion' thread in the club full of the usual cliche responses and 'arguments'. how original"
to be honest, at least amarelooms kept up with the sarcastic hue and left it at that. kudos to him for that much.
Last edited by rjv; 10-14-2010 at 10:45 AM.
rjv: Game, set, match.
Can we please end this ridiculous thread now?
kthxbai
some clowns in here still havnt answered my question, why was there a timeskip in the bible?
Because the Bible was pieced together out of a number of texts regarding the life of Jesus with a specific narrative influence on the orders of Constantine? There are a number of texts contemporaneous to the Gospels that were rejected because they contradicted the others, were not in line with the image of Jesus that was being crafted, or were of questionable origin.
Speculatively, if one wanted to present Jesus as a divine being who was only temporarily of flesh and blood, then avoiding mundane things tying him to humanity - like, say, childhood - might be wise. It's hard to think of a little boy with skinned knees as a piece of the trinity-Godhead.
I love the Enlightenment. Wonderful ideas.
This post me me feel dumb. Awesome.
Please, don't stop with this stuff, it is needed counterbalance to what 101A rightly described as rather cliche'ed Kibuki theater.
If you want a much less cliche'ed circle jerk, the Economist ran a series of debates.
This house believes that religion is a force for good.
The first part struck me as particularly tangent, because I know of a couple of my wife's relatives who, for purely religious reasons, decided to homeschool.
Neither of them were really smart enough or educated enough themselves to pull it off. At some point, my sister-in-law decided to put her kid into the public school system at age 14 after being home-schooled for most of her life. The child is in the special education section, because she is painfully, and obviously ignorant.
I know not all homeschoolers are as bad off as my wife's neice, but the total isolation and wallowing in ignorance I have seen in people fighting that particular culture war does not leave me to be optimistic when it comes to our ability to teach good science, or have a political system without religious litmus tests.
Mr. Linker's term "theocons" seems fairly apt.
I am reminded by a remark from Orson Scott Card about the dangers of giving the power of government to people who want to get "God back". They start striving to achieve "perfection".
lol because the bible is complete bull
It just does.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
