Reply With Quote
tbh i truly wonder how many people are bible thumping hardcore christians because they were force-fed jesus as a child and dont want to disappoint mommy and daddy with free thinking
Plus wasn't there the story about him being a 12 year old teaching the temple rabbis or something? I haven't read it in probably a decade, so might be wrong.
Also, think about it, who was it written by (supposedly)? It was written by all the dudes who hung with JC after age 30. It seems quite obvious that they would not write about him "discovering himself" at age 13 or whatever.
tbh i truly wonder how many people are bible thumping hardcore christians because they were force-fed jesus as a child and dont want to disappoint mommy and daddy with free thinking
I know many who are the exact opposite and trust me, they are just as annoying.
true quote from one of them: "My dad started talking to me about the purpose of humans when I was 4 and my bed time stories were from philosophy books, so I don't need to listen to any that anyone has to say about this subject!" Said one notch below yelling, and I being the only other one in the conversation wasn't even arguing the counter-point.
i don't know why people continue to get into debates about religion. the debate has been going on for 6,000 years and little poster at Spurstalk isn't going to bring it to an end.
I just wanna know what deconstructionalism is?
Boredom and, on my part, a desire for historical or factual accuracy.
Bingo well said son....we believe what our parents told us to believe...at least for 90% of the people. However any semi-intelligent person should question it when older and at least realize what they were raised to believe might be complete bull .
Damn all the priests, mullahs, and religious people spreading their bull views straight to ....
God bless you all and your families though...
yeah, religion!
That's going to happen on ST?
We wouldn't even be talking about Christianity if it wasn't for Constantine. Dude saved your religion otherwise it would've died out as another pagan religion.
phew, thank god
Are you being intentionally obtuse? Technically metaphysical? According to who? You? Well I say its intentionally political. Weeeeeee.....
I never claimed to be a follower of anyone. I agree with quite a bit of Russell but hardly do I 'follow.'
I said the study of existence which is about as broad as you can get. The entire basis of his 'metaphysics' is the state of nature. Everything else stems from that. If you have read him then give an alternate explanation.
Oh yeah you just condescend and then refuse to take a stand on anything. I call that intellectual cowardice.
I am an arrogant . I have never claimed otherwise so spare me the sanctimony. You claim to make a value judgement then you say that there is no argument? And you want to talk about tautology. What a joke.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.
The implication is that the 1700s is some enlightened era whereas the discussion here is stupid. That is what you are getting at at the core and I am discussing the people that would be considered 'enlightened' from that time period.
Your claim of the 18th century is open for discussion. Again you are claiming tautology. I doubt you really know what it means because your position is exactly that.
You just do not have the ability to back it up so you dissemble dissemble dissemble. Have the guts to back up what you say or keep your mouth shut.
Furthermore comparing the Socratic method with the logic of Aristotle and you just go on to prove you do not know what you are talking about.
Socratic method is an open ended discussion. Aristotle used induced knowledge in syllogisms to deduce other knowledge. It has a definite conclusion in three steps.
Furthermore, Aristotle was vary contrary to his teacher. He disagreed with forms instead talking of essence, he was systematic in his categorization of knowledge and the method by which it is obtained which is the an hesis of an open ended discussion.
They were significant in that they differed from the Aristotelian model. The church persecuted Galileo because it deviated from Aristotle's view. And try and keep up. Me saying that he held back scence for a millinea is hardly a tribute.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.
Additionally, saying that Newton and Leibniz did not come up with differential and integral calculus using formal logic just goes to show how little you understand.
Mathematics IS formal logic and the proof of a differential uses equalities extensively. The gravitational constant was found using the same methods extrapolated from the works of Kepler.
Whats sad here is you again dissemble. Sardonic huh? Again it seems that you do not know what the word means or are using it to be able to go either way. This passive aggressive bull is really lame.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."
sounds like you are as guilty of the church when it comes to playing politics with thought.
Also look up when the three of them wrote their works. Here's a hint: it was not in the 18th century.
And sure, there were some people that deviated from the accepted norms but Galileo was persecuted for his beliefs. In that time period you had to fight witht he most powerful ins ution of that time. It was hardly an environment for free and open discussion. WTF does that tell about the tenor of that time period. It sure was not free and open thought.
As for me I welcome discussion and argumentation. Thats why I love this place because it allows for just that. You just will not take a stand or even try and support what you say. Now you are dissembling, crying about a sardonic 'tone.'
I have gone over the thread. Your point here was that most discussions here are stupid. My point is you referencing the 18th century as proof of that is stupid.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!)
Locke is considered on of the great thinkers of that time. You give credit to Hobbes and others. I refuted that. Dissemble dissemble dissemble.
Oh so now your choice of diction is to elaborate on a point? Give me a break.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.
You are claiming other people in general here are stupid. You then use diction to attempt to talk down to people. The badge comment is more apt applied to you.
God, your passive aggressive dissembling is lame.
Sensitive? Hardly. Aggressive? You betcha.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.
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.
Reading into tone on a message board is fun and quite useless. So is making assumptions about the thoughts of others, in this case amarelooms, for self serving purposes. While it may be fun to claim he bought into your bull there is absolutely nothing to support that.
And actually so is making comments about what I have created on my own. You have no idea what I have done, am doing or will do in the future.
I did not arbitrarily pick anything. You said 1700s enlightenment. I brought up someone from the 1700s. You brought up others so I discussed them. You did not allude to them you brought them up explicitly. Again if anyone needs to take the hint and just leave it alone, its you.
I realize that you will just dissemble to the point of ignoring things that you brought up but do not expect to lump everyone into the category of stupid and then expect to not be called on it.
Huh?
I call bull . I have looked it up.
Mary begot Jesus so therefore she had to be free of sin. There was only one virgin birth, Jesus. The fact that theological discussions revolve around like this just goes to show how asinine it is.
Mary was huge before Constantine from what I understand. The idea of the mother as a creator was a popular sentiment.
Roman elites were misogynist and Jesus as 'king of kings' started getting more play.
Its all fables to me anyway.
Do not get me wrong much of the ethics advocated by Jesus I really like. Some not so much but a lot I do like. Its just all the hokey I have issue with.
whew... thank god i didn't read any of that bs above. THANK GOD!
whew... thank god i never thought getting calf tats was a good idea. THANK GOD!
ah, poor you taking what i said so personal. ass!
So when he asked you where you wanted the Spurs inked did you take it personal when the artist laughed at you?
same ol' same ol'... you gonna come up with anything new or ride the wave the other es do around here?
btw, the artist is a friend of mine, i chose the spot for the tats 6 yrs ago, and i got no laughs about any of it except here on ST which is cool with me. i don't give a what a pos like you or anyone else on the internet thinks about my legs or the tattoos on them.
btw, your god!
it is what it is.
the artist is a friend? you need a new friend.
yall need a new shtick for real!
Tattoo removal costs
That looks like it can get pretty pricey, broseph
seems like someone belongs to the very set they decided to create for the purpose of their own condescension. feel free to consider yourself to be part of that domain.Are you being intentionally obtuse? Technically metaphysical? According to who? You? Well I say its intentionally political. Weeeeeee.....
I never claimed to be a follower of anyone. I agree with quite a bit of Russell but hardly do I 'follow.'
I said the study of existence which is about as broad as you can get. The entire basis of his 'metaphysics' is the state of nature. Everything else stems from that. If you have read him then give an alternate explanation.
Oh yeah you just condescend and then refuse to take a stand on anything. I call that intellectual cowardice.
i stated that, at best, the exchanges in here are mostly tautological in nature. truthfully, my original statement was not even tautological because it was not the sort of value judgement that could be deemed all that empirical (although it probably is mostly factual. i mean has anything we really discussed here meant to anyone?) telling you what i believe is neither an argument or a statement that merits debate or analysis (although you sure have been trying to somehow make it so). i guess if i told you i liked to excercise, you'd go off on some tangent about kinesiology and how it pertains to my assertion.I am an arrogant . I have never claimed otherwise so spare me the sanctimony. You claim to make a value judgement then you say that there is no argument? And you want to talk about tautology. What a joke.
The implication is that the 1700s is some enlightened era whereas the discussion here is stupid. That is what you are getting at at the core and I am discussing the people that would be considered 'enlightened' from that time period.
Your claim of the 18th century is open for discussion. Again you are claiming tautology. I doubt you really know what it means because your position is exactly that.
You just do not have the ability to back it up so you dissemble dissemble dissemble. Have the guts to back up what you say or keep your mouth shut.okay cyberspace bad ass, though i really do not know what you want me to back up. i think you've proven my point quite well. one locke dissertation later and you still have not said anything worthwhile.
the method is one where we come to know, by a process of recognition, truths we already in some sense know. it is paradoxical because it implies both knowledge and ignorance of the same things. in the prior analytics aristotle associated the doctrine of 'the meno' with what he called the recognition of the universal. he claimed that in no way do we have a knowledge of the particular but that we do get that knowledge through the process of induction. aristotle acknowledged that the socratic method was inductive and aristotle's definition of the good employed various elements of the socratic method indeed. the three greeks were definitely distinct from one another but by no means were they all that dichotomous.Furthermore comparing the Socratic method with the logic of Aristotle and you just go on to prove you do not know what you are talking about.
Socratic method is an open ended discussion. Aristotle used induced knowledge in syllogisms to deduce other knowledge. It has a definite conclusion in three steps.
Furthermore, Aristotle was vary contrary to his teacher. He disagreed with forms instead talking of essence, he was systematic in his categorization of knowledge and the method by which it is obtained which is the an hesis of an open ended discussion.
thanks. that was my point. you read so fast you failed to catch i was being a smart ass to you.They were significant in that they differed from the Aristotelian model. The church persecuted Galileo because it deviated from Aristotle's view. And try and keep up. Me saying that he held back scence for a millinea is hardly a tribute.
Additionally, saying that Newton and Leibniz did not come up with differential and integral calculus using formal logic just goes to show how little you understand.
thanks again. pretty much what i already stated.Mathematics IS formal logic and the proof of a differential uses equalities extensively. The gravitational constant was found using the same methods extrapolated from the works of Kepler.
so now we are confined to the 18th century and no longer to locke and the enlightenment in general. i'd say this is just you being pedantic but that would be giving you too much credit.Whats sad here is you again dissemble. Sardonic huh? Again it seems that you do not know what the word means or are using it to be able to go either way. This passive aggressive bull is really lame.
Also look up when the three of them wrote their works. Here's a hint: it was not in the 18th century.
nice point. i have no idea why you bring it up because i never even broached this subject.And sure, there were some people that deviated from the accepted norms but Galileo was persecuted for his beliefs. In that time period you had to fight witht he most powerful ins ution of that time. It was hardly an environment for free and open discussion. WTF does that tell about the tenor of that time period. It sure was not free and open thought.
no what is stupid is that you never could make sense of the fact that i made a comment alone about how much a waste of time discussions in here are. god knows i've wasted far too much time in here already.As for me I welcome discussion and argumentation. Thats why I love this place because it allows for just that. You just will not take a stand or even try and support what you say. Now you are dissembling, crying about a sardonic 'tone.'
I have gone over the thread. Your point here was that most discussions here are stupid. My point is you referencing the 18th century as proof of that is stupid.
you should be given an honorary doctorate and universities throughout the world should defer to your intellectual hubris. they can remove these thinkers from all of the syllabi in all the univerities that waste their time on these chumps.Locke is considered on of the great thinkers of that time. You give credit to Hobbes and others. I refuted that. Dissemble dissemble dissemble.
almost as lame as your inability to read into the irony of your own statement. but please, show me how most of these threads turn out and how much really great discourse in here really exists. if you want to make yourself the SRT dissident go for it. i'll save my efforts for the real world and defer to you the status as king of cyberspace.Oh so now your choice of diction is to elaborate on a point? Give me a break.
You are claiming other people in general here are stupid. You then use diction to attempt to talk down to people. The badge comment is more apt applied to you.
God, your passive aggressive dissembling is lame.
it's not ignoring anything. it's called realizing you really don't care. i already have a degree in philosophy and math. why would i want to go over a review of philsophers i already read when all i came in here to do was point out how crappy these threads are. sorry if you feel that they have the substance of something greater than that and my point to the contrary offends you. personally, i'm tickled pink for you that you have some friends in here.Sensitive? Hardly. Aggressive? You betcha.
Reading into tone on a message board is fun and quite useless. So is making assumptions about the thoughts of others, in this case amarelooms, for self serving purposes. While it may be fun to claim he bought into your bull there is absolutely nothing to support that.
And actually so is making comments about what I have created on my own. You have no idea what I have done, am doing or will do in the future.
I did not arbitrarily pick anything. You said 1700s enlightenment. I brought up someone from the 1700s. You brought up others so I discussed them. You did not allude to them you brought them up explicitly. Again if anyone needs to take the hint and just leave it alone, its you.
I realize that you will just dissemble to the point of ignoring things that you brought up but do not expect to lump everyone into the category of stupid and then expect to not be called on it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
