come ya'll let's talk about my sig.

[bohemiandonut]

Hahaha... sombrero!

[nomas]

Yes! YES! Good job Art and Indigo! Never be afraid to "barge in." You both get +1.

Sure..this is a forum, not a dialogue between donut and myself..all opinions are welcome.

Nomas, what I see from you, though you don't know it, is what I would call "intellectual irresponsibility." You seem to think that you are cursed/blessed with a mind that "some people" do not share. Even if this is true, isn't it kind of a shoddy excuse?

Excuse for what? We're on so many different arguments that I'm not sure what this is an excuse for that you are referring to.

Your main argument seems to be that I shouldn't shake up people's grasp on "reality," because I don't know any better than they do. But here you talk about facing reality as if you know how meaningless it all is. You seem to be missing my very point about the logical construct. Since we cannot know what's next, but we can learn about reality, this reality, we might as well, because it might come in handy after death. Might. And if it doesn't, so what?

Look..I can argue both sides of nearly any issue. I'm a walking contradiction, and I do like to play devil's advocate so I'll continue to argue against your points where I see them (this is just to cover my ass as to my level of passion for this subject matter, [which is really low])..

In reference to the above quotes: "Intellectual irresponsibility"..it's actually quite amazing how much your thought process parallels religious practices. You know the truth, therefore go out and preach it to others...it's your duty... same as Jehova's witnesses doing their duties going door to door saturday mornings...otherwise they're not being responsible missionaries or parishioners or whatever they call themselves. If it's just about education, I say I have no qualms against it..it's good, but NOT FOR EVERYONE. Some things are over people's heads...all other notions are simply rejected.

And exactly what is this reality you insist upon waking up people towards? That there is no God? Is that it? Is that all? Also, this "might come in handy after death...again, exactly like religion. I stand by my earlier statement: I see no correlation between this world we live in and any other afterlife...there is no reason to think learning a bunch of philosophy is any more practical so much as it's interesting..food for trivial argument...just as trivial as theology...unless you happen to be passionate about it.

Now for what are my true "nomas endorsed" philosophies...how I try to live my life:

As you say it..I like to have a "just in case" as well. Just in case there is a God who will judge me. I try to live my life in a just manner..take the basic building blocks of all religions: Be good to thy brethren, LOVE thy brethren. Don't try to screw anyone. Help whenever you can..as much as you can. I don't devote my life toward service for others such as, say, a Mother Teresa of Calcuta, but I minimize what'll do others harm and do my service where I can.

If there is nothing afterward.."so what?", right?..but if there is, I probably lived my life in such a way that it pleased "the Creator"

But based on the evidence..there probably is nothing. Your life happens while you're biological brain is working..when that's shot, you're gone and none of this trivial stuff mattered. You're gone. That's why I call it "trivial". It's childish blah, blah, blah to me. Not really anything with substance...because I'm not passionate about it nor do I believe in it. This to me is just as much as a religion...what one.m is to Islam to you. Nothing practical about it without some proof.

Are we not understanding each other? Maybe we're argueing different things.

Let me know.

Logical Positivism is my response to your apparent distrust in man's reason, and I quote here:

Back to this (as you put it) "virtuous" behavior I partake in. My argument there was happiness vs unhappiness while all other factors remained constant. If you claim the truth factor was the one that changed, I say it didn't. You merely replace one theory with another.

I'm saying that, yes, truth does change, or, is revealed. There is a reality, and we can learn about it.

Hmm.... so you interpreted my quote as me saying I don't trust man's reason? I'd have to say that's partly right...I don't simply accept when someone arrives at a conclusion by reasoning but no proof beyond the shadow of doubt. It's like that six degrees of separation theory..you can be linked to anyone/anything. So, no, I still don't believe everything that was arrived at by reasoning. But I do believe there are realities we can learn about with time that disprove former beliefs but until something proven scientifically can this claim be made.

[bohemiandonut]

Wow, you're really lost.

I think you read too fast. It's infuriating.

You know the truth, therefore go out and preach it to others...it's your duty...

I've already explained countless times that this is not my goal.

Let's wrap up this argument, because you're having a "hard time" following it. (Sigh.)

Say I came across a Peruvian farmer. My first thought would not be to grasp him by the shoulders and scream in his face that he should "WAKE UP!" So wipe that from your very narrow attention span.

Here's where we disagree. (I know after laying this out you will object to my interpretation of this disagreement, so don't bother. When you have time, you should go back and follow this argument up to this point. You'll be ashamed at how often you think you're clarifying but are really just retracting your points.) Here we go:

Say I was at a party, and a group of five people were discussing morality. Four were saying that God's love is the only true morality, the Chirstian God's love in particular. Now, let's assume these people are "comfortable" with their faith (though I tend to not think this exists as much as you do.) Imagine also that the fifth man was arguing that "No, I think morality can be achieved without religion, without faith in God even."

I guarantee that our hero (the fifth man) will be attacked by your happy, ignorant, religious zealots. At this point I would jump in, I would have to, and defend our hero.

Now, what I would be doing, by shaking up the Christians, is perhaps sacrificing their solid convictions. Maybe I would cause them to doubt the faith that makes them "happy." I wouldn't be doing this for our hero. I would be doing it for reason.

Are you starting to understand? THERE IS A REALITY. Can I define it? No. Can anyone else? HELL NO! Am I a bit closer to approaching that reality because of all my learning and knowledge? You bet your lazy buns.

Wow, I ****in rock.

Peace.

[nomas]

In that case, I was right..we were argueing the same things and were misinterpreting each other.

In the example you gave above, I agree with what you're saying. If there is a discussion and there are stances to take on an argument, I would do as you did in your example...however, as you may have noted, if the roles were reversed and it was a four on one against the Christian...although I am not a believer, I would also bring up arguments against the other four's logic wherever possible. Just the devil's advocate in me. If it's not proven, it can be argued.

Now, as far as the way you quoted me up in your post..perhaps I should have made it clearer. First of all, I was just using it as an example to illustrate the comparison in the approach I felt you had toward your beliefs. Now you've set the record straight (as I hope I have as well) as far as your approach. I really thought you were talking about literally provoking these conversations with Peruvian farmers so as to "wake them up". That's what I was argueing against.

The reason for this is I'm kind of going through this with my Mom. She's heartbroken over my newly lost faith and while I defend my philosophies, I can see how it would confuse her and likely depress her to realize that there are other theories that make a lot more sense than what she's spent her entire life believing. Imagine if at 50 years old you learn that everything you had faith on...what your life kind of revolves around, is probably not true. She was obedient and never questioned anything the Church said..just believe it. "Have faith"..."where's the virtue in those who believe only after seeing" kind of thing...so I just as soon let her live out her life as she will, where it's comfortable for her. I'm only defend when I'm attacked because I don't accept "just cuz" as a valid reason; I don't give "just cuz" as my own reason.

Furthermore, I don't read fast, I'm quite a slow reader, actually...and although I may not be as much a fan of you as you are yourself, I still think you're cool. I don't mind your aggression at all, buddy..maybe you just missed your afternoon joint or (insert drug of choice)..either way, I'm sure you'll be good and "Peace"ful next time.

[bohemiandonut]

Hahahaha, WE ****in rock!

Peace, brother. ::lights joint::

"Ah... life..."

[nomas]

Now "WE" ****ing rock sounds more like it... I'm a big fan of WE whenever it's me attached to something that rocks!

[indigosoul]

And I do enjoy being challenged intellectually and to think about ideas, indigo,...I'm just claiming it's not for everyone...one size does not fit all. I've just seen a lot of diversity, I guess. I've seen opposite ends of the intellectual spectrum..or at least the low end.. I've seen a simple kind of people living a simple kind of life. I don't think you can go in there and preach ideas completely alien to them and ask them to think like you do. You cannot call them lazy for not having a though processed as conditioned as yours, whereas they may call you lazy because their lifestyle is one of hard work, manual labor and such.

I'm talking about mental laziness, which is culture-independent. Of course, a good educator knows his audience & how to approach them w/the correct questions. I'm not suggesting that struggling 3rd world villages start by learning higher-order calculus!

In West Europe the percentage of the active population employed in agriculture fell from 75 percent before the industrial revolution (around the year 1750) to less than 10 percent today; in the U.S. this figure fell from 80 percent around the year 1800 to only 2 percent today.

These ppl were farmers who were willing to stretch their brains a little! Joe Croc is still catching and eating his dinner pretty much the same way he always has...

[indigosoul]

i'm so hungry i could eat 10 galaxies.

Nice fractal Misombra. You're right. This is going on... and on... and on...

I'm outta here...

[Illusional]

it looks like a huge hurricane.

raverboy

[bohemiandonut]

it looks like a huge hurricane.

raverboy

No it doesn't.

[Illusional]

yes it does. the type that you see on the weather channel. i'm not exactly sure what it's called but they predict hurricanes with temperature.

raverboy

[nomas]

It's the pattern Phi that keeps showing up in nature! Interesting stuff..

[bohemiandonut]

It's all about the Golden Rectangle.

All about it, yo!

[nomas]

Donut...you sound like a guy who has the number phi memorized to 10 decimal places... am I right?

[bohemiandonut]

Yummy.