Can there be a Definitive Proof that God does not exist? - T

[TheDerminator]

Yep, there is no God, and there never has been a God, and this is a summation of the rationales contained within Heresies on God and Freedom which prove definitively that there is no God.
There is no word in the English language which means something than can never exist. Something that is non-existent or intangible can become existent or tangible at a later date. So it is perfectly acceptable to invent the neo-logism of non-tangible to describe that which can never be proved.
There are some non-tangibles, since say we see an animal in pain, we will never know the exact feelings of pain the animal possesses, because it cannot communicate the depth of the pain. We can only empathise, and a case can be made that it is not much different for humans too, but concentrate on the animals, this is a non-tangible, but it is not a complete non-tangible.
We know the species of animal and in fact we know the singular animal, so the non-tangible is attached to a being which has an established existence. However, what of a being which has no established existence, that has not been proven empirically to exist?
This ofcourse seems a complete non-tangible, and this seems the beauty of the concept of God, because whilst believer's do not need to prove God exists it is assumed that the supposed complete non-tangibility makes the concept of God impregnable.
Is God a complete non-tangible? Nope, for one thing every attribute you give to God is just the other of a human attribute, invisible other than visible, all-powerful other than finite power, perfect other than imperfect, infinitely good other than our finite goodness, immortal other than our mortality and so on. Instead of giving God physical attributes, you have merely supplanted them with the other of human attributes. God is ultimately the otherness of your own image, and it can be added that all these attributes you hinge to God are pure speculation. You can add or remove them depending upon your religion. If all is speculation, it is pure invention, since my guess is as good as the next persons. Take away the attributes and your left with quite an empty abstract concept.
Not quite empty yet though. Why did people invent Gods. Quite simply they had no answer to what created themselves and nature. The elements earth, fire, thunder, etc, were seen as powerful forces, and each was seen as a power with its own identity. The deification was the deification of this identified power.
You see, there were no answers, no science to provide answers, so what was there as an answer; nothingness. We created gods due to our lack of knowledge. Gods filled in the vacuum. We invented the concept of God as otherness to nothingness. Now, here's the rub. Something cannot come from nothing.
Furthermore, although some concepts can be used in predicates to describe a subject, this is not the case with God. God can only be a subject.
It was Leibniz who noted that "every predicate is the notion of the subject".
Kant believed that existence could not be used in a predicate as its notion or determinant, thus for him, the latter proves the existence of God, because it suggests, that as soon as you mention God, the subect contains the being of God, but this falls in the same way, that previous ontological arguments failed, and that is becaue the premise is wrongly derived. As soon as you state anything exists you are describing the fact that it possesses life, thus Kant was in deep error. If you say some one is a God unless you are transported back to the times of the Pharaohs all you are doing is using a metaphor to say they are outstanding, you are not actually worshipping the person as a supernatural phenomenon, and even if you were this person would be your God, just a form of God like all the rest.
Because God, can only be a subject and not the determinant of the predicate, we can put it with all the other abstract concepts which only can be subjects, all mytholgical creatures, all spiritual beings and even the spiritual soul. The latter is attached to a tangible being, but it leaves upon death and inherently there is a separation between the soul and the mortal body. It is still a similar abstraction and soulless just really describes a spiritless person or even cultural form. The religious ideologies are consistent. No one is soulless, after death it is decided where your soul goes.
All abstract concepts which can only be subjects are sheer inventions and the use of the metaphor cannot get around this fact. The metaphor is just replaces one universal meaning with another. Thus if you exclaim "God!" for whatever metaphorical reason, that exclamation is rooted in the reason. It means exactly, what you mean.
You might argue "okay we do not know the exact attributes of God, okay these tribes invented Gods, but we have a more advanced understanding of God, and that is the nature of historical development." However, it does not wash. You have to ask yourself where did you get the concept of God from, and if it is not from the ancients, you have just invented the concept out of nothingness.
You might say, "All this logic means nothing. I believe in the God from the heart and all my faith is based upon this God from the heart spiritual feeling, which is unshakeable." But you are still not answering the fucking question. Where does the concept of God come from? How can you have faith in invention that stems from nothingness, and if all objectivity is to go out of the window, how the hell do you know that your blind faith in God is not an evil in itself?

derminated


(Edited by TheDerminator at 11:01 am on April 7, 2002)

[Supermodel]

I wish I had a scientific answer to your question but I hope you'll hear out the thoughts of someone who has not followed religion all her life but has come to believe that there is a God.


I find the logic a little circular here. Do people take normal human attributes and point to them as the existence of God or does God in fact give people those attributes?

Here are some points to think about.

The vast majority of humans today believe in some higher power (i.e., the majority are not atheists). Are they all wrong?

Religion has existed as long as Man has existed, at least as long as there is documentary evidence of man's thinking.

Creationism takes us only back so far. Of course, I'm not a fundamentalist, I don't believe the world was created in seven days. But, I do believe that in the beginning, God created everything.

Perhaps you find the Judeo-Christian image of God as an elderly (white) male not a figure you can adopt and believe in, I have this issue too, having no respectable older male role models in my life, the image of God as a fatherly, loving but stern character does nothing for me.

Perhaps you could ponder the fact that the very word "faith" relies on believing in something you cannot see or touch. In the vast magnitude of all being, the millennia we hae been through, the millennia yet to come, the many many universes out there, you think your 70 years on earth is all there is? That's it?

No, no one can prove that God exists. That's why you must have faith and humility to explain all of existence.

I can't remember who said it, but I love the quote:

"There are two things I know about God: 1) God exists: and; 2) I'm not him."

[Nateddi]

Nobody can proove if god does not exist.

I personally don't think he exists, but even if he does, I hate him.

[TheDerminator]

A few points first no arguments were really answered. If there is circularity in the rationales, you have to show the circularity.
Secondly, the fact that billions of people believe in God, does not make God a valid concept. If so we would all be flat-Earthers, because that was the commonly held belief for centuries, as was the idea that the Earth was the centre of our solar system. Gallileo, had to recant.
Thirdly all your beliefs are based soley upon belief. It is still blind faith.
As for God giving human their attributes, you have not seen your own circularity of thought, and unlike you, I will tell you exactly what it is. You see you are still saying God gave humans other than his own attributes, so we do not possess the attributes of God. How do we know he has all these attributes, because we are natural, these are our understandings of what is supranatural, and every "supra" bit is still attached to the otherness of a quantifiable human attribute.
I am not seventy, I am 39, and as for the quote that all that some knows is that God exists, all someone else knew was there is a flat Earth.
The Judeo-Christian image of God is a bit irrelevant. The first monotheist was Xenophanes four hundred or so years before Jesus Christ was born, and for Xenophanes if animals could make an image of God, they would do so in their own images, so Xenophanes had no time for attaching human attributes to God, because he knew it was pure speculation.
All the later monotheists did was replace the physical attributes of previous Gods with supranatural attributes, and if you do your research you will find all of these attributes were possessed collectively by earlier Gods. Not good enough Supermodel.

Finally, Nateddi it sounds a terrible world for you. It is a terrible world for me too. Think upon this all-powerful, all knowing God is a witness to human development, God sees genocide, sees murder, paeodophilia, infanticide, rape suicide etc, and does nothing. The indifference to our suffering makes him/her it the most evil person ever. No mitigation. If you have the plan if you see all the suffering, if you are the creator of the plan, moving in mysterious ways does not get you off the hook. Objectively, you are scum. You could have created a Heaven on Earth. Think that one out. derminated.

(Edited by TheDerminator at 11:43 pm on Feb. 10, 2002)

[libereco]

while i don't believe in god, i realize that there is no way to proof that the christian god for example doesn't exist.

Why?

it's easy.....the whole thing is based upon the fact that it's not understandable and can't be proven.

If i claimed that there is a pink pony hovering in space watching over us, wich is not visible or detectable by anyone ever.....how would you prove me wrong?
you can't....because it's in the nature of the object itself that you can't.

[Supermodel]

Nateddi, do you hate God or organized religion? Don't confuse the two.

[Sasafrás]

I hate discussions about the existance of God (and Jesus Christ). There are some people on Che-Lives, to be honest, always want to argue and really refuse to be sensitive to others and I'm talking about believers and un-believers alike.
What is the point of trying to prove that God doesn't exist? Just believe it or not and respect other people's ideas about it. Aren't we all supposed to be for tolerance anyway?

Here's a similar convo:
http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/top...rum=10&topic=66 (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=10&topic=66)

And, TheDerminator, no disrespect, but I get the impression that you worship yourself.

[munkey soup]

derminated

[munkey soup]

sorry dermy, i had ta do it

[Nateddi]

Quote: from Supermodel on 12:55 am on Feb. 11, 2002
Nateddi, do you hate God or organized religion? Don't confuse the two.


A bit of both

Its obvious that I hate organized religion. But its also funny how the christians blame all bad things on lucifier, while all the good things are all because of jeebus. Personally, as I have stated before, I dont THINK he exists, and no, I don't go around blaming god for everything (read last phrase).

[Fires of History]

There is no 'god.' There is no 'truth.' Both 'god' and 'truth'- in a nutshell all religion'- are human constructs, our invention.

Do you see 'god' anywhere today? Do you have any proof?

Power to the People,
Trance

[TheDerminator]

The rationale needs reducing to its bare essentials.
The concept of God, is a historical concept. In the earliest form, the concept of God, answered the question to what created the universe, the world, and everything in nature. There was no scientific answer, so the word "God" filled a vacuum. That is the word "God" evolved. In short it came from nothingness.
If you accept the above rationale, that we invented "God" to replace nothingness, then it does not matter, if we are referring to the development from tribal Gods to large polytheistic sytems or to monotheism, there is still a huge all-important question, "Where does the concept of God come from?"
It does not matter, if you believe in organised religion or if you just believe in God detached from organised religion, you still have to answer the damn question. "Where does the concept of God come from?"
All the time you have to be historical, because your specific concept of God is grounded in history. If you admit that the concept of God was grounded in nothingness, all rationality, all logic should comprehend, that something cannot come from nothing. Give an example of something coming from nothing. It is impossible.
Monotheistic God is still reliant upon the mystification of the unknown, and this is just a continuation of the mystification of the unknown carried out by our ancestors.
Finally, I will answer liberco and La Rainbeaux.
Firstly La Rainbeaux: You have to understand what you are tolerating. You obviously do not. The belief in God is a pernicious belief, because it sublimates the humanity of a person onto an empty abstraction, and this act of sublimation alienates the humanity of the person from a humanity based upon the real respect for everyone in the community. The focus is upon the judgement of the Supreme being and not on the ethos of the person in relation to the community; in other words it is a part of the alienation of ethos, no matter how well intentioned, it is inward rather than outward ethos, which is part of its poverty.
Aren't we all supposed to be for tolerance. All this goes to respecting the genuine beliefs of individuals. I hate to be the one to tell you this, but some people in Germany, genuinely believed in the superiority of the Aryan race, and that ended up in mass genocide. How far do you take your tolerance? Somethings we should be intolerant about and that includes every pernicious evil you care to mention. If you tolerate views which lead to genocide, perhaps, there is something weak in your own ethos, and perhaps, there is no perhaps.
You seem to think of yourself as sensitive, and then you say that "I have the impression that you worship yourself". The cheap parting shots are always the best ones, or perhaps not. Maybe, just maybe I worship nothing including myself, and maybe just maybe you never made any real attempt to understand the rational arguments, because as the saying goes "it is nice to be nice, shoot the breeze and talk about nothing" I would say your "tolerance" reflects that mentality, but is there a lack of compassion in it? I would say so, because ultimately billions of people are living with the brutal fall out from the alienation of ethos into the self, and your tolerance is a part of their tragedy. You know, you just might not be that sensitive after all.
liberecowhy God was created is very understandable, and understanding why it was created is the first step in proving that it is a pure invention grounded in nothingness.
The aliens, the aliens, the aliens.
libereco, I can be tolerant too. If you claimed you saw an alien space craft pink, green or blue, I would not automatically think you are some kind of weirdo.
However, I would say to you that there is a huge scientific community attached to the field of astronomy, and the idea that they are all apart of some international conspiracy, to hide the presence of aliens from us, has to be dwelt upon, and I would ask you not to be a bit tolerant towards me too, because even though you have a hearfelt belief that you saw an alienation space ship, it is only proper for there to be some scientific validation from atleast a few astronomers, before I can envy your position of seeing a spacecraft, before me.
Another point is that if there is an alien race in our vicinity, that race is much more advanced than ourselves, thus they would possess a moral responsibility to ease the suffering on this planet, it is a bit silly to imagine, that their technology could be light years ahead of ours, yet their ethos lags behinds our own. Nope, it makes no sense. It there are aliens in our vicinity, we will all soon know about it, and thanks for telling me.
However, you put the emphasis upon the word "phoney" and this is why I asked for some tolerance, because I do not need to prove any phoney claim. You could equally claim Hitler was essentially a nice guy, and that I have no time machine, so I cannot go back in history to make any objective determinations.
However, every phenomenon, including the concept of God, including a Hitler, including the spotting of UFO's is grounded in history, and you gain your objectification
of the subject, whatever the subject is, comes from an understanding of the history of the subject, which is why objectively it is possible to state, that there is no God, that Hitler was a bastard, and that if aliens were in the vicinity, the chances are that the international body of astronomers would know about it and someone would leak out the news, before you see the spacecraft in the local park. Every claim has to be grounded in history, and the proof is always in the proverbial pudding, which is our objective understanding of the phenomenon. If you want to know about a basis for objective understanding maybe check out Objective Methodology contained within the Heresies on God and Fredom.
Fires of History, there is no God, but all you are doing is stating a truth, and surely you do not attach any relativism to the truth if it is your hearfelt belief. All human language is an invention, all all mathematics is an invention, all determinant concepts such as cause, essence, truth and even relativity are abstract inventions, however, there is a huge difference, all these inventions are grounded in human social reality and can be very easily attached to phenomenona within our societies, but the historical concept of God is historically grounded in nothingness, and that is a huge difference. derminated

(Edited by TheDerminator at 11:06 am on Feb. 11, 2002)

[El Che]

I dont believe in God and i agree with all what u said determined. However i fail to see how you claim to prove that God does not exist. You claim to prove that which is unprovable by nature. What you said is basic stuff and im sure many have arrived at the same conclusion, however it is simply not possible to prove the existence or non existence of something that puts its self above everything else. All you have is circunstancial evidence.

[CPK]

*whew*
i think there is no god.
because where is he?
oh yeah i seen him last night walking down the street with his dog. i talked to him but he ignored me.
so i followed him. then he said to me, "what the fuck?"
i was startled so i ran away.
pah!

[munkey soup]

What kind of dog would God prefer? Or was god the dog?:biggrin:

[Sasafrás]

OK, I'm at school right now, so I don't have much time.. I'll just say, I believe in tolerance for everyone therefore, I believe that there should be no need for me to even have to be tolerant of intolerance because it should be absent from society. OK, I'm intolerant of ideas that encompass hating others based on insignificant things such as race, religion, etc. because they are pointless. I was not making a cheap shot at you if you saw it that way.. I'll apologize because I suppose I'm the bigger person. But, anyway, I'll say more later if I feel like it but I have to go to class now. If I don't say anything else later, that signifies that I didn't feel the need to involve myself with the conversation anymore.

See you later, perhaps...

[TheDerminator]

First things first, I want to apologise to La Rainbeaux because if I knew you were still at school, I would not have been so judgemental, but I am not meaning to patronise you, I just know when I was your age, that I supported horrendous stuff like the Soviet Union, and that it is sort of par for the course, so I am not being ageist.
But, you are still not understanding tolerance. You see, you cannot really divorce the ideas you hate from the person who holds those ideas, it is a bit simplistic and idealistic. For instance, I will use an extreme example just to illustrate the point. Say in your heart of hearts you see a terrible injustice. Say one of your loved ones or closest friends is on death row, and in your heart of hearts, you know that she/he was framed for the murder, and the local police corrupted the evidence.
Now millions upon of millions of people, probably billions of people on this planet have the idea in their heads that all people convicted of murder should be executed. Do you just hate the idea in their consciousness, or is there more to it? Is not their brutal mentality part of their spiritual essence as human beings? You see, La Rainbeaux I am a spiritualist too, but I attach spirituality to the essential personality of a person. And a person who wishes through State endorsed murder to murder your loved one with an eye for eye an eye mentality is a bit of a bastard, and maybe not even a small bit of a bastard.
Ask yourself what you are tolerating and who you are tolerating? Sorry, but it is naive to detach evil from the perpetuators of evil, because some bastard gives your loved one a lethal injection, it is not just the idea that is shit, it is the spiritual essence of the bastard who takes the life, and all the billions who support it, share in the spiritual poverty.
There is no great difference, when it comes to belief in God, which trillions have supported. You have to ask, what Lenin asked and that is who benefits from this support? Well, what about the above example. Eye for an eye tooth for a tooth. Does not everyone who accepts the teachings of the Bible, and who accepts the scripture of the Koran, believe in this completely brutal mentality? Yep, they do.
Who benefits? Does not the belief in God prevent the believer's in the poorest countries in world, from understanding that the traditional establishment, is extremely unethical in its totality? Do they not only see their salvation in the afterlife instead of seeing salvation from challenging the traditions. Does it not benefit the establishment which is an extremely unethical to have the most affected by the brutality seeking their solace in God, rather than challenging the brutalisers.
If you condone their spiritual brutality, because you tolerate it, it does not make you bigger than me. Nope, you accept their lack of ethos, and that would be unethical, because you should really know better, and just one last point no one likes to be ignored, but you should not stop re-evaluating your beliefs, just because, you may not be my top priority this evening. I have just logged on after meeting my sister, and La Rainbeaux you are my top priority, just at the moment, because your response, although I would say a reflection of the same naivety, I once possessed, raises the most important issues, and although I loathe the present social system, the question of God comes first at the moment, because it underpins the whole brutality of the system.
Besides, do not just think of who benefits, ask yourself who loses? The poorest people on Earth suffer the deepest tragedies, and it is in added tragedy that this belief in God, thwarts them from challenging those who maintain the conditions of poverty, whilst others in these poverty ridden nations can become a part of the super rich. It is an extreme obscenity, and anyone tolerating a vile spiritual essence within an individual who acquiesces to supporting that profound obscenity, is maybe part of the problem. Do not become part of the problem. Do not tolerate spiritual brutality, either in ideas or in people.
CPK makes a valid enough point the onus is on always on the athiests to prove God does not exist, the bastards know that there is no empirical experiment, which we can carry out to validate the existence of their God.
Monkey soup is being a bit enigmatic, it is a bit of a monkey puzzle, and I am not meaning to give you a cheap shot, and I am sorry, if it sounds that way, but the problem of your riddle is that the question accepts the premise of a God. Still your heart is definetely in the right place, because only a complete fucking dog, could stand aside and watch the extermination of human beings in death camps.
The idea that God moves in mysterious ways as an answer to this indifference to human suffering is a very convenient get out, and the thought that God makes people burn in Hell for their misdeeds, is poor fucking comfort. It is too fucking late, and if the bastard existed and was consistent in relation to this brutal indifference, then this God, would make everyone burn in Hell, because this genocide is part of the plan of God, if God, is all-knowing and all-powerful. The bastard knew exactly what was going to happen, and that included the baby daughter left on a mountain in past years, because a girl for the parents was just an extra mouth to feed. No bag of gold where the baby was left from this miracle creating God, just a fucking dead baby girl. The obscenity of the indifference ought to be a stark obscenity, and God moving in mysterious ways is a fucking pathetic get out.
There is a difference between Adolf Hitler, and the indifferent God. Hitler was not born evil, society created the monster, that Hitler became, thus because there is no real ethical blue print which guides human beings to be ethical, a Hitler or a Stalin has more mitigation, than the all-knowing planner, who knows these monsters are going be created, and commit terrible atrocites. God becomes the devil incarnate, because the indifference is unethical indifference.
I will not apologise for the language. The metaphor changes the meaning of the word to the universal which it means, and thus is an ethical way of conveying depth of feeling.
El cheAgain I have no doubt your heart is in the right place, but circumstantial evidence? Come on. The development of the concept of God from the tribal conception to monotheism, is "circumstantial evidence"? You know, the thing about history is it is one big experiment, and the proof of any objective understanding of history is contained within an objective understanding of all the essential historical facts which relate to any historical subject, where it be God, freedom or ethos.
Now, you may believe, that all thought is subjective opinion, but is it just subjective opinion that Che was in spirit one of the best socialist leaders that ever existed, or is it just subjective opinion. Nope, it is possible to be completely objective, in the complex sphere of ideology, and the belief in God, is a religious ideology. Its own historical development provides all the proof, we need to know in order to objectively understand, that it is only a complete abstract invention which is grounded in the mystification of the unknown, and its own historical development proves it is intrinsically a brutalising concept, thus inherent an evil for all human society. derminated.

(Edited by TheDerminator at 9:57 pm on Feb. 11, 2002)

[Supermodel]

So Derminator, you believe in Spirit and Spirituality but not in God?

Does that mean that it is only the classical Judeo-Christian-Muslim God that you reject?

Many Christians beleive that the Spirit inside the human is none other than God manifested on earth.

Derminator, can you tell me what you believe happens after you die?

CPK, can I ask you the same question...what happens after you die? And did God clean up after the dog? Was he carrying a pooper-scooper?

I'm not rejecting anyone's opinions, I think all the views expressed here are cool. Just curious.

[munkey soup]

Right on dermy, I was fretting over posting that because then one would assume I believe in a God. I am not sure if some higher power exists, but I definelty do not believe that a really big dude is sitting up in a heaven deaming whether people are being good or bad(if there was, what an asshole for letting us petty humies run around and do horrible things to each other). But maybe there is some type of all-encompasing power that is just there(kinda Daoist in nature). Buddhism has amazingly good ideas as well, especially Zen Buddhism.
I know its simple but thats the way I am.

[munkey soup]

And its munkey with a u, I spelled it like that on purpose.

[Supermodel]

Munkey, I'm not pickin on you but I couldn't find Daoist in my dictionary!!

Do you mean Taoist?

Or Dow-ist as in someone who prays to the Dow Jones Industrial Index? I may have found my religion folks.....

[Sasafrás]

OK, I barely understand what you mean; perhaps because you're using words too big for someone my age to understand but I really don't know what you mean. I'm saying, I am tolerant of people's beliefs and I think that racism and any other prejudice is a whore. I don't think that a belief in a god causes suffering nor do I believe that not believing in one causes any. I respect people's beliefs whether they are like mine or not and I refuse to always approach people and try to force them to believe what I do. I get the impression that you are doing that to everyone. Typically here, people do not do that. Nobody I have known on here has tried to prove that God does or does not exist. We discuss it and bring up reasons why we do or do not but we respect each other. When I found out that Lindsay (I_Will_Deny_You) was Humanistic (and an atheist), I was more fascinated than anything else and though I'm Judeo-Christian, I still wanted to know more about it and I didn't tell her "you're going to hell, *****" because I'm not like that at all. When I say TOLERATE & TOLERANCE, I mean to realize that we all are different and that people hold different ideas and that people should not always try to convince the world to believe as them or deliberately say things that can be taken in a really offensive manner. True, I believe that the concept of "religion" is not such a great thing and someone made a good point once (I don't know who) that relationship is much more important than religion. I think it's better to have a relationship with your god than to simply be a part of the religion but if one believes in no god, then that is fine but they need to know why.. (I'm not saying that you don't know why).
And, I accept the teachings of the Bible but I don't necessarily agree with the "eye for an eye" thing. Don't assume that.. Many people accept the Bible (&/or Qur'an) but also accept the fact that this is a new time and that man wrote & translated the Bible (& the Qur'an)..

(Edited by La Rainbeaux at 4:39 pm on Feb. 11, 2002)


(Edited by La Rainbeaux at 4:41 pm on Feb. 11, 2002)

[munkey soup]

Yes, taoist is correct, sorry.

[munkey soup]

I know it's impossible, but..
People should just chill, respect other peoples religions(unless their religion says its cool to kill people for no reason), and not force their beliefs on others. You can discuss what you believe, just don't come to my door preaching to me, telling me I'm going to hell and asking If I've found Jesus(sorry to all you christians out there, it's just no ones asked me if I've found Mouhammed).
there ya go, another ignorant, simplistic, post by farm-grown munkey soup.

[munkey soup]

Oh, and one more thing,
It's not necessarilly religions that make the people, its the people who make the religion, and each person has a different idea in their head of what they're gonna make of that religion. So it's not religions that are bad, its those individuals that ruin it for everybody else.

(I'm pretty sure Mohammed dosen't have a 'u' in the beginning, so I guess I spelled it wrong, could someone clarify this)

[Sasafrás]

Mohammad has no U :)

Or is it MohammEd? Whatever... I think the latter is correct.

(Edited by La Rainbeaux at 5:08 pm on Feb. 11, 2002)

[libereco]

as far as i know either mohammed, muhammed or even mahomet work....or mohamed..with one m?

oh well.

[TheDerminator]

La Rainbeaux I will not use big words. It is good that you have your heart in the right place, but sometimes, you have to make a strong stand, and people have been forced-fed religion for centuries. This has been put on them from the earliest of ages. There is an old Jesuit saying "Give me a child of ten and I will gve you a believer for the rest of his life" You are not getting to grips with that mindset.
I am not sayin "go to hell", I am just saying that this is really really an awful world, a world, that is a nightmare for so many billions of people and that it is a living Hell for these people.
You do not understand the harm that religion does, but all that I am trying to say is that because of their belief in God people in the poorest countries in the world do not stand up for their own rights, and this makes religion a terrible burden for them.
Sometimes you have to make a stand, and I am sure you will admit that. All I am saying is that when you make a stand it is not always right to be tolerant of what you are making a stand against.
La Rainbeaux believe it or not I am not an arrogant egoist. You are right ofcourse, no one has ever before said that you can definitively prove God does not exist. It is not that I am an immodest person, La Rainbeaux, I have been brutalised by this brutal society, and some of that brutality is reflected in my own personality, but I will have no false modesty either.
You see, the concept of God and its truth or error is a deeply philosophical question, and all "philosophical" means is that it was addressed by every important thinker who tackled ideas such as good, bad, cause, and the supposed limits upon human understanding.
In my view, the major thinkers were Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Hegel, and Marx. I am not really able to say why because it is a very big answer.
All of these thinkers, had ideas about God, and I have made a bit of a study of their main ideas. I am not coming from the direction of not knowing anything about their ideas were and the point is that all philosophy develops ideas about what people should or should not do.
You may think that is an error of all philosophy, but you have to be modest too La Rainbeaux and maybe if you write off what was handed down to us by the philosophers as dictating what people think, you are maybe rubbishing the whole lot of philosophy except the stuff that is all about symbols that I never want to understand, because it is rotten philosophy.
I am not an arrogant egoist, I just have done my homework on the stuff, and that is all you need to do, to understand it. Logging off soon. Cannot respond till tommorow London GMT. derminated

[Moskitto]

You can never prove whether god exists or doesn't exist because there are is one arguement that can be used to counter every arguement against the existance of god and that is "There is not evidence for the existance of god, because god wants us to have faith" this however is negated if god doesn't existist. Anyone who tries to argue for or against is wasting their time.

Annother thing is, westerners who point towards the suffering in the world to show that god doesn't exist often forget that some of the people suffering the most are often the most deeply religious people.

Now to the main point of my post. Because the existance of god cannot be proved or disproved, I prefer the eastern ideals of what god is rather than the western ones because the eastern ideals believe that god is not an absolute and is something deeply personal to yourself and does very much exist if you believe he exists.

Taoist and Daoist are the same thing, Daoist is the correct pronunciation from the original chinese by Taoist is the most commonly used.

[TheDerminator]

Moskitto, your logic is all over the place. "God wants us to have faith" All you are doing is saying there is a God who wants us to have faith; how on Earth does this answer anything? You have just accept the blind faith in God, as the first part of your sentance. Secondly, the point you make about people in the poorest places believing in God is exactly the point I am making, it is part of their tragedy. derminated.

(Edited by TheDerminator at 11:36 pm on Feb. 11, 2002)

[libereco]

TheDerminator I don't think you understand. Most of us here probably do not believe in god. I don't. Yet I realize that proving his non-existance is impossible. Of course proving his existance is impossible as well. TheDerminator you cannot prove that something does not exist, when it is based upon the idea that you cannot prove it's non-existance. Of course that doesn't mean that it exists, it simply means that you will never be able to prove that it doesn't.

How could you prove that there is no un-understandable (thats a keypoint) force that is everywhere at the same time (not material) and that noone can see, hear, touch or smell. That you supposedly can merely "feel" and only if you're special. ;)

TheDerminator how will you prove that this force doesn't exist?

Many have tried. Feuerbach, Marx, Freud....they explained why people create gods. How they do it. ect.

But even after that there is always the counterargument that Moskitto brought up, and wich I also mentioned...


(Edited by libereco at 11:46 pm on Feb. 11, 2002)

[Moskitto]

your logic is all over the place. "God wants us to have faith" All you are doing is saying there is a God who wants us to have faith; how on Earth does this answer anything?

If you understood the fundamentals behind western religions you would know that God [in theory] created people to love him through faith. The whole idea of any religion is Faith. Why do Muslims pray 5 times a day including in the middle of the night and fast for a whole month for something which they can't prove exists? Because they have faith.

[MJM]

I can't get my head around atheists who try to disprove god.
Why ?
A messiah complex?
A subconscious belief they need to convince themselves does not exist within themselves?
Whos sets out to prove the non existence of things anyway?
Sounds a bit like a fools errand to me.

I don't believe in god and don't really care to convert others to my way of thinking or belittle thier views.
Evangelistic athiests are as bad as rabid xians in my view.

[TheDerminator]

There is no beating logic!
Er um.
Answer the fucking question:
Where do you get your shit concept of God from?
It comes only from nothingness, it comes from the mystification of the unknown.
It's own development in history proves it is a pure invention. It is you who do not understand. All you possess is your blind Faith in nothingness. All you possess is a shallow ethos based on the worship of nothingness.
The kind intentions have led to a living Hell, being content in poverty is the abject slavedom of the human spirit.
Your spirituality, is a shallow spirituality. Your Faith is an evil unto everyone who holds the Faith, and unto those of us who do not.


I wish to make an apology, especially to all the women, who have followed this thread. I was in a bit of a hurry yesterday and I forgot my manners.
Not much of an excuse, but at least I have remembered.
You see I should have reproached La Rainbeaux
for using the word "whore" to describe social evils. The metaphor is still carrying the meaning of "whore", which is as we all know related to the immorality of sexual promiscuity in women. The latter is not the subject, and I do have views on this ethical subject. However, the word "whore" like the word "*****" used by La Rainbeaux is grounded in deep seated misogyny towards women, and these are intrinsically unethical words, because all they do is put down the whole essence of a woman in one vile insult.
It is not just a matter of political correctness, it is a matter of ethos, because the fact La Rainbeaux and others in this "Community" use such put downs shows a deep disrespect to women. The fact that ssomewomen use these terms too, does not make it right. It only emphasises, the level of disrespect in all your religious socieities. These insulting words are part
and parcel of the shallow ethos, and if you use them, they reflect your own shallow ethos, and any woman with real self-respect, should regard these words as an anathema.
Nope, it is profoundly wrong to tolerate them, and when you use them infront of me, in front of any man who knows these are brutalising terms, and in front of women, who you are brutalising with the terms, your lack of any real depth of ethos is the opposite of sensitive, it is fucking brutal.
La Rainbeaux, I let you off the hook, and it was unethical for me to let you off the hook. Now, I know you do not like big words, but you are being a bit fucking lazy. You can use define in Tools to find out what the big words mean, and if you cannot be bothered, is says a lot about you.
Now you are not my priority any more, nor is this thread, because no one is answering the question, and if you check I have told you what the question is several times.
The response has been very poor, thus I have other priorites. You see, I am not an idealist I do not believe logic can shake blind faith installed over centuries. It is not the logic alone that changes your consciousness, it is the social movement which carries the logic of why there is no God, within its core principles that really terminates your Flat-Earth God mentality.
God, has only been terminated in logic, not in society, and Marx had a tremendous point when he said "the point is to change the world"
I have other priorities, because all I can do is to give the logic, which proves there is no God. Now, you may not agree that I have proved my case, but I have proved it and I have proved it definitively, and if you do your homework, if you find out the meaning of the words, if you really follow the thread, you will see there is no God. You are just reading, reading emptily, you are not getting to grips with the thread.
You are content not to understand the thread, and unless you make a real effort to do your homework on the thread, your contribution to the thread is going to be full of knots, and it is not going to pass through the eye of the needle.
You have made no real attempt to understand the thread, and that reflects a poverty of thought. As said before, I am not an idealist, so my priority right now is to address the movement, and you are not part of the movement you are part of reaction. derminated.

(Edited by TheDerminator at 11:32 am on Feb. 12, 2002)

[libereco]

Quote: from TheDerminator on 11:28 am on Feb. 12, 2002
There is no beating logic!
Er um.
Answer the fucking question:
Where do you get your shit concept of God from?
It comes only from nothingness, it comes from the mystification of the unknown.
It's own development in history proves it is a pure invention. It is you who do not understand. All you possess is your blind Faith in nothingness. All you possess is a shallow ethos based on the worship of nothingness.
The kind intentions have led to a living Hell, being content in poverty is the abject slavedom of the human spirit.
Your spirituality, is a shallow spirituality. Your Faith is an evil unto everyone who holds the Faith, and unto those of us who do not.


Who are you talking to here? If it's me then you didn't get what I said. Because I don't believe in god. And I never have. (since reaching the age of 12 or so and thinking about it)


But I know that you will never prove that god doesn't exist. Have you even read what I said?
I mentioned that the great critics of religion have already explained: how, why, when ect. ect. religion was created. But even after having explained how it could have been there is still the barrier that god is not understandable, and you need to have blind faith. There cannot be a defninite proof to prove that something doesn't exist, when the thing is based on the idea that it cannot be proven wrong.

This is logical, and this is the reason why all critics of religion merely explain how religion works, and why it works, but never give you any PROOF. They cannot. I cannot. And you haven't done it yet either.

[Sasafrás]

OK, Apparently you don't understand but after this, I don't even want to bother [with you, TheDerminator ] anymore. I AM a female myself and I'm not a mysogynist. "Whore" and "*****" do not have to solely refer to women at all, but since you think so, maybe you're the mysogynist (and just don't know it). I was trying to make a point that you, TheDerminator (Thank YOU for making sure you always make my sign-in name bold in your posts), should not spend every waking moment of your life on this web community trying to prove that God does not exist. I think that most of the community members are atheists anyway but for those who aren't, they choose not to be and they have their reasons. I think it's very disrespectful to always make rebuttals and attempt to prove people wrong just because they don't think like you do. We are all individuals and it's not fair for you to say that the faith of those who believe in God is "shallow" or "blind." Belief in God is not evil nor does it opress people who have it or do not have it unless those people allow it to. You have prejudices that you need to work on.

..Peace & Love..

[Hayduke]

If you want to answer everything with sience you wont come far.......Things you can't be solved will be answerd with the question no............and you just don't know ...you don't know

- When Humans create life, this will prove life can be
created. It doesn't have to evolve from mere chance.-

Myself....I can't proof just like every other person on earth I can't say a thing.....I can't proof.....its based on yourself.....If you believe or not........

-God exists because no eco-niche that desirable would
stay empty forever.-

You answer no....but wich proof do you have....I dont what you want to say with this.........or want to proof..............
NEVER JUDGE SOMEONES BELIEVES............not by saing no.....
Its almost something like rasicm....

DOnt see me as a christian....that doesnt do anythign but praying.......just see me as someones who believes theres someone....someone that I can't see just yet........
But I knows there........Its could Faith.....look it up my man.....

[CPK]

supermodel you ask me where i go when i die?
where do fish go when they die? where do birds go when they die? where do snails go when they die?
no where. they live their life, and it ends.
as with us humans how are we different from animals?
it's a scientific fact that we came from primates. we are just an advanced form of primate. did our primate ancestors have a god? or did he just come up as soon as we started to evolve?
since i don't beleive in heaven nor hell, i have no idea where i'll go. so it's a question that i cannot answer.

[Moskitto]

OK, Here's what both halves of the religious spectrum think and why nothing can prove that god doesn't exist for them.

Western Philosophies - Believe that god is a physical being, Being omnipotent he does not have to leave evidence of his existence and remoce evidence that he does exist. Because faith is a central part of western religions, believers believe because they trust that god does exist, they don't need proof nor seek it. For this reason, evidence for or against the existance of god is irrelevant to their belief.

Eastern Philosophies - Believe that God is a concept. God is not a big overlord that strikes lightning bolts at people or sends people to hell. God is something that gives you the strength to do things, but only if you believe in him (in Chinese religions) and otherwise is something very individual. Because God in Eastern Philosophies is individual, It doesn't matter if god does or doesn't exist in the physical world because god is individual.

And you don't seem to understand much about religion considering you said "Where do you get your shit concept of God from?" when it is Precisely what Any Priest, Mullah, Rabbi or Bhuddist monk would tell you. If you want to argue against your own religion then do if in your own time. Western religion is about Faith. That is why evidence for or against is irrelevant. Read my post.

You don't seem to like the idea of faith very much. Well I suggest you don't go and have surgary. You place faith in the doctor that he's actually going to opperate on you rather that just remove all your internal organs and kill you. I mean it is way more important to an athiest that the doctor is actually going to do the opperation than whether someone believes in God or not.

If you don't like people believing in religion try Cambodia, it's a nice skully place now.

(Edited by Moskitto at 11:48 pm on Feb. 12, 2002)

[TheDerminator]

Libereco You have bought it. You have bought in to the supposed complete non-tangibility of God. I guessed you were an athiest, and I apologise for tarring everyone with the same brush. I was not really addressing you, but if you look through the thread, you will see that the majority of the responses thus far have not shared our atheism. I was addressing them and I should have made that clear. Please forgive the error.
However, you have still bought the complete non-tangibility of God, hook, line and sink.
I am not completely ignorant of the work of Marx on God. Every one knows he wrote "religion is the opium of the people." However, it as brilliant an observation as it is, Marx wrote something which was a deeper understanding of religion. I do not possess the exact text any longer, but is from the same text as the famous quote and to the best of my memory it goes something like this: "Every religion regards itself, as the one true faith; and hence sees every other religion as an invention."
There can be no mistaking exactly what Marx meant even, if my memory is a little fault. It is the essential statement that he made.
Obviously, Marx intends us to draw the conclusion, that all religions are thus inventions.
There is another bit of Marxist philosophy, you should consider, and that was a response to Kant by Engels in Anti-Duhring. Kant believed that if you can never know the thing-in-itself (or to be put in modern terms its essence). Thus for Kant everything possed an unknowable thing in-itself that no one can prove.
Engels responded to this in Anti-Duhring with the statement "if you know all the qualities of a thing, you know the thing-in-itself".
Now, I am not a Marxist, I do not believe you can transfer the essentialistic approach which is applicable to material nature, to human social development, because in the realm of human social development the whole superstructure reflects modes of human consciousness.
Lenin wrote that "the primacy of the political over the economic is the ABC of Marxism" and Marx himself in his Theses on Feubach, criticised him forgetting that "people can change their own circumstances" Now, a good orthodox Marxist such as Peaccenick can argue that there is still self-consistency, but even though I know the self-consistent argument, I see it as still containing a deep contradiction.
"Religion is the opium of the people" was the first quote from any philosopher that I knew as a child, because my parents were socialists, but for many others the first quote they know is "I think, therefore I am" by Descartes.
You see if you are a really consistent materialist, you have to view this as idealism, and you put the opposite point of view "I am, therefore I think".
In other words, "it is not consciousness, which determines existence, it is social existence, which determines consciousness"
This is consistent materialism.
Yet, I still thought there was a bit of a contradiction. It seemed to me that the two opposite positions were equally wrong and equally right.
Human existence is conscious existence.
You cannot seperate the human species from its form of consciousness, and it was our form of consciousness, which separates us from our ancestors.
You see, Libereco this is a heresy against the consistent materialism, and it in my view, proves there was a deep contradicton, within even the thought of Karl Marx.
If you are a consistent Marxist, and I do not know if you are a Marxist or not, so I am only making a hypothetical case. If you are a consistent Marxist, you see all social development as a historical process. And in economic terms, you follow, the economic progression from the barter system, to the early mass slavery, to feudal serfdom, to capitalism, and this for you is the main dynamic of history.
Now, I do not believe in throwing the baby out with the bathwater. All social development is a historical process.
Yet if you are being truly historical, you have to start at the beginning, and for Marx, that beginning is the barter system.
Again Marx was correct to go right back to the beginning, but herein, I have a large disagreement with essentialists such as Marx, and such as Peaccenick. Because there is a question missing.
Where did the barter system come from?
Or, to be more exact, what caused the barter system to originate?
Marx explained how the barter system worked, its essence, but he did not answer what created that barter sytem?
How can be just a fait accompli? A fait accompli, is no answer. What caused that fait accompli?
You do not believe in God, nor do I so, we have to rule out the possibility, that God went zap, and then there was the barter system. Where the hell did it come from?
The orthodox Marxists like Peaccenick are not stupid people, they have answer. It came from necessity. Necessity, is thus the driving force of history, and necessity created the barter system.
All self-consistent stuff.
But Libereco why is necessity the driving force?
Why? Where do our actions based upon need stem?
How do we know of the necessity? We must recognise that necessity in our consciousness. So what comes first Liberco the necessity or the consciousness? Were the early ancestors before us, who had the maybe the similar needs, but not our level of consciousness able to really be conscious of what they need to do in order to help their survival, or did it need us to possess that consciousness to be able to act upon the recognition of the necessity.
Another thing, you can recognise, a need, but for real reasons, you are unable to act upon that need. You maybe have not created the steps to fulfil your desire, and that too requires a conscious process.
Where was the barter system created? In the consciousness of tribes peoples, who did indeed see the need to trade.
If a barter system existed for ancestors before our human species existed, it was also created in consciousness, just as the fledgling bourgeoisie of England created the captialist economic system. It is the cause. Cause always precedes essence, even in nature. No exceptions.
The cause creates the essence. It relates to what Engel's said in Anti-Duhring, but it is if you know all the reasons why a thing is created, you know the purpose of its invention. That is all you need to know.
We know why God was created. That is all we need to know. You have bought the complete non-tangibility. You have let the ignorance of the people who created God off the hook, just as the orthodox Marxists, are letting the bourgeoisie off the hook, because the bourgeoise created capitalism for their own selfish purposes, and we are living with the fall out.
La Rainbeaux The boyz in the hood should not be calling each other niggers. Just because you are of the female gender does not make it right. Just because these terms can be loosely applied to men does not change their misogynistic roots. History matters. As for harmless religion you do not see the opium. derminated.

[libereco]

Okay, I agree with you to a point.

But in the end, you still don't have "proof" for the non-existance of god. And I understand why you don't. As I said before, you can not disprove the existance of something that is build upon the belief that it is not disprovable. You can understand how it works, you can point it out, some people will understand it......but it is not definite proof.

Even if you had papers of the first guy that invented a religion, where he explains how he did it and why and so on, and you presented that paper at court: Your opponents could still lean back and claim that there is a god, no matter what this guy wrote.

but i'm getting a bit tired of repeating myself, and I bet you are as well.

[Moskitto]

you can't prove it eitherway, anyone who thinks they can is likely to be ripping out their hair in lots of frustrating arguements with people. That's why I gave up argueing for or against religion.

[Che Jexster]

It's impossible to prove anytihng does NOT exist. Like i cant guess there are no flying elephants but there's a chance that somewhere in the far reaches of the universe that there is one. However you can prove things that have contradictiory characteristics such as a cubic sphere. So most religious groups gods' can be disproved using the following.
If god is both willing and able to stop 'evil' or amorality or whatever you want to call it then why hasn't it done it?
If god is able but not willing to stop 'evil' then it isn't benevolent.
If god is willing but not able to stop 'evil' then it's basically just like the rest of us.
Finnally if God is neither willing nor able to stop evil why call it god?

[El Che]

Ok I didnt read through the 5 page thread becuase i have bin away and i just wana cut to the chase and get to the fucking point.

Im going to introduce a new concept here determined that is going to shock you now doubt but that is necessary becuase like you i rely on logic.

ok you ready?
noone can prove anything

This relates back to the thread of science=truth in general political forum, you could look there for my position is suficiently expressed there in. In short we can not grasp reality in its full because all we have is imperfect preceptions of the same. Now you might say that is this was the case one could do nothing and say nothing for everything is uncertain. One assumes no doubt truths or certain things as true but we can never assume them as absolutly true because we can never reach the absolute. An example:

I am here, I exist.<--- I can not be 100% sure of this. i urge u to point out to me the logical error in this what i have said. How do I know that this but a dream?, or that how do i know that i am not hocked to some machine that transmites impulses to my brain which in turn "creates" the reality around me in my head? This may seem absurd and rediculas to you, but it doesnt make it any less true.

Face it we humans can be sure of nothing, can prove nothing. We infact assume things to be true, because we must if we are to do anything. Our curiosity demands that we try and comprehened all that we are surounded by. However we can never be sure to the absolute that our findings or our conlusions are in fact the truth. Take science for example, it assumes somethings as true does it not? It takes care that it does not assume the false to be true. To acomplish this it utilises a method, that demands truth of reality A be comproved or tested before A is assumed as true. However it is never assumed to the absolute, it is mearly a theory that can be replaced or invalidated at any time. Science being our best "tool" to understand reality, or rather to describe it by models.

Now then, all this talk of proving the non-existence of god is rubbish. We must recognise our humility. If you could prove the non-existence of god you would in fact be proving an absolute unchangeable universal truth. This is logicaly impossible. It is even a futile exersice to enter into considerations concerning the evidence you present, because allas if we can not pronounce our selves absolutly over that which is empirical much less absolutly over that which is absolute (God). It is a futile exercise at best. Indeed it comes as no suprise that science does not atempt to do such a thing, for when entering into the realm of the absolute it is striped of the viability of its method, its left naked. And so it runs home to the pety emprical things it can test and elaborate on. Never however assuming its findings as universal laws, final laws. If nothing experience has thought it better than to do such a thing. I assume that since you propose to prove something you intend to use scientific method. If so I am truly confounded for this is no branch of science that would enter into such ventures. Perhaps it is in the realm of philosophy that you base your findings, you must know then that such especulation over metaphysical questions, although fundamented in logic, are just that, especulation.


You see its not the believebility of religion that on trial here, or rather that is not the issue. The issue is our impotence to prove anything, impotence that you must admit because logic and reason will have it no other way. You may present a good case, and indeed you do, in that religion is mearly the mistification of the unknown, but sadly you can never prove it. You my friend can not even prove that u exist....

regards.

[TheDerminator]

The priority is to first answer the orthodox Marxist essentialism, because Peaccenick is on his way, and I do not really see the need for opening a new topic.
I made a statement in my last contribution to the thread, and that is that even in nature cause precedes essence.
This goes to the transformation of all matter. Every finite being has causation. No exceptions.
Now let's go to the infinite.
All you essentialists can do, is to reduce the infinite to its continuum.
You do not understand the role of causation in the
infinite.
The infinite continuum is made up of an infinite series of finite moments. Thus the infinite holds the finite within it.
Every finite moment has a cause, and the infinite is an infinite series of causes. Each cause has an essence, but the causation stretches back in to infinity, that is the thing with infinite causation, it is an infinite continuum, just like time and space. You do not understand the role of causation in nature, never mind human history.
By the way, in case you never noticed, infinite causation replaces finite causation. A creator.
Returning to human history, there is another contradiction in Marxism, you know.
Marx rightly criticised Aristotle, for seeing slave system as the natural conditions for people in Greek antiquity.
So if these are not "natural" conditions, these conditions are human made conditions within human society, and the same can be said for the capitalist economics, feudal economics, and even yep, barter economics. These economics are not "natural". They are human made in human society.
You do not understand causation in the development of human society.
Now, Libereco, you are still stuck with your complete non-tangibility. You are a modern day Immanuel Kant. Instead of you can never know the essence, you can never know causation. Maybe, you do not see why causation is all you need to know, and maybe no maybe.
You see Libereco, the poverty with the Marxist, methodology, is it cannot analyse concepts.
I can analyse concepts, because if you search the stuff done by TheDerminator in the community, you will find that I have written a treatise called Heresies on God and Freedom. Within this treatise is an objective methodology, for analysing any subject including God, and including freedom. Don't knock what you haven't studied.
God and Freedom Libereco. God and Freedom.
Your name tells me you understand the importance of the concept of freedom.
Let's use the concept of Freedom as an example to illustrate what I mean in relation to causation an abstract concepts, because it is also applicable to the concept of God.
As more or less said before, the poverty of Marxism is that it cannot really tackle abstract concepts such as God and Freedom.
All Marxism, can relate Freedom to is necessity, and the deep poverty is that each economic system has been a Frankenstein, and Doctor Frankenstein, has got off scot-free.
You see Libereco in relation to Freedom, and causation, all you need to know is what limits the Freedom of each epoch.
The limitations upon the form of Freedom reflect the objectives of those who created those limitations. The objectives Libereco are the causation.
All you need to know, are the limitations upon the objectives, and that tells you the poverty of those limitations. That understanding, gives you your moral outrage, in this society, because these limitations, upon our Freedom are indeed not natural limitations.
You see Libereco. You do not really understand, the development of your own great name in human history.
You see Libereco there is a parallel, between the concept of God and the concept of Freedom.
It returns, to the objectives, it returns to the purpose, thus it returns to the causation.
You see Libereco in relation to Freedom, the consciousness which created our economic systems, was also a human invention. All we are need to know are the historical reasons for that invention.
You see Libereco the historical reasons contain the objectives, contain the limitations of those objectives. What do you want to do Libereco, mystify the objectives, mystify the purpose? Who benefits from that mystification Libereco?
Does our understanding of what causes a few people to possess trillions of dollars (between them) in their private bank accounts, whilst a similar number of people to possess maybe even $100; does it help our understanding of the causation of this obscenity, one iota, if we do not objectively grasp the causation?
No, Liberco, no. The mystification of an objective understanding of causation is a deep poverty of thought, and it is keeping the obscenity alive.
You see Liberco, you see, when we move onto the concept of God its whole historical dynamic, is enshrined in the question of "Why?" and the queston "Why?" is the question of causation.
You see Libereco, once you know the answer to "Why" you know all the reasons Libereco, and that is all you need to know. Think of the fledgling bourgeoisie in England Libereco. They did not need to know, the full objectification of the process
in which the economic infrastructure works. The latter was only given later by Karl Marx.
All the bourgeoisie required to make their Frankenstein, was a functional knowledge of how it would operate the societal superstructure.Libereco, this is all they needed to know.
You see Libereco, in all matters relating to peoples actions in the superstructure, all you need to understand is what are the objectives, what is the purpose? Every action Libereco. Every action. No exceptions. Even the answer to why did we create God. That is all you need to understand.
Do you see Libereco? Do you see?
Do you see mystifying causation is just the same as mystifying essence. It still leaves us with the Kantian unknowable thing-in-itself. It is a deep poverty of understanding Libereco and by blindly accepting the mystification of the complete non-tangibility of God, what are you doing Libereco? You are on the same side as the mystifiers Libereco and some of these mystifiers, would like to keep Liberty mystified too. Do you see it yet Libereco?
You see Libereco, we know why humankind created God. That is all we need to know. We know the answer. The answer (the causation) is the definitive proof that there is no God.
I hope you see Libereco.

El Che I cannot only prove the definitiveness of my own existence, I can prove to you that you defintely exist. I have to be modest here. The credit goes to Descartes, who came up with the first empirical proof in philosophy.
I think, therefore I am.
El Che Try it out under your own laboratory conditions. It will work every time ad nauseum.
derminated.

[El Che]

Allas you cant determined.

[TheDerminator]

El Che You are stuck in a maze of veritable mysticism. Your philosophy, just like your existence can easily be determined. You and your philosophy is instantly quantifiable, and that really is what you think about my philosophy, which is why you threw it in the bin.
You are determining me all the damn time!

Moving on.
Now, I know, there is a bit of heavy theory in the causation stuff within my last thread; so I will try to clarify it with a poem about causation written by father.
I think a few words are a bit unethical these days so I have changed them. I am not too worried, since I recall when wrote a poem on Magaret Thatcher, he accepted my reasoning that the word "*****" was unethical and immediately changed the verse.
I know my father, and he was not a complete neophobe, and he would accept ethical changes, and one of the changes, was made by someone other than me, when my father was alive.
I am sure, my dad knew that his poem was all about causation, and I have an inkling that he would have been on my side rather than essentialism once he read my treatise. I guess I am biased, but this is my favourite poem of all time.
A Poem for all People

In ten millions to come, this small green world may join the boiling sun,
And all the twinkling stars in high Evanish from the neighbouring sky!
Ten thousand years, the frost may creep, embrace humankind in our last sleep,
And nowhere in the void be heard, the voice of man or warbling bird.
Thus Nature may the final curtain draw, transform our joys to scenes of grief and awe,
Whilst we, poor humans, have but a passing glance,
And ebb with the cruel tide of lost significance.

And yet we rose
From shaping crude rough stone
To polished marble in perfection,
From drawings on the wall of some dark cave
To rich engravings and great portraiture,
And with astonishing creation,
Endowed the countless generations,
Made ships of steel to sail the seven seas.
Harnessed mountain streams for electricity,
Walked upon the moon and probed the Milky Way,
Brought worlds unknown into the light of day;
Music, Art and Medicine revealed their vast store of Humankind's brilliant deeds
with slightest thought of self or long-consuming greed.

Out of the caves we came,
Out of the forests and the mountain slopes,
And down upon a world we might tame,
And founded there together our tribes
In earnest wish to find a better day,
Never dreaming much about tommorow,
Though often grieving for our women's sorrow and our own,
And even in our poor stupidity made Gods;
Even then caught up in captive fraud,
We sailed upon a sea of senseless shame.
When priests and chiefs were made,
We had no notion of democracy,
We never dreamed from this that Pharohs would arise
That Buddhas would be raised on our own backs,
That all the Earth's religions would be used
To progress fossilise.
We never dreamed the deep-down cunning wise
Would throw the evil sands back in our eyes for innocent mistakes;
We dearly pay for our slow consciousness.

Yet now we know, yes now we know
When the Bourgeoisie present their ultimatum,
When all the evil there ever was
Conspires at the cross-roads,
With bombs and rockets holds the world in terror,
Combining now the shameful errors of our history -
How we enslaved our fellow man,
Committed the sacriledge of War in the name of God
And with a thousand frauds
Nigh sealed the ruin of our inner self.
We now have reached the point of total destruction
Or the liberation of the beauty in us.

For some history and science can prove nothing. I am proud to say my dad was never amongst that some.


(Edited by TheDerminator at 7:44 pm on Feb. 13, 2002)


(Edited by TheDerminator at 11:29 pm on Feb. 13, 2002)

[Moskitto]

You sound like you've studied God and Freedom heavily. However you seem to have been lax on studying freedom by your anti religious tolerance posts directed at La Rainbeaux. Banning religion isn't freedom, it's Cambodia.

[TheDerminator]

Moskitto. It is not very nice to put words in other people's mouths that were never said. Look back through the whole thread. Nowhere. Nowhere. Nowhere. Where did I say anything about "banning religion"?
Banning religion in Cambodia, in China, in Cuba, in the old Soviet Union is an error. A deep error.
There is no contradiction herein with my criticism of the unethical "toleration" of La Rainbeaux nor with the fact that I believe that is unethical for socialists to tolerate the opium of the people.
There is no contradiction Moskitto, because I possess an extremely tolerant ethos. You see Moskitto, I understand that unlike any supposed all-knowing God, we have no great master plan that governs our actions. None.
That is a huge historical mitigator Moskitto and it is a bit of the reason as to why I believe it would be extremely wrong to execute an Adolf Hitler. A lot of people would not possess my tolerance Moskitto
The answer is not to ban religion Moskitto, not even if people in a socialist democracy, saw it as the evil it is. Let people, bow and scrape to their Gods, and yes do provide places for them to worship, because their own development is a huge mitigator, and just because, they possess a shallow ethos, it does not mean that you should.
Ethos and toleration are inextricably inter-linked. All I am saying is that what you do tolerate is not the only benchmark, what you do not tolerate in your personal ethos is equally extremely important.
Moskitto Maybe you should be consistent, and give up arguing for Freedom, because there are a hell of a lot of people out there who believe that you are a complete utopian, and that you cannot prove socialism is better than "capitalism" as you probably see it.
In fact, it is not just that the think there can be no proof, from you or any other person, they think you are infringing upon the freedoms that they cherish, such as the freedom to create wealth as they see it. They maybe think you are a bit intolerant of their beiefs, but maybe you should let them know how tolerant you really are?
You are reaching out to the believer's Moskitto, but you are not getting closer to God. You are getting close to accepting the opium is okay. The drug is the escape from reality. You do not take the drug, you just say "enjoy your overdose"
You are coming from a position of tolerance as you see it, but you do not see people dying from the overdose that you think is okay tolerate.
You gave up trying to prove God does not exist? What exactly did you give up Moskitto.? Did you give up an understanding of why we create God?
Did you give up a realisation that we only need to know the causation/objectives for the creation of God in order to prove that God does not exist?
What did you give up Moskitto? You gave up trying to understand why God was invented. You gave up to the mystification. You gave up to complete non-tangibility. You gave up Moskitto. You gave up...
And Moskitto A lot of fellow travellers give up socialism. They give up the fight for human freedom.
Maybe you will too, Miskitto because if you stick in the fight for freedom, you will eventually meet someone with an ethos not worth tolerating, and you wouldn't wish to offend them would you?
You agree with me on the offensiveness of Stalinism. Good. You possess a much better ethos, than these apologists for evil, but tell me where you begin and start with your toleration?
It sounds like you have never known that the overdose of religion is a killer, and killing people right now. Who knows, maybe even in Nicaragua, and maybe no maybe.
It is not just guns that kill, Moskitto.Indifference kills. Doing nothing kills, because instead of encouraging people to challenge their oppressors, you say "Meet your oppressors at mass, they are as you know like you all equal in the eyes of God"
You do not see the poverty in giving up, Moskitto. You say that for once you agree with me in relation to Stalinism.
Only once Moskitto? Only once? It is a pity that is all we have in common, because I have it common with some deep reactionaries, and so do you.
Who knows Moskitto by using the metaphor of fascism, to depict their brutal mentality, you might have offended some Stalinists, and they might think it shows your intolerance towards Stalinists.
I possess that intolerance, but I mitigate it, with the knowledge, that these supporters evil, never had a blue print either, and there is a contradiction between their support for evil, and their hatred towards another evil.
You are thinking everything is grey, when somethings like fascism, and like this shit money based economy are black and white, even though there is mitigation. It is what the people who turned into fascists became, it is the Frankenstein that was created by the bourgeois class.
What is the effect of the cause has to be your question. The effect is black and white in some respects. It is not just grey, although there is greyness. There is historical mitigation.
There is within most people "common decency" it is just this decency is not decent enough. You are letting La Rainbeaux and others off the hook. They do not deserve to be let off the hook. The opium is a part of why billions will die prematurely in this world, and the tragedy is that supposed socialists like yourself condone part of the causation.
You gave up Moskitto !!! You gave up questioning. The traditionalists count on it. If you do not question, all you are doing is repeating dogma, and I have to say it Moskitto all you are doing is repeating dogma, and it is a dogma I could have got from anyone in the bourgeois liberal sphere. It is a pity we have nothing else in common Miskitto since you only agree with me on one thing.
Never give up the fight. When you give up the fight the bastards win. derminated

(Edited by TheDerminator at 8:50 pm on Feb. 13, 2002)


(Edited by TheDerminator at 9:15 pm on Feb. 13, 2002)


(Edited by TheDerminator at 11:18 pm on Feb. 13, 2002)


(Edited by TheDerminator at 11:26 pm on Feb. 13, 2002)


(Edited by TheDerminator at 11:33 pm on Feb. 13, 2002)

[Che Jexster]

To El Che i say you can prove you exist by "I think therefore i am". You're right that you may not exist in the capacity that you percieve (ie. you might just be a dream or hooked to 'some machine that projects reality into your head) but in either case there is something physical creating you (a thing to dream or a machine that you're hooked up to) so you do in fact exist.
Secondly not only material things exist, words have no substance but they exist. Ideas may not have substance but they exist (chemicals stimulat ideas in the brain are same as ideas themselves).
So I'm afraid I have to disagree with you.

[TheDerminator]

Che Jexter

You and El Che, get zero out of ten for your "logic"

A dream occurs in the subconsciousness. El Che's denial of proving existence is in consciousness.
All your conscious perceptions do not switch off, unless you are dead or catatonic.
You are not creating any physical thing in your head.
If I create an imaginery friend Zedox in my head, Zedox is my pure invention in my consciousness.
Yep, words exist, but Zedox does not exist.
Your idea that the chemicals which stimulate the brain are the same as the ideas, is extremely crude materialism. I am not meaning that it is electrical impulses rather than chemicals, that is not the point, you can just change chemicals to impulses and you would be making the same crude materialist point.
Marx had a brain, but Marx is dead. Yet the consciousness of Marx lives on to some extent. You possess some of that consciousness.
Only to some extent. Marx is dead. His brain no longer possesses consciousness. When we exist our consciousness is totally dependent upon us possessing a brain, but the brain is only matter. The brain is not consciousness.
A person who is catatonic possesses a brain, but does not possess consciousness.
Think of a Tarzan alone in a jungle, brought up only by animals. Tarzan, has no constructed language in his head. For human language you require communication. Language is a social phenomenon.
Tarzan only has a very primitive form of consciousness, based only on his experiece of the jungle.
There is a vast difference between you and Tarzan. You possess human social consciousness.
You do not understand form.
You see Descartes, possessed a gold nugget in his dualism, but the gold was obscured, by the conscious form in which he addressed the problem.
You see mind stuff is different from material stuff. It is a different form of stuff.
It is dependent upon having the material stuff in order to exist, which is where Descartes went wrong.
You are not catatonic Che Jexter. You possess consciousness. A person who is catatonic still possesses those impulses between the neurones, or the person would be dead, but there has been a huge breakdown and that person no longer possesses consciousness.
Consciousness is a very different stuff from matter, it is why Marx lives and why Che lives. Pity you think they are dead.
Human existence is conscious existence.
I think therefore I am, is still a definitive empirical proof of existence, and always will be.
I was busy yesterday, so I did not have enough time to spend on the responses, so I apologise, for the lack of thoroughness.

Back to El Che

You see El Che
You are not alone.
Many bourgeois philosophical academics believe exactly as you that we cannot even prove our existence.
Many.
A bit sad in my view.
Think of a hypothetical situation El Che Use your imagination! Your imagination exists El Che
There is a symposium for philosophy professors. The issue under discussion is How can we prove anything in the world exists?
Ten thousand keen philosophy professors from all over the world attend, because Professor Wise is a leading authority.
Professor Wise has written volumes on this subject. Several books. He has written many articles and has become quite wealthy due to his well-attended lectures on the subject all around the world.
This is not you El Che. This is the world's leading authority on the subject.
Ten thousand academics pack a huge auditorium.
There is a hush of silence as the esteemed Professor goes up to the microphone.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my esteemed colleagues, for many centuries philosopher's have considered the challenge of whether or not we can prove anything exists.
I will not insult your intelligences. You all know the Socratic method, and in that tradition we will use reducto absurdum.
Indeed we will take the question to it's logical absurdity.
Now, under your seats you will each find a box. Inside each box is a magum gun. Inside each gun there is loaded live ammuntion.
However, we do not know if we exist, we do not know if the box exists, we do not know if the gun is real, we do not know if the live ammunition really works.
In the Socratic tradition, we start from an "I know nothing" point of view as you all are aware, and we can assume nothing is real, we can assume nothing exists.
Now, I have a box too, in my supposed box there is a similarily supposed loaded magum with this supposed live ammunition.
What I want us all to do is take the supposed gun out of the supposed box, point the supposed gun at our supposed heads, and pull the supposed trigger.
If we kill ourselves we might not prove too much, but say we all survive, we will prove that nothing exists, and nothing can be proven except the statement that nothing can be proven."
There are agreeing nods at the logic of Professor Wise, because it is consistent Logic. It is using the Socratic method in its correct manner.
These are all top professors in philosophy from all around the world, and they are driven by their own principled opinions. They believe passionately in their own logic just like El Che.
There is no hesitation. No one flinches. They are driven by their own formidable intellects. Each opens the box, each picks up a gun, just as Professor Wise does.
Each unflinchingly puts the supposed gun to her or his head as does Professor Wise. They all possess the guts to follow their own principled convictions.
Professor Wise and his ten thousand other professors simultaneously pull the supposed trigger.
Headline: Ten Thousand and one Professors die heroically to prove they do not exist!
Judith Wise takes her daughter Emma to the funeral.
Little Emma asks "Mummy, why did daddy die?"
Judith ponders the question for a while.
She has ofcourse always know of her husbands pet hobby horse.
"He loved us deeply Emma, he was just trying to find out if we existed or not".
Emma is confused, because she is only five.
"You mean he did not if I existed mummy?"
"No, Emma he could never prove it."
"Do you think I exist mummy?"
Judith ponders on the question.
Judith had a hard up bringing. She deeply loved her husband. He was basically a kind man, a witty man, a man who treated her with a respect she had never known before. He was a gentle sensitive man, respected throughout the world, and whatever anyone else thinks of her devotion she will stand by him to the grave.
She says "I do not know if you exist Emma"
Emma is at the grave of her father.
This is the worst hour of her young life, and all she hears is the coldness of the statement. Like La Rainbeaux she has picked up a lot of words from other children.
Emma thinks "*****". She bursts into tears, and so does Judith, because this too is her worst hour.

El Che. You dishonour the memory of Che. Che was no Don Quixote charging at windows. Batista existed.
The oppression of Cuban people by the vicious Batista regime existed.
You are fighting windmalls we are not.
Che would have no have thought much of your view of his lack of understanding of terrible social conditions. He would have taken you through the poorest parts of Batista's Cuba. He would say "There is the poverty! There it is! There is your fucking proof! You possess poverty in your denial of its true existence! How dare you use my name?!"
You who can prove nothing, prove the nothingness of your depth of humanity, because it is fucking cold.

Miskitto, I let you a bit off the hook yesterday, and I hope I can rectify it.
You are rightly against Stalinism.
However, you like La Rainbeaux still do not see that the effects of the opium of the people is to let the poorest people in the world die prematurely, due to the pacification of their spirituality.
There is a verse my father wrote, that sums up the relationship between the struggle from freedom and the struggle against religious idolatory and this is some thing Rosa Luxemburg would have rammed down your throat:

Not by bread alone they say;
devouring all that comes the gluttons way.
Miskitto. You did not even agree with me, about the language La Rainbeaux used and how do you think Luxemburg would have felt if she had heard Stalin calling her a "*****" and a "whore". Do you see any respect in those words? Is the only thing you agree with me about is Stalinism?
You see Miskitto you have to think deeply about one word: Indifference
You see all abuse is not physical abuse.
Some children are given material comforts, but what they lack is emotional support, because they are badly neglected by their parents. Such a child can commit suicide.
Indifference, indifference Miskitto. Think about indifference.
Your own indifference.
The indifference that religion breeds.
Think on it Miskitto. Do you not see the brutality of that indifference. Do you not see the brutality of that neglect?
You share the indifference of La Rainbeaux and it is brutal Miskitto. It is brutal "Not by bread alone," whilst they devour in gluttony is fucking brutal. It is fucking appalling that you do not see it.
How many people died prematurely as a result of all the religions in our history?
Do you think it was more or less than those who died under the genocide of Stalin?
Do you want to compare the fucking body count Miskitto?
It is a shallow ethos.
Just like your analysis of fascism.
Shallow.
Do you really think that fascism could have gripped millions of German people, if those people possessed a really strong social ethos? An ethos that only socialism can create.
Can you not see that Protestant German Christianity, could not install a high level of ethos in the German people who supported Hitler?
Can you not see that Italian and Spanish Catholicism could not install a high level of ethos in the Italian and Spanish people who supported Mussolini?
Miskitto
How brave was the fucking stand of the bastards during the second world war, who ran the protestant, and catholic church in these countries? Where was the total fucking outrage at the treatment of the jewish people? You cannot say they never knew. They saw them wearing yellow badges. They saw them shipped off to concentration camps, they saw the jewish children being beaten in the streets, they saw them spat upon, they saw their windows broken, they saw their abject humiliation. The fucking degradation Miskitto
You think I should tolerate that pure fucking bastardom!
Just how deep is your humanity Moskitto? You think we should tolerate the opium. Really? Fucking hell, Miskitto, fucking hell. You do not see the abomination you are supporting by your "tolerance".
All this probably sounds brutal to your ears and looks brutal to your eyes, but who is possessing the brutality Miskitto, who is doing the brutalising? Who possesses the indifference?
Is there a great difference between your indifference, and the effects of brutal Stalinism, and the effects of shallow religious ethos? There were other reasons for why fascism took root in Europe. My analysis of fascism is not shallow, but what you are indifferent about, was no small part of things.
The Stalinists, you know will say you support the greater opprobrium. What do you think Miskitto? Is it back to the body count? Nope. I would not entertain that for second. Some times generalities can be banal. It depends on the context. Some time two wrongs indeed do not make a right, and these are two deep wrongs.
You are defending the indefensible, and you should be able to tell El Che that history proves its indefensibility.

Miskitto I am not going to open another topic on this, even though I am going to go off on a tangent for a little while, because in historical analysis everything integrates and in the end, it does pertain to the thread.

The Alienation of the Self

You see I have to qualify what I said about El Che a bit, because I do not believe El Che should buy a box, a magnum, and some live ammunition! Nope, please do not take it that wayEl Che. Don't do it! Don't do it!
You see I am a newcomer here and I have been scanning the discussion topics a bit.
I know someone who joins the community has their heart in the right place, and that is true for every single person who has contributed to this thread, including El Che. The name itself suggests more than a smattering of ethos, and I would think otherwise. I think the dreadful "proof" word could be applied.
Yet, Miskittoyou are similar to everyone else in this thread, including myself. You were wrong to think we only possess one thing in common, although perhaps mine is a too literal interpretation, and it is not what you meant. It is up to you to let me know.
You see Miskitto, something else we have in common is that as thinkers we are...alone.
You are all alone.
Karl Marx was alone, Che was alone, Simone de Beauvoir was alone, Kant was alone, Hegel was alone, Aristotle was alone, Plato was alone. Castro is alone.
I do not know if you see where I am coming from yet, so I will explain why there is all this alienation of thought within each individual, if you cannot see it for yourself already.
You see even though Marx had Engels as a close friend and influence, Engels was along with Lenin one of the greatest orthodox Marxists who ever existed.
Engels would have admitted as much himself. It was Marx who made the important philosophical breakthroughs.
You see Miskitto, I think you know it already to some extent if not fully.
In one of the threads you add an ist to the end of your name, and even if it was just a bit of innocent fun, it hits the nail on the proverbial head.
They can all add an ist to the end of their names, every single person in the world community except me.
Now there is a statement to ponder on.
What do I mean by that? Surely I just said that I have it in common too, and there is a contradiction.
No Miskitto, no. No contradiction. You see there is a difference. A massive difference.
There is only the one reality in which we live, and this is subjective reality.
That means history evolved extremely eccentrically, with many chance features, such as the exact forms of the religions, artistic culture, the actual leaders, and so on. All subjectively grown out of historical development.
There was no objective reality as Marx saw it. We can objectify history, because as well as the actual people and the actual forms of consciousness there is essential development not just in economics as Marx saw it, but in the sphere of social consciousness.
You see apart of the poverty of the thought of El Che and others is that they have no conception, whatever, of the method Marx used to analyse, the economic infrastructure, thus they do not really know the objectifying value of determinants such as causation, essence, necessity, ground and so on.
They do not see that these concepts developed in philosophy by the pre-Socratics, from Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Hegel, and Marx are objectify concepts.
They do not see the purpose of these concepts is to objectify. What the hell do they think the whole development of philosophy up until and including Karl Marx was about?
Before Marx, they usually only see
"idealism" or "metaphysics" or both. Lenin termed idealism "a sterile flower", but this was an error. There could have be no Marx without a Hegel, no Hegel without Kant, no Kant without an Aristotle, no Aristotle without a Plato, and no Plato without Thales the first philosopher who was the very first real heretic against all religion.
Do you know what he said Miskitto? I hope you do, because it ended tens of thousands of years of ignorance.
Thales thought that everything was made of..water.
Never got it right. Nonetheless, he created the first philosophical hypothesis, and more than that. What else Miskitto?
What else was he doing? Can you see itMiskitto? He was separating essence from cause.
That was his huge breakthrough.
What is the inherent nature of everything, what is its essence?
Before him essence/cause were answered with two words "the Gods" That was his heresy against thousands upon thousands years of religious dogma.
And you know, he also said "all things are full of Gods" because he thought water possessed a soul substance. A sterile flower? Never.
There was no objective plan for us to follow, all we possessed was our opinions, our subjective opinions.
That is all you all possess your subjective opinions, and is why you are all alone as thinkers. All alone, each believing in your own righteousness, because that is what people with common decency to believe in their own righteousness.
All alone. Marx was the only Marxist despite his disclaimer. All the rest gave their own subjective interpretations of his own subjectivity.
I hope you have friends. I hope you have loved ones, because you are not alone in their companionship, but you are alone Miskitto in another sense. Even though you talk, even though you communicate, at the end of the day you are the sole judge of your own your own conscious judgements.
You decide whether or not you take on the views of any friends or family, Che or me.
You decide Miskitto. You decide.
Like everyone else decides. Take a look at every thread in every topic Miskitto. Take a look. See the evidence. Do you really need to be as pedantic as El Che? Yep, use your commonsense. Sometimes you agree, sometimes you disagree with the rest of us.
It is natural. Everyone is the same.
What does it meanMiskitto What does it mean?
Yep, everything you say is an opinion. You are only giving you isolated subjective opinion, and that is all. You look at the screen you make a value judgement and you give your opinion, just like the Stalinists.
Okay, not the same opinion as the Stalinists, no I am not saying that, but none the less do you think the Stalinists have an objective understanding of history?
I know you do not. We know El Che has no objective understanding because this person cannot objectify the existence of the air we breadthe. It is invisible you see, just like God!
Nope all you have is your opinions, all a person who was a Hitlerite possessed was opinion, all the believer's in God, only possess the opinion of their own Faith.
Each and everyone of them, all making their decesions on what bits of the sciptures the use for their own ethos.
Only natural. Everyone is in the same boat. Everyone is an "ist" to their ownself, even the fundamental dogmatist, is an "ist" trying to be as greater "ist" than the next fundamental, because they have their common decency, and that is what the commonly decent fundamentalist does, just like commonly decent you Miskitto
And you know Miskitto, I'll give you a bit of my deeper analysis about the roots of Naziism.
You see Adolf Hitler never said to the German people "I am an evil bastard unite behind me or I will exterminate you".
Nope, that was not his approach, nor was it the approach of Joseph Stalin.
Adolf Hitler appealed to the German people not just to stand up for a supremacy, but to stand up for the greater good of Germany, the greater good of the Fatherland.
Just as Stalin appealled to the Soviet peasantry during the second world war for the good of the motherland. What do you think getting rid of "degenerate" communists and "degenerate" jews was all about?
Think of the words Miskitto. Words have meaning. What do you do, when you remove "degeneracy"?
What you do Miskitto?
You "purifiy"
You purify.
Think on that. Purification.

You should see it coming Miskitto
Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot "purified society from the degenerate elements in their own eyes"
In what name Miskitto?
In what name? In the name of common decency. In the name of common decency. Fucking hell Miskitto. There is something profoundly wrong with common decency.
Mass genocide in the name of common decency. You don't see it though.
You don't see it Miskitto. No Miskitto, you do not see it. You may think you do, but you don't. None of you do. You see you are among the best Miskitto You and everyone contributing towards these threads.
But even the best do not see it.
You just see that it is natural. That is the way it must be. It can be no other way.
How can there be another way?
All we have is our opinions. Okay one opinion, can be more informed, one opinion can possess greater decency, but that is all we have at the end of the day.
We can only make value judgements inside our heads. That is the tragedy of the human condition!
We all do it! You too! You too!
How could it be otherwise! You are a fool to think otherwise! Who do you think you are some all-knowing God!
You fool! You fool!

Ah..No you do not see it do you. Do you?
You are God.
No supernatural God, but human God, no Pharoh among you, which is a good thing. But in a not disimilar manner to the Pharoh's you are God.
Because you have the same stuff in common. Subjective opinion, at the heart of your opinions. You are the law unto yourself, your shallow ethos determines which way the wind blows.
Yep, Miskitto even you with your tolerant generous heart think you are God. You are the righteous, but no one is perfect and we have to forgive ourselves for our small character defects, after all we all possess them, and it is only natural.
You are your own imperfect God, content in your own wisdom, in the sense you may not be Karl Marx, but he didn't know everything did he? And because we are righteous in our common decency we like to think we are right.
Oh yes Miskitto you have being playing God from a very early age, and you do not need to be a Pol Pot to play God, you do not even need to be a Pharoh. All you need to possess is an essentially subjective consciousness, and Miskitto that is essentially what you possess in your consciousness, just like everyone else.
Yep. I am the only one who is not a selfist! I am the only one who understands that I am not God!
You have never thought it consciously, but you act it out every day of your lives, and actions speak louder than words.
You see I can never replicate your logic. I have no clue on Earth what stuff, I am going to see on the screen any time, I look at a topic.
And that is our difference. Our huge difference. No you haven't a clue what is coming next.
But you could possess more than a clue. You could possess my exact understanding of historical development, and you would not be reading this reading blankly, wondering what the fuck you are reading. You could analyse everything I have mentioned for yourselves. You could analyse any subject, even your own ethics.
You see, what none of you have done is to understand objective methodology. You haven't a fucking clue about it, you have never studied it. It is fucking Planet Zog stuff to you.
No, Miskittono. My forte is not God, it is not Freedom. You may well have read more books on these subjects than I have. I have only read the Marxist-Leninist stuff on them. Could reduce it to one paragraph. Am I a complete fraud Miskitto?.
Nope Miskitto Nope.
So what is my forte, then Miskitto?
Philosophy? Do you think it could be Philosophy?
Maybe a bit. Maybe just a bit.
But Miskitto, I am not an academic. I do not possess one qualification in the realm of philosophy. I cannot say I could quote chapter on verse on any philosopher, and you can reel off all the names including Karl Marx.
So what do you make of that? I am fraud Miskitto? Am I? Do you know? I know El Che has thrown my treatise in the bin before it has been read, but what about you, is it in the bin, yet ? Got me down as a degenerate fraud, playing God, got me down as someone who thinks he knows everything.
So do I think I am a fraud?
No. Say you are an academic in philosophy, and know, you would be a hell of a lot better well read in the subject than yours truly.
But do you know what seperates me from those professors who do not believe you can really prove anything? Do you know what it is?
Nope, not higher intelligence.
Nope. Nope big style.
It is my direction. You see what I have done, that they have never done is to understand, the importance of the contributions of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Gramsci, and Chomsky, to philosophy. They do not even see the overlap.
What I have done, that they have never done, is do an analysis of what contribution each philosopher before Marx contribute towards creating objectifying concepts.
What I have done, that they have never done, is to rationalise Hegel's Logic in quite a good depth. The analysis of the Logic of all philosophical writings. Marx gained his dialectical method from his own rationalisation. He meant to write down his method in a few pages. He never got round to it.
My rationalisation was a good bit longer, but it is not quantity that counts, it is quality, but even here, I make a case in my treatise, that the methodology used by Marx was nowhere near as extensive as it should have been.
I do not know its exact form, because it was never written, but if you want I could tell you its essential form, and it is no big secret.
Since Marx the analysis of this piece of work has been extremely poor, it is the most difficult of all philosophical texts, even more difficult than Kant's Critique of Reason and this is the concensus view even in the academic establishment.
You see, my analysis the Logic is going to stand up, and there is nothing to compare it with in books on the subject. How do you know that?
Because the bourgeois academics never saw the importance of the rationalisation of the method by Marx. You will not find an attempt to assimiliate his methodology anywhere.
What I have done, that they have never done is to move beyond that analysis to create an objective methodology, capable of analysing any subject, even our sad lack of a deep ethos.
No, don't let the words repel you.
It is not just your shallow ethos, it is the shallow ethos, even of the top academics in the fields of pyschiatry and psychology, the people who should have a fucking brilliant ethos.
They do not they are cold fish. Even the best are cold fish. They do not know how to possess more than a shallow ethos, and that is why they can only see keeping a professional distance from patients.
No, ofcourse, it is not their fault. These are doctors, these are the commonly decent.
Now, I know, philosophy is a hard subject. It is the most difficult of all subject. It overlaps with everything in our social lives, art, music, literature, family and friends. If it was not the most difficult of all subjects, we would not have waited thousands upon thousands of years for Thales, or several thousand years later for Karl Marx.
It is an awesome subject, you are in the world of Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Hegel, and Marx.
It requires a hell of a lot of hard study to grasp the essentials, and not just study, it require some maturity of thought, so I cannot tell you how accessible my methodology is going to be to teenagers, and I would be lying if I did.
Philosophy is a study, it is not a casual read, and I daresay, there is not a casual read in my whole part of the thread.
I was wrong though to over-simplify, because ultimately I cannot really aim for the teenage market. There serious bourgeois academics out there who have similar views to El Che and they are going to slaughter me, if I over-simplify too much, and perhaps rightly so.
I have looked a bit through these threads on other topics, and I have to say it reflects the alienated self.
People in the socialist tradition are scoring points off each other. It really is political mastrubation. They are getting off on it. They are getting off on their own righteousness compared to the person they pound into the dirt.
It is not very comradely, and it reflects a lack of ethos. They have never been able to objectify, just what ethos means, and subjective development mitigates, them just as it mitigates my brutalities.
Oh yeah I can be brutal.
I am ramming stuff down throats, and that is brutal. I should not even know, how to be that brutal, but I do.
However, there is a lesser of two evils, you see we are living in a brutal world, and we all have been brutalised by that world.
Everyone of us even Chomsky, even Karl Marx, even everyone you love, even all your friends. No exceptions. Me included.
Most definitely.
It would be sheer egoism, to think you have been immune. Sheer absolute egoism.
I am not a terrible person for pointing out the shallow ethos in all of us. I am tarring myself with the same brush.
There is a problem, though. There always is a problem.
You see if the methodology is inaccessible to you, you cannot really verify that it is an objective methodology, and only if you can verify it, can you use the methodology on subjects such as God and Freedom, for yourself.
No, that is not a sleight of hand. I am a clear writer on philosophy, and I know that, because I have waded through some pretty turgid stuff.
No, I do not know everything about philosophy, but what I do know, is all the essential stuff. All the stuff you need to know, because it is the essential.
You see, it is not arrogant egoism, I just have confidence in my own understanding, and that confidence is based upon the fact, that not just that I possess an understanding of all the philosophical errors of Karl Marx, I went a good beyond Marx, and unless someone else has written essentially the same treatise as me, they never went beyond Karl Marx. None of them. Should I be scared of bourgeois academics?I am not scared of any bourgeois academics, should I be scared of Haebermas, or Derrida? Nope, they should be scared of me.
I am well capable of of ramming all their subjective shit down their fucking throats, and do you see the lesser of the two evils Miskitto?
These people are so brutalised that I need to ram things down throats. You should know, that I am not just addressing you, I am addressing the enemy people like Derrida and Haebermas, and the whole ragbag lot of post-modernists. They do not know what they are up against, because they do not possess objective methodolgy. I know what I am up against, and I aint scared one little bit. Subjectivity against objective methodology? Well, it will be a hard struggle, but we now have the tool to win the fight.
We have a very powerful enemy. A very brutal enemy. However never be scared of them. We have seen their worse. We know their worse and together we can ram their worst down their fucking throats. It is our ethical responsibility.
Believe your eyes. Sometimes you can believe your eyes, and that is something someone else has never done, except when eating dinner!
Yep, I can be cruel.
If you cannot understand my methodology how can you pass judgement. Stop being God.
derminated.



(Edited by TheDerminator at 12:37 pm on Feb. 14, 2002)


(Edited by TheDerminator at 12:41 pm on Feb. 14, 2002)


(Edited by TheDerminator at 8:03 pm on Feb. 14, 2002)

[El Che]

Determined,

To be brutaly honest with you i dont like your discourse. Are you here to play games my friend? do you wish to insult my inteligence? Indeed determined does play games, he says nothing, runs around in circles telling stories and calling me a traitor to the cause with no justification what so ever. I do not doubt this is intentional. You intentionaly bring the cause in to play so that by demagogy you may acopilsh what you can not by logic and argumentation. Your stories and poems of a paternalist nature are also uncalled for. I should tell you that i think for my self, and if in my own mind and reasoning i find something to be incorrect, unlike you i will not put by believes down for the sake of ortodoxy. Not of course that my views are in anyway in conflict with Marxism and Socialist thoery like your misleading ways would have us believe. Let us now examine your writtings, because I, that recognise the certainty of uncertainty, unlike your self, feel the need to fundament my statements.

"You and El Che, get zero out of ten for your "logic""

On the contratry dear friend it is U that gets 0 on logic and maybe a 5 for damgagotry(im being generous here).


"A dream occurs in the subconsciousness. El Che's denial of proving existence is in consciousness.
All your conscious perceptions do not switch off, unless you are dead or catatonic.
You are not creating any physical thing in your head.
If I create an imaginery friend Zedox in my head, Zedox is my pure invention in my consciousness.
Yep, words exist, but Zedox does not exist.
Your idea that the chemicals which stimulate the brain are the same as the ideas, is extremely crude materialism. I am not meaning that it is electrical impulses rather than chemicals, that is not the point, you can just change chemicals to impulses and you would be making the same crude materialist point."

Perhaps u fail to realise that the subconscious is totaly irrelevante to the subject matter. Consciousness is perception, perception is flawed. This is irrelevante nonesense for u can not escape preception. I think its fairly simple to understand what i said. I said that since your conceptions of reality are based on preception they are based there for on phisiological impules and chemical reactions within the brain. It follows that it is possible to artificialy create all these impules on a human by whatever means. The means are really irrelevante, weather they be a machine or something else is not the case. The plausability of this sugestion is not the question either, the question my friend is its logical possibility, possibility that to your disperation you can not overthrow so spare me the flawed analogies, the poems and the paternatistic bed time stories. On a further note you say "You are not creating any physical thing in your head.
If I create an imaginery friend Zedox in my head, Zedox is my pure invention in my consciousness.
Yep, words exist, but Zedox does not exist.
Your idea that the chemicals which stimulate the brain are the same as the ideas, is extremely crude materialism." now i want class to pay close attention because this is a good example of your intentiona misrepresentation. I of course afirm not that ideas invent reality, rather that your "ideas" derive from what you precieve, and if that preception is flawed then your ideas will also be flawed. If you make a deduction based on false premises will the outcome be correct? this is not crude materialism is a simple matter of fact.


"Think of a Tarzan alone in a jungle, brought up only by animals. Tarzan, has no constructed language in his head. For human language you require communication. Language is a social phenomenon.
Tarzan only has a very primitive form of consciousness, based only on his experiece of the jungle.
There is a vast difference between you and Tarzan. You possess human social consciousness.
You do not understand form.
You see Descartes, possessed a gold nugget in his dualism, but the gold was obscured, by the conscious form in which he addressed the problem.
You see mind stuff is different from material stuff. It is a different form of stuff.
It is dependent upon having the material stuff in order to exist, which is where Descartes went wrong.
You are not catatonic Che Jexter. You possess consciousness. A person who is catatonic still possesses those impulses between the neurones, or the person would be dead, but there has been a huge breakdown and that person no longer possesses consciousness.
Consciousness is a very different stuff from matter, it is why Marx lives and why Che lives. Pity you think they are dead.
Human existence is conscious existence. "

Your point?


"I think therefore I am, is still a definitive empirical proof of existence, and always will be.
I was busy yesterday, so I did not have enough time to spend on the responses, so I apologise, for the lack of thoroughness."

Extrodinary conclusion u arrive at, truly interesting. It is of course a conclusion that can not follow from the logic above expossed for that would be even more extraordinary. And no problem, i think you where quite "thorough" this time around. And as for decartes famous statement it really amounts to thin air, does he really exist? perhaps only his "thinking" exists and all else is an ilusion. Perhaps thinking its self is an ilusion... Indeed. Do u know the context of that frase? It was the frist thing he decided he would assume as true, doesnt make it true, just possible and maybe plausible from a logical point of view.

"Back to El Che

You see El Che
You are not alone.
Many bourgeois philosophical academics believe exactly as you that we cannot even prove our existence.
Many.
A bit sad in my view."

I think what is sad is that you would chose to use this discussion to atack my socialist beliefs. I understand u have nothing to fall back on, but come on, this is really a new low.


Then you tell us another one of your fair tales, lets skip that worthless waste of space.


"El Che. You dishonour the memory of Che. Che was no Don Quixote charging at windows. Batista existed.
The oppression of Cuban people by the vicious Batista regime existed.
You are fighting windmalls we are not.
Che would have no have thought much of your view of his lack of understanding of terrible social conditions. He would have taken you through the poorest parts of Batista's Cuba. He would say "There is the poverty! There it is! There is your fucking proof! You possess poverty in your denial of its true existence! How dare you use my name?!"
You who can prove nothing, prove the nothingness of your depth of humanity, because it is fucking cold."

Indeed, cold am I? dishonour the memory of Che do I? indeed. I think that if you go back and read over my frist post you will see that i dont make a point against action and beliefs for the sake of making it. I state the case that we assume truths and that it must be so. It must be so understand? We assume truths, rather we assume things to be true yes? we must be carefull that we do not assume the false to be true. Or at least some of us have this concern, and i daresay you are not one of those for u take no care that will not assume me a cold hearted traitor in falsity. But back to subject matter, to assume truths we use methods. The alternative would be to randomly assume things as true, which would effectivly render human life impossible. Different methodologies are used, but the one thing they all share is fundamentation. Science fundaments it self on empirical evidence, philosophy on reason and religion on God and the holy. I like person consider some methodologies to be valid and some not. Therefor the truths i assume are based on the methodologies i trust. I assume Socialism because i consider it true, i trust it methodology. You in your folishness would have us believe that some truths are abosulte. You are infact proclaiming the perfectness of human created methods based on flawed preception. Your inability to acept this fact proves (not absolutly so dont twist my words sofist one) your lack of touch with reality and clarity of thought. Point is made that i assume truth and from them i act, dont doubt my sincerity or the firmeness of my beliefs. The fact that i am honest with my self says more for them then your inability to question your own. He who is afraid to ask is probably more affraid of the answer. "know thy self" said soctraties.


I hope you will take me more seriously and discuss with me with the respect i deserve. If you wish to continue to play games so be it, i think however u are capable of much more. Shame.

(Edited by El Che at 8:33 pm on Feb. 14, 2002)

[Moskitto]

Actually here's what Rosa Luxemburg says about religion.

http://www.newyouth.com/archives/classics/...hechurches.html (http://www.newyouth.com/archives/classics/luxembourg/rosaluxemburgsocialismandthechurches.html)

Comparing the death toll of religion with the death toll of Stalinism does not prove your point. A book published in the 18th century "The Rationalist's Handbook" http://www.infidels.org/library/historical...ual.html#1.1.25 (http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/m_d_aletheia/rationalists_manual.html#1.1.25) which estimates the death toll from Christianity only as 56 million over the course of 19 centuries and this number has been challenged by numurous historians over time. Stephan Courtios estimates that 20 million people died because of Stalin in only 30 years, who was truely worse?

"How brave was the fucking stand of the bastards during the second world war, who ran the protestant, and catholic church in these countries?"

Ever heard the peom that goes "First they came for the communists..." That was written by a leading protestant Bishop, When they came after him, They were going after the protestant Church. And Catholics, ever heard of St Maximillian Kolbe? He helped Jews during the war, he was sent to Aushwitz for it as well. He died giving his life in exchange for a Jew who had a family. He didn't starve like the others in his cell. His faith kept him alive for so long that the nazis injected him with Carbolic Acid to finish him. Catholic and Protestant priests did a lot. However what did Athiests do for the Bhuddist monks in Cambodia?

"The fucking degradation Miskitto
You think I should tolerate that pure fucking bastardom!
Just how deep is your humanity Moskitto? You think we should tolerate the opium. Really? Fucking hell, Miskitto, fucking hell. You do not see the abomination you are supporting by your "tolerance"."

Make your mind up, you said that you had "Tolerance." Now don't go mad when I say Cambodia.

"It sounds like you have never known that the overdose of religion is a killer"

You're falling into a very typical anti-communist idea of blaming the idea full stop for everything that happened because of it. You don't study the idea to see if what was being perpetrated was the idea, this is in evidence in your assumptions about how faiths relation to religion. If you still do not understand, I know someone who has studied theology extensively who can explain it to you.

" You gave up Moskitto !!! You gave up questioning. The traditionalists count on it. If you do not question, all you are doing is repeating dogma, and I have to say it Moskitto all you are doing is repeating dogma, and it is a dogma I could have got from anyone in the bourgeois liberal sphere. It is a pity we have nothing else in common Miskitto since you only agree with me on one thing."

What have I given up? You assume that people who are not athiests have given up questioning. Some people have realised it's not worth it. I realised this debate about the existence of god is not worth having with anyone. What you are argueing is that I somehow believe I am god (something deeply offensive to any theist.)

"Just like your analysis of fascism.
Shallow."

When did I ever make an analysis of Fascism? Oh yes when I posted the essay by Benito Mussolini who I somehow doubt you have a greater knowledge of fascism than.

"You see Miskitto, I think you know it already to some extent if not fully.
In one of the threads you add an ist to the end of your name, and even if it was just a bit of innocent fun, it hits the nail on the proverbial head."

Actually, It relates to something someone in a chatroom once said in reply to "I'll get a philosopher to argue about this with you," His reply was "We are all philosophers."

(Edited by Moskitto at 11:48 pm on Feb. 14, 2002)

[TheDerminator]

Tried to copy some stuff from a google search. Lost all my text by accident.Internet cafe closing.
Need to be tommorow, when I respond.
I will take each paragraph at a time and be "thorough"
I have commitments tommorow, though so, it will only be El Che I can respond to point by point in each paragraph.
It has to be done, because I do have answers for both El Che and Moskitto.. I am sorry. I am new to the internet. I will just say this to El Che before I have to go. I do not for one second disrepect your intelligence, or the sincerity of your belief's. Not for one millisecond. I just strongly oppose them as weak, as I oppose strongly oppose the views of Moskitto as I see as equally weak. On Saturday, I will be a bit available, but it is Sunday, I can be here a good deal more of the day, so I will reply and I will be thorough, because you deserve it.
The thread will only deepen, and I can tell you right now, I leave no stone unturned in my pursuit of understanding.
El Che. I always make my apologies when I feel the are necessary, and yours is the misinterpretation, as well as an misunderstanding. I know exactly where it originates, and I hope to show you that I do.
Moskitto You think you have followed thread of my logic, but you are in deep error too. You know a lot, but there is a great poverty in your understanding, and I hope you will be a little patient. I have family commitments, and I do not break my promises.
If I am physically capable of responding over the weekend to you, and I do not at this moment see any incapacity, then, I will pay you the same amount of thoroughness, as I pay El Che. I am not too worried at this juncture about the bourgeiosie, as Lenin would have said they are not the immediate task.
derminated.

[Moskitto]

"I do not for one second disrepect your intelligence, or the sincerity of your belief's. Not for one millisecond. I just strongly oppose them as weak, as I oppose strongly oppose the views of Moskitto as I see as equally weak."

Opinions (views) can't be weak. Only factual evidence can be weak. Citing someone's opinions as weak however is a rather authoritarian thing to do and gives you an heir that it is you who believes yourself to be a god.

(Edited by Moskitto at 12:23 am on Feb. 15, 2002)

[El Che]

My reasonung may be weak, but allas yours is non existente.

(Edited by El Che at 12:20 am on Feb. 15, 2002)

[Moskitto]

If you want to argue theology with someone who actually cares, try this guy: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/019...4412441-5719855 (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0198239637/ref=ase_avsearch-bkasin-20/103-4412441-5719855)


(Edited by Moskitto at 1:02 am on Feb. 15, 2002)

[Moskitto]

...

(Edited by Moskitto at 1:03 am on Feb. 15, 2002)

[Guest]

In a response to Derminator's opine, I would like if he/ she be willing to answer some questions in which I either misunderstand about the notion of the God he/ she so speaks of. First are you subjecting your comment to a monothesitic translation, i.,e a Jesus, Buddha, Yaweh figure.....or a being in another realm which of course and I agree with you 100% cannot exist if we have not seen he or she with our decieving eyes. But where does the proof fail and where do signs of some 'beginning' begin, with every action there must have been a caustic factor involved, I again agree, you cannot have nothing spur out of nothing, but how are we supposed to explain the initial existence of an atom? Where the hell did that tiny sub-atomic particle get its life from, what is this vaccuous space we inhabit? where does it end, Personally, I think science only goes so far, and as some materialists will argue, Science is the gap-filler for religion until all can be proven by physics and mathematics, we are left with our faith in the meaning of each of our existences, so be an atheist, be a raging fanatic, just dont expell what you do not know, for that is why religion like so many other cultural platforms cause so much division...Back to my point, and probably now I have lost the fine tip, but I find many people have their notion of god rooted in the meaning of an earthly being manifest in flesh looking down from outer space??? I think we are out of the dark ages by now. peace!

[El Che]

And dear friend, dont think i have forgoten about your methodology. But lets us not discuss that now, so that we do not ofuscate the discussion on its irelevance. And dont worry about simplification, when the time comes i expect u to hit me with your best shot. You see i like these subjects, there lies your misfourtune for i will give you no rest.

[TheDerminator]

Got until the early afternoon, before I have to log-off
El Che
I am counting on your persistance!

Back to your last main response

New bit.
I let you off the hook. You put my thread in the bin before you gave you tuppence worth. What is good for the goose is good for the gander!
Where the hell was your destruction of my initial material? Never noticed it. Never existed. Where was my impatience?
Where did I demand my fucking response?!
More fool me!
What about your disrespect to everyone, before you?
Mighten someone else have raised a good point, why didn't you say anything about religious "tolerance"?

Got no views about my fucking intolerance?
I tolerate crypto-fascists!
How deep is your ethos?
How deep is your humanity?
How deep is your socialist spirit?
Got no fucking views of the genocide of wanton neglect, the opium of the people?
You demand. You demand.
I fucking demand!
Don't hide your fucking brutal honesty from me! We have it in common, but only a little is what I should have added.
I am not a crude dodger of issues.
When I see an injustice, no matter how small I put in my oar, and the injustice of the genocide of wanton neglect is no small injustice! Tell me its all in my head!



First paragraph.
Discourse.
You think this is an intersubjective discourse?
You possess all the essential subjectivity in this "perception"!
No. You see not only is there essential content, there is the essential form.
I will use a legit example.
You see say a writer picks up a theme, it could be any theme. A legit example, is of the age old example of two opposing groups within a society. From one group comes a man. From the other group comes a woman.
They fall deeply in love. Not sorry about the story.
Legit example of what can happen in society
The war between the two groups causes the love to end in tragedy. Still legit example.
That is the story for the writer. That is its content.
That is its the object of its message to convey the tragedy.
But what of the form?
Well say two writers have the same idea. A legit possibility.
You see one can write Romeo and Juliet and the other can write Westside Story Now, I love muscicals, and Westside Story is my second favourite, that I have seen made into a film.
As much as I like it, it is not Shakespeare.
Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet has a very different form. In the style of the writer.
It is his form of writing. I am not a cultural snob, my favourite piece of music is Julia's Song by OMD. It is not anything by Mozart! I am not a neophobic traditionalist.
I have used a legit example to show the difference between content and form. Legit. [new bit] It is legit because, there is no story, it is about form and content in writing, and that is a legit relevant issue, and if you do not see it, I cannot give you my perception! [new bit ended]
In my prose, there is the structure and there is the clarity of my writing. Essential form.
The subjectivity I possess in relation to the core is semantic. It is only the exact text. The specific examples. It is not my essential content or essential form. It is only the inessential.
Beyond the core, such as stuff like my favourite things in culture, I am being subjective, because I am not applying that methodology, only my personal tastes.
Playing games? I take all ethos seriously. I do not toy with people in that unethical manner. I see this as objective philosophical ethos.
[new bit]wish I had access to a fucking printer. The traitor stuff and the discourse, stuff is in the same bit. No need to edit last thread. Just need to check stuff better. [end of new bit not worth reading. Inessential?]
A traitor?
Do you think I called you a traitor? Is that what you think? I would not even call an Adolf Hitler a traitor!
I do not believe in Marxist "false consciousness" People tend to believe in their own subjective opinions. Genuinely. I am not comparing, you to Hitler.
Do not commit that sophistry. I used to be a passionate subjectivist too. I am not an objectivist, though, because unlike Marx, I understand the importance of subjective historical development.
The latter is the subject of all my analysis. No, I am not a Hegelian idealistic objectivist.
Your interpretation that I see as a traitor to you or to the cause, is an error. All I am saying is that you do not understand the cause, and that Che would have been on my side on this matter. I am entirely consistent herein. History mitigates your errors.
You mistook my intentions. What else were you mistaken about?
"...cause into play so by demagogy you can accomplish what you cannot by logic and argumentation."
"Cause" demagogy!
You do not see your own contradictions!
There is a cause for socialists to unite behind!
It is not a semantic play on words. Motivation, is our cause. Motivation for a better, kinder, more decent world, for a freer world, for a more beautiful world.
Words have meaining! Purpose in consciousness is the source of all causation! No, you are not a traitor to that purpose. You only do not understand it!

The poems are not mine. They were written by my father. Paternalist? Nope. You are the selfist. You are the daddy! You are the judge unto you yourself!
My father understood the purpose of religion, my father understood the purpose of the bourgeoisie. My father understood the purpose of the Liberation of Humankind!
So did Che. So do many many others. You do not require an objective methodology to understand the damn purpose. You understand the purpose.
I can see you understand the purpose, but it is a limited understanding. Very limited. Che had a much greater understanding than you , so did Lenin, so did Marx, so do many many people in this community.
"..beliefs for the sake of orthodoxy"? Is that right?
As soon as I wrote "Human existence is conscious existence" about six years ago, I broke with all orthodoxy. I broke with "I am, therefore I think."
No, you do not see that the stories, and the poems, carry practical examples. I will come to your practical examples, that you think are legit. You do not understand the legitimacy of the metaphor, and that is your lack of understanding of both content and form.
You see, my dad, once wrote in a verse of a lost poem. "I wish I could write a poem, that would turn all people into goodness".
No, he was not an idealist. He knows in the poem, that it is a vain hope, just as I know that me trying to convert each one of you to my ethics personally is a vain hope. Now, that would indeed be presumptious!
It is sad though, you never saw the power of the poem, you never saw the power of the metaphor for causation/purpose. You maybe don't still get it.
We are not mechanical bits of nature. We possess human consciousness. In human consciousness every cause is the purpose! Every action which is a conscious action is grounded in its purpose. The purpose is our cause! The poem did not move you to a better understanding. Well, just maybe it should. I know it moves me every time I read it. Just maybe you should have seen its purpose. Just maybe you should have seen its depth. Just maybe you should have seen its power. Just maybe on the very first reading..
As for the "story" which I gave. It is not a story as such. It is a hypothesis.
You see something that many bourgeois academics understand, and something you do not understand is the Socratic method.
You gave a general statement about me not being able to prove the existence of anything. So all I did was compare your general statement to a singular hypothesis about your "logic". Legit. The hypothetical hypothesis is legit, because it asks "what if". It is legit to ask "what if". Goes back to your own stuff the possibiliites, and bourgeois academics use the "what if" hypothesis all the time. Because, it assists in reducing the general statement to its absurd conclusion.
You see the bougeios academics and even Marxist philosophy students use the Socratic method. I understand this, because I too was on the receiving end of it from a Marxist intellectual. He knew the method alright, but he did not understand it.
You see how he practised the method in public is very very different from how I practise it in public. The Socratic method traditionally begins from your own I can prove nothing standpoint, or "I know nothing", which was the position of Socrates. "I know nothing." Do you know what is wrong with that? What is unethical about it? You are more human than these academics and these philosophy students who use the method in this way. It is a poor way to draw out argumentation, even if you are Socrates.
You see what you do, and what they do not do, is to be upfront about your own beliefs. You hide zero in what subjects you address. Thales is attributed to have said by some"Be true to thyself". That is exactly what you are. True to thyself, and why you can never be a traitor.
You have your honest discourse, which says a lot about your ethos.
You see if you were to jettison your honest discourse, for the "I know nothing" approach you would be putting yourself above the listner, instead of engaging. I engage, engage and engage. I am upfront totally brutally honest just like yourself. Doesn't mean people in the future will like our level of brutality, but they will understand. I can assure you of that the will mitigate our brutal honesty. No, me and you share that in common and it reflects our ethos. I would rather engage with you than any Marxist student using the method in its traditional manner, it was totally brutalising towards me. It was a complete lack of respect. I would never, never, never use it on the bastards, and if I did I would be more brutal than them, because I would be better at it, than them. A lot fucking better, as my hypothetical showed. Pity you never saw the humour in the reduction. It is humour, not ridiculing you, it is ridiculing an idea, that deserves complete satire.
You probably see this as a tangent. It is not. It is "thorough". Tangents add to thoroughness, when follwed through in an appropiate manner.
No more "tangents".


"the subconscious is totally irrelevant to the subject matter" Dreams - subconsciousness. You brought up the damn matter!
Not completely irrelevant. Some people believe in innate ideas. All ideas have their origination in consciousness. The subconscious does not just take in these ideas mechanically, it is an emotional response to human experience, but our consciousness is not without influence on our emotions. For instance, if you lose someone, like I have recently lost my father, you have both the conscious emotion and the subconscious emotion in your spiritual essence, and your personal grief is both conscious and emotional.
And, oh if you check my methodology, you will find that because emotions can be born in consciousness it is objective to express your ethical outrage about an injustice that you see in as emotive language, as possible. If you do not you lack something....
You lack feeling.
Not much of an all-sided human ethical approach if you lack feeling. Yes, we can feel with our consciousness, and my example of grief is a legit example.
The subconscious is irrelevant? Yep, it is inessential to our consciousness evaluation, but it is essential to our human spirit. It is relevant to us all and I honestly hope and think you probably see that.

The Cause of your misunderstanding of Cause

Consciousness is perception, perception is flawed... ...your conceptions of reality are based upon perception they are based therefore upon physiological impulses and chemical reactions within the brain. It follows that it is possible to artificially create all these impulses on a human by whatever means...
Later you ask me to spare you the bed time stories, analogies and paternalism.
You are the daddy. You are the daddy true to thy ownself, and only true to thy own self. You are the selfist, not me.
I will not be restricted by your own self-imposed limitations upon your thought. Nope. I understand the power of the metaphor, and I understand its objective nature as a legit part of language. You see part of the problem, with the Socratic method, and part of its useless when used in the old style is that if you rule out the generality, due to a singular example, you may not see the nugget of gold. Legit metaphor.
The person you are listening to may not see the nugget of gold. How many nuggets of gold have been lost by bourgeois and Marxist philosophers as well as students over the centuries if they start off with "I know nothing."? I possessed a nugget of gold cause always creates essence. Do you see it? The purpose in the sphere of social consciousness, always creates every concept and everything we created. Everything: God, Freedom, Ethos, every human technological invention, every piece of art, every piece of music and every piece of philosophical tripe, such as you are spouting.
No. I am not going to spare you. Here is my version of brutality honesty.
Back to the above quote, because this is the heart of the matter.
This is the cause of all your error. Handy word cause.

Consciousness is perception? Is it really? What if your very first premise, is fundamentally, wrong?
What does it do, for your logic then?
We both know.
You see, I understand this stuff inside out. I tackled it over three years ago, when I analysed the empiricism, of Locke, Bishop Berkeley, and my fellow Scot David Hume, who was an inflence on Kant (the unknowalbe thing-in-itself). I have to apologise for calling you a crude materialist, I got a bit confused over your argumentation. I honestly apologise. You are not a crude materialist.
I also apologise to the crude materialists for lumping you with them. They would be appalled by your lack of understanding of philosophy, and on this each and everyone of them will back me up or they cannot be consistent.
What side are you on?
Philosophically? What side are you on?
The side of these three arch empiricists. Do not take my word for it! Take your theory to any bourgeois academic. Well done! Ten out of ten! That's my boy!
That would be their mentality.
By they way you have shown that guy on the internet. You are the daddy! You are the daddy! You have been true unto thy ownself and to nothing else! You are the daddy! Legit metaphor. Selfist.
Never had this particular T-shirt. Legit metaphor. Glad.
Let me get the orthodox Marxists on my side first of all.

Social life is essentially practical. All mysteries which mislead theory to mysticism find their rational solution in human practise and in the comprehension of this practise.

Karl Marx Theses on Feurbach

The orthodox Marxists are all with me. All on my side.
Karl Marx is on my side. You are on the side of the bourgeois academics. Ssh don't tell any Stalinists!
Yep, that is your side.
Nope, it is not my side, but I never threw out the baby with the bathwater. Legit metaphor. You really should get to grips with the power and the legitmacy of the metaphor.
Okay, I rejected Marxism, but you never possessed the damn baby to flush down the toilet in the first place, and that is the damn difference between us!
You do not know what the hell you are rejecting!
Mine is not a complete rejection!
Do you think Marx never knew about these empiricists?
Do you think Marx never saw right through their poverty of thought? Yes you do, and you know in the realm of understanding philsophy there is only subjective
historical development that forgives your ignorance, because there is no logic in your shit theory, only ignorance, and every orthodox Marxist will think it, even if they disapprove, of my brutal honesty.

Let me explain.
Consciousness is a perception?
Nope. First premise. Wrong.
What is perception?

Legit examples.
Common language.
"I percieve my buddy". I see my friend.
Through my conscious experience of existence I recognise my friend.
No orthodox Marxist will argue against that one.
Second legit example.
"I percieve the error of my opinion"
A value judgement originated in your consciousness from your experience of human existence. No, the Marxists will back me up on that, and they will see the difference between cognation of a person, or thing or object as against a value judgement.
You have not studied Lenin's Emperio-Criticism, but they can do, what I cannot and quote you rota, on it. Never been good at quoting rota, never really want to be that good. Just like your friends within bourgeois academia can quote rota on Locke, Berkeley and Hume.
I only ever tried to remember what I thought to be the important stuff. I always was a bit lazy in my approach.
I am not lazy any longer though.
This is the important bit of your thought, so I will quote you again and again.
"perception is flawed"?
Is it?
What perception do you mean?
The observation or the judgement value.
Only experience is continuous. Think on it.
You will hate this story. This hypothesis.
This hypothetical that can be incorporated legitimately into any version of the Socratic method.
You will hate this.
Hypothetically, say you are a cave man, you observe all the time. You have experience. One day aliens arrive. The aliens again! You do not actually see them, but they have been partying all night, and a bit stewed with alchohol, so they have accidentally left a time machine behind.
You the caveman stumble into the time machine. You are fascinated. You press all the buttons. You come out in a nuclear silo. You see one huge nuclear missile, that dwarfs you.
You see it. You cannot miss the thing!
You go down on your knees it must be.. You porstrate yourself on the ground. It must be... The daddy of all the Gods. The Supreme being.
Consciousness of experience is not understanding.
Perception of experience is not understanding.
Value judgements are not understanding.
Understanding is...Objective Philosophy. It is why I am not an "ist" and you are the daddy. You are the selfist, just like Hume, the most advanced of the empiricists, before Kant, took it to a much a higher level in its breadth or scope.
Oh yeah, I forgot tell you. ten out of ten?
No, that is only your encouragement from, the bourgeios academic, is a hell of a lot more consistent than you.
The academic, is thinking 5 out of 10. You are not consistent enough for a true empiricist of the old philosophical school.
" ..physiological impulses.. chemical reactions..?"
Geez. No wonder I was confused! The transformation of matter! Wal, we have another thing in common!
I got it from an English orthodox Marxist called Christopher Caudwell, who died heroically in the Spanish Civil War.
Yep, that is all about I can remember too, of his analysis of how the brain functions. I thought you had maybe read Caudwell! All the orthodox Marxists are laughing at me for not seeing straight away, that Caudwell, would have rammed all this stuff down your throat, only in a nicer manner, than brutaly honest me.
I daresay Caudwell, was a nicer person, or was his understanding of ethos a little less advanced than mine?
Chemicals? Impulses? Is that a fact? Yep, it is an absolute fact, an absolute truth. Your professorial friends would not have made that contradiction if they were consistent to Locke, Berkeley, and Hume. No drop, the chemicals, drop the impulses your logical possibilty, includes an absolute truth in your recognition of the truth that matter is transformed from the eye to the brain.
How dare you include that assumption? It is the "unproveable" possibility. Where the hell do you get all your probabilities from anyway? The probabilities of a five year old, are as valid as all yours. It is only your unproven opinion that is not a good idea to put a gun at your head and pull the trigger.
No, it was just a story, not just an analogy, it was a legit example.
Berkeley, was the most consistent empiricist. He took empiricism, to its logical absurdity. How do you know anything exists, if you are not there to witness it?
It can only exist because God, is there to witness it.
Who's side are you on?
No, our empirical scientists left Berkeley, behind, they had something concrete to concentrate upon. That terrible word. CAUSATION.
Causation. The creation of all technology, why did the human species evolve, why does matter transform itself. Nope. Not essence. Not how, altough I would argue that they were all both using cause and essence to evaluate every law of science.
The world moved on from being cave people.
But the empiricists ditched essence as being apart of Aristotlean orthodoxy. Another baby gets flushed down the toilet down with Marxism, along with all the other stuff you put in the bin, and then used as toilet paper to shit upon.
You see, my friend, you see my fellow traveller, Peaccenick has a brilliant new topic, and is brilliant.
Why Che was a Leninist?
Now there is a "why"?
Che was a Leninist because he studied Marxism, and although he loathed the Soviet Union, I came to loathe it too, when I was a Marxist. I literally, possessed the Che T-shirt, and one of Marx, which said rightfully that we must change the world.
We cannot change the world on the basis of abandoning everything that was good in Marxism. We cannot change the world on the basis that everything is just a logical possibility, that everything is relative. We have to call absolute evil, evil which is why I did not commit the abomination of comparing the body count in relation to genocide. Genocide is genocide. Absolute evil.
Do you think if orthodox Marxism had a strong ethos, a bastard like Stalin could come into power?
Nope. Never!
You do not see the thread. The consistent thread?
To paraphrase Engels if you know everything about what caused something, you know what caused something.
If you know what created the complete non-tangibility as a human invention, if you know it is only an abstract invention created through ignorance, if you know it came from nothingness, if you know something cannot come from nothing, you know there is no God. You understand the whole fucking process!
You have proved definitively that God does not exist!
Who's side are you on? Now there is an absolute? Which side? Or are you just in between postulating on the "probabilities"

Social life is essentially [/i]practical[/i]. All mysteries which mislead theory to mystification find their rational solution in human practise, and the comprehension of this practice
I never threw out the baby. Neither did Che. He was a Leninist, because he believed in revolution to over turn Batista. Now, I am a democrat, but I fully supported Che and Castro. You have to fight against oppression, you have to fight. You have a moral obligation to take part in the revolution, just as you has a moral obligation to fight with your life against fascism, as Caudwell did, just as you have to fight against Stalin as Bukharin and Trotsky did, just as you have to be a heretic against religious dogma as was Giordano Bruno when the bastards burned the poor man publicly in Rome, just as Luther King and Malcolm X were gunned down for a courageous stand against rascism, just as Sacco and Vanzetti and Joe Hill were murdered by a Bourgeios State still murdering on death row. Still murdering in Afghanistan, still murdering in Iraq. Still murdering in Israel-Palestine, still murdering through wanton neglect millions in the so-called third world, still murdering the so-called underclass with wanton neglect. Total fucking murder. And this indifferent opium of the people is a pernicious accomplice in that total fucking murder.
You do not see my thread? You are reading. You are not understanding.
Go ahead tackle me on objective methodology. Just be sure not to use too many absolute truths instead of your relativist shit.
No, I am not an egoist, I am not an arrogant person, just a more ethical person than you. Do you really think a five year old is not my spiritual equal. You think you know all about equality. Do you?
Do you understand it is totally fucking ethical to call someone who cannot help possessing a low intelligence a "retard" It is fucking abominable to do that, and people do it. Idiot. Imbecile. I never left school with the most basic qualification in English available in Scotland at the age of eighteen. One year behind most people. Many at my shit school left at 16 to find work. I was incapable of any work, and not many employers would take me now. . What the hell was that conversion between Supermodel and La Rainbeaux all about?
I will tell you it was about fucking secluding me!
Call me over-sensitive.
Not one of you reproached them for not possessing some half decent common decency! Not one!
I apologise for my mistakes when I see I make mistakes.
Should I apologise to La Rainbeux, because I wrongly dismissed the issue of tolerance as apart of your poor response. Yes. I should. I honestly apologise.
You see, it is a waste of time talking to the bougeiosie, unless they engage you on your ethical terms, otherwise, they see your brutality, and you are only reinforcing their brutality, which is what everything
on Socialism versus Capitalism is doing including my one bit.
The only difference is I am trying to hook them into, this thread, by appealing to the one thing most of them do possess a smattering of common decency. Which is why mine is the only ethical contribution out of the whole damn lot.
You are only reinforcing their own brutality, because all they see is your brutality, all they see is the confusion of selfism, each little human God passing on their own righteousness, never really speaking with one voice, all at each others throats the moment they disagree in the other threads. That is similar to how any bourgeios academic in philosophy might see you, and it is sad the selfist selfish extreme individualistic bastard is right. More than sad.
Know your side. Know the genocide of religion is the opium of the people. And if they murder you, as the CIA murdered Che. See murder for what it is see the opium of the people. See the mass genocide of wanton neglect!
Fearing death is futile. Death is inevitable. It is futile to fear the inevitable, and that is something all these men knew, and all the women like Rosa, who was also murdered by the bastards, and by wanton neglect.
No, not just these people, many millions have died for the spirit of socialism, even though they never knew the word socialism, and if there was such a person as Jesus Christ, that brave heretic possessed the spirit of Socialism more than any fucking Stalin, and there is no fucking contradiction. So did Thales who took us out of tens of thousand years of ignorance, so did Descates, who took us out of a second consecutive Winter. We are still in deep Winter, even though history has moved on. People are dying from hypothermia. Billions?.
Trillions upon trillions that is the whole totality, that is the only fucking stastic which should have been produced.
Is it really okay to be weak in the face of all this genocide of wanton neglect? Is ethos not about being strong in the face of evil? Just perhaps, eh? Just perhaps. Perhaps there is no perhaps, but it is an absolute that all you relativists deny.
If they point a gun at your head you should know the absolute evil they have become, before they pull the damn trigger.
Your philosophy weak? That too. Your ethos is weak.
Your silences speak the volumes about your weak ethos, and when you write in the threads, you never had the thread. You never had the thread of a good ethos to base your humanity upon.
I believe, that Jesus Christ existed, even if there is not the proof that you want. I believe Jesus Christ existed, because it seems to me extremely unlikely a huge fraud could be carried out, a huge fraud which created the whole momentum of Christianity.
So I believe. I believe that it is quite possible that Jesus Christ was crucified on the cross.
"Forgive them father, for they do not know what they do"
Historical subjective development proves the profundity of the mitigating statement.
Poor gentle Jesus Christ crucified on the cross. Tolerant Jesus.
Did not the wanton lack of ethos, the wanton indifference help drive the nails into his wrists and his ankles, whilst a crown of thorns pierced into his poor head, with blood seeping down from his wounds in an agonising death.
People with the socialist spirit? Thales, Bruno, Descartes, Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Hegel, Marx, Lenin, Trotksky, Luxemburg, Bakunin, Gramsci, Chomsky, de Beauvoir, Che, Fidel, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, Jesus Christ, many artists, many others, but only these people, only the heretics. Many, many others in the anonymous dead of history. That is what the best philosophers did commit heresies upon the previous philosophy. They were not dogmatists, and even Hume
the arch empiricist helped us found the modern quasi-scieintific empirical method. Objective methodology can assist every scientist, because the emperical method is an extremely, extremely poor relation and you are reading the proof even if you cannot see it infront of your own eyes. No, do not bother checking out my website, you have more important things to do.
Just know if you go on a busy train today, you will see your own selfism, every where you go. Unless someone is on a mobile phone, unless someone knows a person in a packed compartment all you hear apart from the movement of the train, apart from an irritating personal stereo buzzing away. All you hear , apart from a cough, apart from a sneeze, a part from rustling of books and papers, apart the movement of bodies ...Silence. Defeaning silence.
The silence of the alienated self, your silence, because that silence will over power you and you dare not speak its name.
Deafening silence. Speaking volumes about your lack of ethos and the lack of ethos of everyone around you.
I go on those trains and buses nearly every day. I know the fucking script, I know you selfists are brutalising me, and brutalising each other.
Know what you do when you go on that bus or train?
Know what you do. Take a fucking window seat. All the first seats taken are the window seats. You think that is natural all you with your powers of communication?
It is the norm, but it is not "natural".

derminated

(Edited by TheDerminator at 11:28 am on April 7, 2002)

[RAM]

If there is a god how do I know

[Moskitto]

What you could do, Is to write clearly in English that normal people use, actually outline your arguements against the existance of god and stop claiming you write clearly. The normal person lays out something like this.

[Point]

[Expalanation]

This gets your point across much easier than your method of.

[Word]----------------Slowly falling to sleep---------------->[False annalyis of your enemie's mind]----------------Slowly falling to sleep---------------->[End, no point]

[TheDerminator]

Moskitto

Had to go to theatre. Cafe closes soon. will say more tommorow to you.

Point:
Many points in the thread.

Explanation:

You cannot comprehend the difference between
clarity of thought and confusion of thought.

Proof:

Turn your keen perception around on El Che.

The empiricists would give that confusion 5 out of 10.

The orthodox Marxists would give it 0.

El Che would give it 10 out of 10 for its logic.

El Che writes a bit more deeply than you.

Confused?

Deeply confused!

A few things ruined what would otherwise have been a brilliant night out.
I hate being brutal. It upsets me deeply.
That was one of the things.

What do you give your own logic out of 10.

Your own clarity of thought?

"I wish to God, the gift he'd gie us!
To see ourselves as others see us!

You will probably cop out as you cop out quite a lot?
A riddle?

No you are confused. Major style.

derminated.

[Moskitto]

You're mad. And you're got a superiority complex. Your threads don't have any points in them.

If you want to go around converting people to athiests, your doing it the wrong way. Goebells said. Have a clear idea, make it simple for people to understand, then explain it. Going around first with incredibly long ideas makes people disinterested in your idea. If you then go around patronizing people who show flaws in your ideas. Those who you are trying to convert look down onto you.

The reason why you've got a superiority complex is hidden inside your posts. While covering you lack of evidence with a long web of highly mind numbingly boring continuos prose, you forget to remove all the explicitives you thought of. You make yourself look like you have the advantage with your long drawn out rhetoric, yet you are really covering your lack of ideas, counter arguements and of course, your belief that you are superior, In a sense, that you are your own god.

[Rosa]

to the Determinator:
sugesting to you to be simple, the best explanation is always the simpliest one. Congratulations for studying philosopy, like to talk with eloqent people.
God doesn't exist: it's only the image of Father watching on us, because people are afraid to admit that we are alone in storms of life, and there's nobody to blame for the results of our actions.Of course: some get it on the easier way, and some get it harder.
I'm not saying that there's no other plans of existence, and some more powerful creatues which humans can't s percept, but considering them considered for OUR existence is hillarious.
Do you, or can you take care of bactery that lives in your cheese? And do you care for its sexual relations, or would you want it to sing to you and pray for better... temperature in your refrigirator? And would you really care?C'mon - theese kind of antropomorphysations are something that my ratio isn't alowing

[Rosa]

Companero is a male gender? I'm a girl!How to change that below my "avatar"?...someone help me?

[Moskitto]

Send an IM to Malte and he'll change it. And Welcome to the board.

[El Che]

[list] Contents of a nebulous discussion bordering lunacy:
A foreword
Methodology of discussion (El_Che)
Step by Step
Conclusion
[list]
Foreword

Determined, I have to say you are all over the place man. A great deal of what u say in your post isn’t argumentation, discussing the issues them selves. You rather prefer to expose a sort personal world view. I should say that I spent two hours reading your post, I thought about all what u said determined and while I would have preferred if you had restrained your self to the issues, I am not complaining. I spoke of your discourse to you in my last thread, this was because the first impact with your sayed discourse gave me the impressions I related to you. Those of paternalism, demagogy and intelligence insulting stories, whose sole purpose was to confuse the reader and give him rather annoying lectures, like one would tell a 5 year old fables so that he would assimilate certain values. I must say that I have to reconsider my position, not that the facts have changed you see, they haven’t, if anything you have come on stronger this time around. However my perception of the subject I am effectively analysing has changed, that subject is of course you, and my perception of you has changed because you put a great deal of your self in that post. You have a discourse, we all do, some are just more refined then others. Through your discourse u presented not only a great deal of your view of the world and your personality too. Therefore I no longer feel that I should demand u stop giving me metaphors and poems or considerations outside the strict boundaries of the subjects we are discussing. This would amount to asking you to stop being what you are, and it would not work. Besides I also think I would be insulting on my part to ignore all what u wrote outside what I consider to be objectivity. In short I see you a complicated individual and accept you like you are, and there for accept to discuss with you in the only manner with you will discuss, the alternative would be to refuse to discuss any further with you on the grounds that I do not consider your discourse an appropriate one, that would render discussion useless and inconclusive. I wont assume this position because I am convinced this is who you are, therefore your discourse wont change, and a rejection of debate would amount to an ethically flawed position and unquestionable defeat. Discuss however you like for I am convinced that you are not doing it for the sake of playing games with me, in which case I would tell you to fuck off. However I will continue to be honest with you Determined… there is a lot I don’t like in the way you discuss…. You proclaim to much, and your threads are like one big novel…. Etc. Speaking of which, this ability to go non stop passing for one subject to another without ever losing track is a testament to your skills in the area of rethoric and oratory. If nothing else they serve that purpose, i.e of showing the difference between our levels of oratory skills.



My Methodology within this discussion

Lacking the philosophical knowledge and oratory skills of our Determined friend, I state that all I have is honesty, logic (to the best of my ability) and self thought responses and points. You see Determined I am not honest by option, for I have not that option. If I would attempt to present a view that was not in accordance, fully with my views, then you would tear me apart like a Lion waiting for an opening to strike the killing blow. I not making a case against my self that I would lie if only I had the knowledge to do so, but merely that I don’t have that option. Allas all I have is the confidence in my own thoughts, reason, logic, conclusions and possibly rudimentary concepts on general philosophical notions. Determined don’t convince your self you`ve won already, for lacking a scholars knowledge, I have the confidence my own mind confers to me and will challenge you in every point where I feel you are in error. Another thing I will have to address is many claims against me that are unjustified and that border the insult, these matters will inevitably find there way into the discussion of the issues and subjects, which is what this is all about. This is not something I can or will avoid, for if they are there it is because Determined put them there, if he put them there its is because he wish to make a statement not only with his arguments, which he does present in various situations, but also with conjectures, opinions, and judgements on my self, others and indeed the world in some cases. Like I said they are there to make a point, I will address those points as well, or at least try.



Step by Step

I don’t think this is an intersubjective discourse, I say u have a discourse, i.e a way of expressing your self, of presenting your issues and debating that is vague, illusive and confusing. Not confusing because of its depts but because of the unrelated stuff that u mix in. Make issues unnecessarily long and prefacesive. I posses no subjectivity in “this perception”, for I posses nothing. Perceptions happen to be one of the facts I hold as true, this concept is basically any input you receive from the exterior sensorial world. In what ever way you wish to dress the assumed reality that perception constitutes, its clearest definition is all input received from external reality, external to ones self. On this point spear me considerations on the validity of methodologies used in conjuncture this perception for im merely referring to perception as a concept, or if you prefer in the way I understand the refered concept.
Your legit examples are sometimes amusing sometimes boring. Your right they do serve to further a point, but allas 10 line stories are something of a waste of space. Your 1 line metaphors I like. Furthermore u abuse this “method” and by doing so bore my socks off.
You have showed the difference between content and from, yes indeed, did u perhaps think this concepts new to me? If not your story is logically rendered useless. Your writing being clear is a matter of opinion and essentiality of from is a metaphysical consideration.
I don’t understand the Hitler analogy but im not sure I like it…

“All I am saying is that you do not understand the cause, and that Che would have been on my side on this matter.”

Well that’s very interesting but you of course have no evidence of what you say, neither in one claim nor in the other. I don’t care what che would do or think, I am my own man. And don’t you think that’s a rather elitest position determined? Just because I haven’t extensively studied Marxism for years on end, then I don’t understand the cause… Perhaps it is rather a matter of me not agreeing with you that leads you to claim my ignorance of truth, perhaps it is rather your truth that I ignore and not truth its self.Oh I think I understand the cause well enough, thank you very much.

And why do you need to claim everyone is “behind” you? Can you not stand alone?

I didn’t call you paternalist because of your fathers poem, I did it because of the way you debate.

Again you say I don’t understand this and that blah blah blah. Rubbish, you say nothing of substancial. Rest assured when you do I shall retort.

“No, you do not see that the stories, and the poems, carry practical examples. I will come to your practical examples, that you think are legit. You do not understand the legitimacy of the metaphor, and that is your lack of understanding of both content and form.”

Here we have an extraordinary example of determinated`s logic. Explain to how my so called lack of understanding of the “legitimacy of the metaphor” IS my lack of understanding of content and form! I understand both those concepts and I understand the legitimacy of the metaphor if it is infact legit. Still, the point remains that there is no logical conection between not understanding one thing and there for not being able to understand the other. It is also my case that your analogies are a boring waste of space, this has nothing to with understanding the concepts. It has to do my dislike for the manner in which you present your cases.

It is tedious to have to correct these little “twists” of my words and of points.

I am getting tired of have to deny your lies of my misunderstanding of your points. Go ahead hot shot make me a question regarding “causation/purpose”. Don’t u feel the need to back up what u say with some kind of evidence? I mean like ever? Thought so.

” "I know nothing." Do you know what is wrong with that? What is unethical about it?”

Unethical eh? Firstly ethics is a fiction that only exists in your mind,so you can not prove anything with for it is a matter of opinion. Secondly if truth where to be unethical it wouldn’t make it any less true, your argument is not serious, at best.

I thank you for the compliment determined but don’t you think perhaps socraties was also honest with him self? You realise your passing judgement here… judge, jury and executioner.

“Not completely irrelevant. Some people believe in innate ideas.”

Good point there. First good point of this thread. Innate ideas… well never did think about that… But are ideas inate or are we born a blank page? Just another metaphysical question for you. However I don’t wish do avoid the question in any what. I think my position would be this: here you present a plausible hypothesis of an idea, concept that doesn’t originate from perception. Well done. Now does this invalidate my position? I think not, again I really think not. Even if some conceptions are inate it makes you no more certain of there realiability with the context of the absolute. There is simply no way to reach a conclusion on this, therefore it is inconclusive. And allas this inate hypothesis is just that, i.e a hypothesis on that which is metaphysical.

” The subconscious is irrelevant? Yep, it is inessential to our consciousness evaluation, but it is essential to our human spirit. It is relevant to us all and I honestly hope and think you probably see that.”

I don’t recognise the exists of a spirit entity, and I wonder how one that says he has proven the non existence of god can at the same time criticise me for forgetting about the “human spirt”. In a discussion on this nature it would be wise to be care full of the terms you use. And be as clear as possible regarding ambiguous ones.

” I will not be restricted by your own self-imposed limitations upon your thought. Nope. I understand the power of the metaphor, and I understand its objective nature as a legit part of language.”

You are of course free to do as you please but I must say I don’t really know why you insist so much on this point… No that it matters…

” Consciousness is perception? Is it really? What if your very first premise, is fundamentally, wrong?
What does it do, for your logic then?”

My premises are not absolute for nothing is, in absolute terms, therefore, not even uncertainty is certain.


Yes you tackle this and that blah blah. Surly you can better than this!


I said it once I say it again I think for my self, I don’t give a ripe shit about bourgeois academics. And there is no conflict between my sound logic and my socialist beliefs. You can claim im not the side of capitalism all you want. That kind of misrepresentation stands for its self. Whats more the is no fundament or serious argument to back it up! Bah!


I don’t know what the fuck your talking about with that baby metaphor lol. You need help comrade.

”Yes you do, and you know in the realm of understanding philsophy there is only subjective
historical development that forgives your ignorance, because there is no logic in your shit theory, only ignorance, and every orthodox Marxist will think it, even if they disapprove, of my brutal honesty.

Let me explain.
Consciousness is a perception?
Nope. First premise. Wrong.
What is perception?”


First you call me ignorant then u misrepresent me. Is this your method? Indeed. Consciousness is not a perception it is based on perception of what surrounds you. Without sensible perceptions you can not have arrive at consciousness of any form. A catatonic person has no perceptions for his brain can not interpret and give form, in his head, to reality. Let us move on a see what lies ahead.

“"perception is flawed"?
Is it?
What perception do you mean?
The observation or the judgement value.
Only experience is continuous. Think on it.”

Yes it is
Observation is perception and judgement is not.
Experience is perceived.


“Understanding is… Objective philosophy”


Again a good point. You see how simple it is for you to make good points? All you need is a frase… Why this long thread to say so little? Understanding is objective philosophy… I think I must agree here. However is philos perfect? Is man? If mans philosophy derives from his perceptions then I maintain that it has feet made of clay. Legit metaphor. And short one too.


“Chemicals? Impulses? Is that a fact? Yep, it is an absolute fact, an absolute truth. Your professorial friends would not have made that contradiction if they were consistent to Locke, Berkeley, and Hume. No drop, the chemicals, drop the impulses your logical possibilty, includes an absolute truth in your recognition of the truth that matter is transformed from the eye to the brain.
How dare you include that assumption? It is the "unproveable" possibility.

Trying to turn the table on me are we?
Nope its not an absolute fact for allas I can not be sure that perception is chemical impulses, nor can I be sure perception exists. Given the fact that I can be sure of nothing, it is also matter of fact that I can not be absolutely sure that we can not reach the absolute. There I said it. That’s consistent logic for u. Aint she a *****? But wait, I said “it’s a matter of fact” no that’s not right. Oops looks like I have stumbled across another deduction, i.e I cant be sure that what I just said is true, there is there for a probability that chemicals are an absolute fact. Did I lose you? Nah. When u address the issues discussing with you is actually interesting.

Hmm I understand what your saying here but must understand that it does not invalidate my position, and so therefor it invalidates yours.


----------------//------------------


In conclusion

I have to say that u have for the most part failed in addressing the real issue. However, relativism aside I should say I do agree with you on many things. Practical things, stances in life and towards others, respecting difference, political ideology, etc. However when it comes to abstraction it is my view that u are incapable of doing this, you let your emotional beliefs interfere with your capacity for totally abstraction. I know that we can not really separate emotion from rationality, but there is so much we can do. Your ideals, however noble and no matter how much I share them, can not bias your conclusions. This is what it comes down to. I think you equate this with being cold and heartless, detachment from ones ethos is also necessary for such considerations. These things interfere with pure logic. And if any impurity finds its way into rational thought the hole thing just comes to shit. In sad conclusion my friend I conclude that your long post effectivly had the squised content of one paragraph. It was and is a pleasure.


Regards,


(Edited by El Che at 12:19 am on Feb. 16, 2002)

[MJM]

You cannot claim difinitive proof that god does not exist.
Simply because science does not understand every aspect of the universe, so they may infact find evidence of god in some other dimension,there are at least 11 I believe and we only percieve 4.This shows our sense are not observing all of the phenomena occuring in the universe, so there is room for the existense of god.

As I've said before no-one goes out to prove that things do not exist it would be impossible to do so definitivly. It also would go against basic scientific process if I'm not mistaken.

Is your question - what is the source of your belief in god?
I think it was, in answer to this. I think the term- art is the mother of all religion- sums it up quite easily.
Our anscestors created pictures and images on the walls of their caves they then came to think of themselves as the pictures on the wall of gods cave, here we have the creation of creating and observing beings or being.

P.S I don't believe in god so don't start calling me the enemy or delusional. As seems to be your main line of discussion.

[munkey soup]

Blah blah blah....i'm right.....blah blah blah.....everyones wrong.....blah blah blah....i'm very deep....blah blah blah....i don't really have a point.....blah blah blah.....i just like hearing my own voice....blah blah blah.
A derminated summary-munkinated.

[FSLNguerrillero]

Ave Maria purisima Determinator...wait, I can't say that, getting too religious already, heh..I haven't really read all the posts, but I've heard enough to point one thing out. Get a mass of people, working people, poor people. Put them in a community. Put a church in it, and then put a meeting hall for Union organization and Socialist Rallies. The people will pour out of the churches, and barely trickle into the hall. Humans need something, they need that certain "intangible" thing. That opium, as Marx describes it. They're fixed on it. If you want to truely reach the people, do it through religion. I know this because I've read and been told, time and time again, that this is true. While the sandinistas struggled for almost two decades to gain popular support, once a parish got involved, things started to look up. Insert a few Jesuit priests and BAM, you've got a revolution baby. It's that ignorance, that apathy, the people were happy with whoever was in power, as long as they don't get shot by the national guard. Religion is a powerful force my friend, whether a diety or dieties exist or not. I personally believe that some power does exist, I couldn't care if he or she or it had a name, or if they had a name. But it's there. Faith is all that is needed, and a will to do justice. Organized religion indeed divides. It's manmade, and thus it's imperfect. It's the only thing some people have. You don't have shit (excuse the language) but you've got your god(s), existent or not.

[Moskitto]

Daniel Ortega has apparently turned into a really evangelical Christian who uses the message of Christianity to justify policies helping the poor or something like that.

[TheDerminator]

FSLNguerrillero

You haven't read all the posts.

Thanks for your profound respect!

You are respecting us all!

Great personal ethos!

Dark sarcasm in the classroom!
The lowest form of wit!(?)
(I've heard racist and sexist jokes, how about you?
I know what I think is the lowest form of wit! How about you?)

Durp. You really got me stumped. Durp.

I would rather be alone with myself, than in Daniel's congregation, even if that congregation "reached out" to everyone else on this planet.

Durp.

God, what an isolationist!

Sad eh?

Durp.

You see, and this answers Miskotto too on this one issue.

Just because it is a right, does not make it right...

Durp.

Can find out who said it, on my site. I can be lazy too.

Durp.

Just because The Son of God is reaching out to the poor with his evangicalical "Christianity" does not make it right.

Durp.

This is cold comfort.

This is miserable neglect of their rights as human beings to be in a society of real spiritual equality. This is the premature death, the Son of God is preaching from his high pulpit.

Durp.

This is the pacification of the human spirit done in the name of "socialism" and which is a heinious blasphemy on the spirit of socialism.

Durp.

This is the opium of the people. This is the genocide of wanton neglect.

Durp.

You know what Peaccenick would say to you?

Durp.

Is about the bourgeois oppressors.

Durp.

Is about the mass of billions upon billions who see the globally owned bourgeois world as the natural way of life. The billions. The Free Fucking World!

Durp.

Is about billions upon billions accepting the opium of the people, accepting the genocide of wanton neglect

Durp.

Do you know what Peaccenick would say to you?

Durp.

A billion flies cannot be wrong! Eat shit!

Durp.

There is no genocide! There is no genocide!

Durp!

You invented this genocide of wanton neglect!

Durp!

This genocide of wanton neglect only exists in your head!

Durp!

The billion flies are right! The billion flies are right!

Durp!

Daniel is right! Daniel is right!

Durp!

Daniel is a good man! Daniel is right!

Durp!

There is no genocide of wanton neglect!

Durp!

It only exists in your head!

Durp!

Reach out to Daniel as Daniel is reaching out to the poor!

Durp!

This is our good Daniel! Our good leader! Daniel would not tell us to eat shit!

Durp!

You are telling us we are eating shit!

Durp!

You are telling the poor to each shit!

Durp!

I am the fucking poor!

I am the fucking poor!

Durp!

I am a living off the fucking State!

I am the fucking poor!

Durp!

Daniel is not reaching out to me!

Daniel is telling me to eat shit!

Durp!

You are telling me to eat shit!

Durp!


You are telling me to go to the shit hospital where my father received third rate treatment even though he was extremely ill!

Durp!

I was there!

I saw it!

Durp!

It was treatment without a depth of compassion, because it was third fucking rate treatment!

Durp!

If that is the treatment in "civilised" Scotland?
What level of the treatment is there for the poor in Rio De Janerio? Tenth rate?

Durp!

What level is the treatment for the Pope?

Durp!

Does the vatican spare any expense when the Pope becomes ill?

Durp!

Does the Pope share a communial ward with the poor of Rome?

Durp!

Great depth of Christian ethos that Pope!

Durp!

Great depth of Christian ethos our Daniel that art in Heaven!

Durp!

The genocide of wanton neglect only exists in your head!

Durp!

All your Hollywood Superstars, all your Rock Stars,
all your top atheletes, all your rich bankers, all your major stock holders, all your opulent vatican church, all your Sheiks, all your Sultans, all your Kings and Queens, all your top politicians, all your top managers, all your rich owners of land, of industry of services.

Durp.

Put all the money in their private bank accounts together.

Durp.

Trillions upon trillions of dollars.

Durp.

They possess your shallow Christian ethos.

What should they do with the money?

Durp!

Give it to the poor?

Durp.

Give it too giving the poor people the best hospitals and education money can buy?

Durp.

Would that be a deeper Christian ethos?

Durp.

What should the poor be saying them?

Durp.

Give us your money!(?)

Give us your money!(?)

Durp.

Durp.

Durp.

Give your money to UNICEF & UNESCO!(?)

Durp.

Where is the depth of your Christian Ethos?

Durp.

Where is the depth of humanity?

Durp.

You are leaving us to shit hospitals and to shit education!

Durp.

Where is your the depth of compassion!

My child is in that hospital and I am barely literate!

Help my child! Help my child! She's only three. She's maybe going to die!

Why don't you give us your money, please

I am down on my knees for my three year-old daughter!

Give me your money!

Give me your compassion!

Give me the depth of your humanity, you bastards!

Durp!

She's dying! She's dying!

What am I supposed to do?

Go down on my knees and pray for your redemption you lousy bastards?

Give me your money!

Help me!

Help me!

Please dear God in Heaven won't someone help me!

Won't someone please help my three year-old daughter!

I am on my knees God!

Help me God!

Please help me God!

Help my three year-old daughter!

I am scared God. I am scared God.

My daughter looks very ill, and this place does not look like that good hospital I saw in that yankee film about the rich in Hollywood. It doesn't look anywhere near as good, and am scared that this local doctor and the treatment isn't maybe very good, and maybe even the medicines are the substandard medicines. How do I know? I am scared.

Why don't the super rich give us the money to take away the real fears of the poor. Is the fear all in my head God! Is it all in my head! Is my daughter receiving the best the world can do for my daughter?

Why are not helping me God!

Why are you not helping my daughter?

Durp.

Durp.

Are you cruel God, am I cruel? Did I commit some crime in a previous life? Did my daughter? Have we some evil gene inside us God. We must evil. We must be evil. No one except these over-worked poorly equipped medical people are really helping us. We must be total fucking evil!

Durp!

We must be worse than Adolf Hitler.

People cannot be that bad.

I mean I go to the movies when I can afford it.

I mean I have favourite actors who must be multi-millionaires, favourite directors who must be mult-millionaires, even maybe billionaires. Geez. I mean, I am so poor. They are Christians like me. I know, if it was me, I would help them and their dying daughter. I know I would give my money to the poor.
I know I would give my money to UNESCO & UNICEF, and just keep enough for me and Almaz
to live on. Not too much, I would not wish to not to help the poor I am a Christian and I know the poor are not evil, just poor, just like me and Almaz.

Durp.

We are poor and simple people God. Maybe not "pure" and simple, although we do try pure in our hearts a lot of the time God. We do try.

Durp.

Forgive me God! Forgive me God!
Please God, I know I thought you were a bastard, because you have not yet help me and Almaz.

Forgive me for calling you the worst devil on Earth for not in your all-powerful wisdom and creation making this a Heaven on Earth where my Almaz could be immortal.

Immortality is only for you God. If we gained immortality, we would lose death. Now, we do not want my Almaz to lose Death do we?

No, God, no. I mean, if we could lose death God.
If we could lose death,. I mean it would be the biggest thing for all the scientists to be working on. They would be pouring billions and billions and even trillions on losing death, not on the military industrial complexes all around the world.
Forgive me my blasphamies.
Forgive me God. We cannot lose death. Immortality, is only for God.
How stupid of me.
Durp.
I mean I must be a fool God. You in all your wisdom and poor me and poor Almaz.
Durp. I must be a fool!

Durp.

See, I just thought a stupid thought, a just flight of fancy from a poor woman.

Forgive my Heresy.

Forgive all my Heresies God! Oh God! Please forgive all my Heresies!

I just though that all these big scientists could help my poor Almaz. I just thought that all the body was stuff science could one day know about. I just thought, and I know it is a stupid thought that it was just about that presevation stuff, some scientist was on about on TV. Oh, yeah, the preservation of matter.
See that is all I thought it was about!
See I had a dumb vision, that one day that they could learn how to preserve all human tissue, living tissue, and even though I never make it little Almaz would make it!
Durp.
Forgive me God, forgive me, my poor stupidity.
Forgive me my blasphemy. You can be the only immortal.

Oh God. Oh God. Oh God.
I don't want Almaz to die. Not now. Not ever.
I am an honest woman, and I cannot help my heresy.
See, I know, fearing death is futile. I am a strong woman. But when I die, I leave Almaz behind me.
I have had a hard life.
I have been hardened by that life, which is why I can in my worst moments call you a bastard, and call the rich bastards for not giving us poor their money. It is why in my weaker moments, I call them scum and want to spit on their graves.
Forgive me God. Forgive my trespasses. I know there are good Christians amongst the rich, who give to charity, more than I could give, and that makes them better than me, and I suppose better than Almaz when she grows up, because not anyone from our village has ever been to a university, so little Almaz has not much chance of becoming everything she can be. And what if I die tommorow?
How can I pass my strength to Almaz. I am a single parent. A lonely woman with no real friends. All I have is Almaz. All I have God! All I have. Almaz. Pure and simple.
She is pure God. She is pure. Life has not hardened her yet, like it has hardened me.
Say, I die tommorow. Maybe, I should kill myself.
Maybe that would be the best for my Almaz. I mean say I die, and even if I burn in Hell for taking my own life, or do not make it into Heaven or go to purgatory, maybe it is the best for my Almaz.
Maybe, Almaz will go to the local doctor and his wife. They live just outside our village. They are fond of Almaz and have no children of their own. They have more money than I do, and it is a lot nicer where they live. They have been to the city. I have never been there. Maybe in the city someone can really help Almaz.
I don't know though. I have doubts. This is a couple a good bit older than me. They have been here a long time. I always go to church God. Every day. I am devout.
Even though I have occasional heresies, I go everyday, because you were all I had before Almaz, you and my desperate loneliness, after the death of my mother, who did die young.
You see, I risked AID's. I have always been lonely and I did not wish to die a virgin. I wanted to have sex in my life just once. There was no love involved in the sex. I just used the man. I was not even thinking of pregnancy.
I was just so lonely I just wanted some human warmth. I have always been so lonely. Please forgive me my selfishness. I mean if a man had done the same and went to a prostitute, I would have been appalled, but not any more. Forgive me for that too, even though it is a total disrespect on my ethos as a human, being, I know, if I had been a man, I would still not want to die a virgin God. I still would not want to die a virgin. I would have went to a prostitute. Forgive me God! Forgive me God! I know better, yet I still whored myself with a complete stranger! Oh God please forgive me. Please forgive my trespasses.
You see these medical people are not as devout as me. They hardly used to attend church. They attend it, now, but they have grey in their hair God. They have grey in their hair, and so had my grandmother, who I loved deeply, and who was devout like me.
They are scared of dying. That is why they are now devout. They were never devout before. They only became devout when they we became closer to their own deaths.
You see I am strong. They are not strong. How can the make Almaz strong like me? How is she going to be hardened like me if she has a better life than the other children. No, God, no I do not want her to be hardened, but I know where my strength comes from, and some of it has been my hard experiences as terrible as that it is.
Say, I go to them and they agree to let me kill myself, so they can adopt Almaz, say I tell them make sure you tell her about that you should not fear the invetability of death is that enough?
I hope so. I have worries though. You see, I saw their fear. I am a good person God. I made a joke about someone being so stupid to fear death, because it happens anyway. It is maybe no great thought. I have heard it from my grandmother too, so it easy to understand, but they are becoming even more devout instead of less.
They still fear death.
Even though they know why it is silly.
They are not strong like me and my grandmother. You see Almaz, is beautiful and gentle, as every parent ought to think of their child. These are gentle people, these medical people. I like them a lot even though they have become devout for the wrong reason.
They help people, and atleast they are not atheists!
They are really decent people and they would be very kind to Almaz, but they still do not have my strength, and what if Almaz becomes like them?
What if she knows the fear is silly, but has not got the strength inside herself? God knows, I would not want her to become an atheist. Not even our afterlife to help.
Not even Heaven, just a terrible fear of death that is going to grip her, and on her death bed, God, what if she is awake. What of the stark terror of death in her face?
No, I cannot kill myself. I have to live for Almaz. I have to give my strength to Almaz, just in case the little fool becomes an athiest, in this big strange world.
And even if athiests do prove there is no God, which I know can never be done if they have an ethos, they have to help, the less strong. They cannot expect everyone to take the cold fucking logic, and leave nothing, but cold fucking logic in their wake. They have to help and comfort those, who know it is silly, but cannot but help be gripped by the terrible sheer horror of death.
God, I want to live, and God give me the power to make Almaz strong. Please give me the power!
You see, I am a poor woman, and I like to think the best of everyone around me until I find out otherwise, that has always been my principle, and it always will be, as naive as maybe as it sounds, because I have been sorely taken advantage of many times over, by people that were not as nice as I imagined, but how as a good Christian can I have any other principle?
You see some of these billionaires, they must have children, some of these scientists they must have children, some of these people who are world leaders they must have children.
Maybe even a bit like my Almaz in some ways.
You hear everyone God. You see everyone.
Am I the only Heretic God. Am I the only one wanting Almaz to live forever?
I must be.
I must be God. Or instead of most of the money of the billionaires lying in private bank accounts, a lot of it would go into research into the preservation of living tissue. It would be the biggest reseach thing in the world, nevermind space, even though that is maybe important. It would be a huge international thing,
and even if it failed, even if you are the only one who can be immortal, I would try. For my Almaz, I would try, and if I was a scientist I would put in more hours than anyone else in the world works, because I want to save my Almaz.
Terrible heresy upon heresies, I want to save my Almaz. I would kill to save my Almaz. Forgive me God. Forgive my weaknesses. Forgive my trespasses.
Forgive me God, I do not want to steal the money of the rich. I know they have earned it the hard way just like my labour. And God you know how hard I work for my Almaz.
You see, I am a bad Christian despite my devotion. I am a bad Christian.
You see, I think that I do not want their money. I think, I do not want their cold charity. I want everyone to be nice to each other.
I do not want beg on the corner of a street in the city for Almaz. God you will know my complete degredation, but since I am poor, it is probably the less of the evils, it is probably all, I can do and those who pass me by will never know of Almaz.
Because, I am a bad Christian, and I made a terrible error, before I thought about ethos, I hated charity, I felt lousy receiving it from anyone, and I felt lousy giving it to anyone, because I still think it is real cold. You give your money and you make yourself feel good, by giving and you should not feel good on the back of other people's suffering. There is still something vile about it, if you are feeling good about you yourself after you give.
I never gave to charity.
However, I though about it when I was pregnant with Almaz, and when I got some money from grandmother, I started to give to a little here and there to the ham and eggers in the streets. How, stupid I was. I never thought about Almaz. I need that money now. I desperately need that money now, and now, I have to become a fucking ham and egger.
You see, I just want people to be nice. I don't want their money.
Help me understand God. Help me understand.
Say we burned all of our money.
Say we all agreed, it was evil.
Say we just helped each other.
Say we all just worked for each other because we loved each other.
Say the majority of us, just a majority had this ethos,
Say we were in charge of the whole world.
Say we constantly helped the minority over their fears,
Say at every turn we showed them that ethos is the only way to respect each other and they deserve the self respect.
Why would we need money? Who would panic everytime a new commodity came on the market. Who would run infront of the queque?
Who would horde goods?
Who would sink into drug addiction and alchoholism?
You see we would be the majority. We would be the majority! We would have the greatest force behind us. The law of the World. The law of the World, and that law would be strong enough to protect, strong enough to check abuses.
I am worried about Almaz, I know she will possess a beutiful spirit if I have anything to do with it, and I hope to have everything to do withit. I am deeply worried.
You see a child recently assualted a local teacher, and there was a big fuss about it, and I went to the local community meeting where the blamed parents, others blamed the school for being poor, and I sympathised with them.
I did not speak, but I wish I did.
I recalled my childhood in another village where my mother worked. The only two girls I remember by their names, is a girl who spat on drawing on my very first day. I complained to the teacher, and showed the evidence, the teacher beat the girl infront of me with a belt.
I never met the boy after we left school again, until recently. Just a passing meeting. He remembered me, and seemed a friendly enough guy.
God, you know my darkest secrets.
You know the other name. The girl I wanted you to kill.
I was strong in spirit, but weak in body, she was the opposite, and she pounded my head into a wall, when I was thirteen. She attacked me at every occaision at school for about six months.
Children do not need to be so cruel.
You know I wished her dead. You know she died in a fire, a few days after my wish. My wish with every ounce of my mind. You killed her for me!
That is what I thought in my poor ethos. You killed her, and I thought she was a pure *****.
Forgive me God. Forgive me for my trespasses. Forgive me. You know, I am a poor Christian, and though, everyone in the village thinks, I am the most devout among them, you know there are a lot nicer people than me in our village. You know all my weaknesses.
You know, I am not that strong, I am weak, and that is a tragedy for me, and for my Almaz, who will magnify, my every weakness, at some point, because that is what many of us do when we are young magnify the weaknesses of our parents, and we maybe are being simplistic, and we only realise it later, sometimes too late.

I am a bad Christian. Please forgive my trespasses.
I am always going to be a bad Christian.
You know, my every thought, and that I call Planet Earth, Planet Grime, and if it was up to me I would rename it Chemal, the middle name which Almaz, possesses and which translates as "For The Greater Good". Please Forgive me God. Please!
Please forgive me Almaz.

Durp.

Give us some fucking respect . Atleast read the fucking thread be your throw in your two tuppence worth.

The genocide only exists in my head.

Durp. Durp. Durp. Durp. Durp. Durp!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

derminated.



(Edited by TheDerminator at 5:59 pm on Feb. 16, 2002)

[Moskitto]

You seem to take a very stereotypical view of Christians as being people only interested in praying and concerned with their image in front of god, Whilst this would be true for Jehova's witnesses, this is not true for Quakers and other liberal Christians.

[TheDerminator]

Moskitto

My profound apologies for spelling your name wrong. Believe it or not, once I get something into my dumb head, it is hard getting out!
You may have spotted that!
I would not make fun of your name intentionally, unless, I thought it was completely inappropiate.
I did not make fun of El Che even though I said there was more than a lack of the spirit of Che or hounour.
I deeply apologise.
I think you are mistaken, but not Miskitto!
You see I would not call Regan-lives
Regan-lies as Vox does, I would just add a question mark to the end of Regan-lives, which would be a nicer way to address this person, that Vox is pounding on a regular basis.
I am not interested in pounding anyone, except anyone, who comes into this thread, and spouts a lack of ethos, and their brutalisation at me.
That I have no qualms about pounding, and I will pound lack of ethos to my dying day. That is what Vox thinks he is doing, but he is only pounding Regan-lives?, and in my view, it is sheer egoism, to go around trying to convert the bourgeiosie and its supporters.
The immediate task is to end sectarianism in the socialist movement, and the only way you can do that is to unite behind a better socialist ethos.
If there is no real socialist movement, and there is none, you are trying convert people from thyself, and that indeed is sheer egoism.
Me try to convert Regan-lives? to socialism. No thanks. Vox is also pounding the head against a brick wall. Ouch, it is a sore one!

It is naive, but not as naive as a comment from, I think it was Revolutionary, pull me up if I have got the name wrong. The thread of the point made is anyone from the enemy side looking at the thread, would realise how wrong they are and I suppose join our struggle is the next logical step?
Eh?
Should we laugh or cry at the naivety?
Just shake our heads.
NO! NO! NO!
Unless there is a vibrant movement, rather than a paralysed movement,, well, do you know what Lou Reed of ex Velvet Underground might call it?
Pissing in the wind and that is a legit metaphor.
Think on it, if I were to be right on this subject, all those viewers, did not witness too much except for people wetting themselves. Messy business. No joke.
A tragedy for the socialist non-movement as I feel it should be correctly called.
Check those threads, there is no long consistency from the different people who were left-wing who responded, other than a hatred for the system and its supporters.
You need more than that to convert these people. A hell of a lot more, and to try on your own. You deserve the brick wall.


It is at the end of the largest thread, or the one with the largest number of viewers, and says something (don't have time to look up, want to go more into clarity of thought.
Just using a few examples from philosophy, and I will try to show the difference between clarity and lack of clarity within the realm, so you do not think so bad on me on this point.
Will be busy until it is done.
Two different things, and you will see why in the response.
You should have pulled me up about your name. I am not letting you off the hook.
Nice of you to play the artful dodger. Yet again.


I noticed the way the Quaker's ended the genocide of wanton neglect. I got really caught up in that huge historical movement which changed everything for everyone in Africa.
Your perception is getting better all the time.

The Quaker's, as good as they were (and as good as Ortega is, and you don't think I know the were better than a Bin Laden), were not fucking good enough. Still dodging all the issues.
Not very artfully in my view.

You never learned much from the story, the ethos, of the Quakers, is not any better than the ethos of the central character, and you do not realise the significance, the significance is lost on you. Maybe you should go back to being monkinated, it is a higher level of ethos, don't you think?
derminated.

(Edited by TheDerminator at 6:19 pm on Feb. 16, 2002)


(Edited by TheDerminator at 6:27 pm on Feb. 16, 2002)


(Edited by TheDerminator at 6:53 pm on Feb. 16, 2002)


(Edited by TheDerminator at 7:22 pm on Feb. 16, 2002)


(Edited by TheDerminator at 7:28 pm on Feb. 16, 2002)


(Edited by TheDerminator at 7:32 pm on Feb. 16, 2002)

[Moskitto]

You don't actually have to be Christian to be a Quaker, The central basis of Quakerism is that there is no such thing as the clergy.

Everything else I partly agree with.

[TheDerminator]

No clergy!

Agnostics of the world unite! You have nothing to lose except your opium or maybe not opium?

Oh yeah Marx would hammer people sitting on the fence never mind Quakerism.

What planet are you on?

I am on Planet Grime.

Beam down to my planet!

Still being artful?

What do you partially agree with?

Why hide your views?

Mine and El Che's are out there upfront in brutal honesty. Both of us. I prefer that brutal honesty, to your artful dodgery.
derminated.

(Edited by TheDerminator at 7:47 pm on Feb. 16, 2002)

[Moskitto]

They don't believe in clergy because they believe that god doesn't choose people who are his special messengers because they believe everyone is equal, a bit like communists.

In a quaker meeting basically everyone goes in, sits down and starts thinking about philosophy and theological stuff in silence then goes home.

[Guest]

You silly human.
You have no faith in yourself, that's why you have no God.

-Capatilist

[Guest]

It is impossible to prove a negative.

-Capatilist

[peaccenicked]

Talk about a self contradictory statement.

(Edited by peaccenicked at 10:18 pm on Feb. 16, 2002)

[Moskitto]

An interesting idea.

[El Che]

Determinator I wait your response. Indeed I damand one. And if you wish to do your comrade here a favor try and keep it as short and to the point as possible.

[TheDerminator]

The difference between clarity of thought and confusion in philosophy

An essay on Heraclitus by Uvo Holscher...

Just the title:

Paradox, Simile & Gnomic Utterance.

Just going to analyse the title, if you are doing an essay on language, and Heralitus, and you wish to attract students..
Well Uvo, as you know he was called the "obscurer"

So why not just "The Language of the "Obscurer"
Heraclitus.

The "gnomic utterance" you leave for the content, not the title:

Review:
"for beginning and advanced students"
Not for beginners. Your intimidating title ought to tell you that, but that was just the reviewer who said that, you know I hope, that the reviewer was a bit optimistic.

The Presocratics A collection of Critical Essays..
Edited by Mourealtos.

Read the lot. Not for a beginner. For an academic archivist.

Plato The Republic.

Clearer writing than any of the contributors to the above:

"So when men are mistaken in their judgements, Polemarches, it will be often be right for them to injure their friends, who in their eyes are bad, and help their enemies, and help their enemies who are good. Which is the very opposite of what we said Simonides meant".

I would only change the end "and help their enemies who are "very bad" instead of the "very opposite etc.

When you add very bad, it is my ethos, in content and in form, and to me it is about brutal honest, and its role in ethics. However, some might argue that in a war situation, and sometimes you have to fight the war against fascism, if your friend takes the side of the enemy, you have to be very wary of that friendship.

However, it is a complex world, and it is not that simple. Say for instance you meet someone from your side of the political spectrum, who uses the old style Socratic method on you, treating you like shit, possessing little sense of humour, and you meet someone who supports a form of cryptofascism such as "sterlization of the unintelligent", but is mild mannered and quite a gentle type with deep alcholism, and deep manic depression, but still possesses a surreeal sense of humour.

In this complex world, in this world of extreme alienation of the self, and of socialist non-movement, of historical mitigation of subjective development, where do you place your tolerance. What is the ethos? Do you try to convert the crypto-fascist to your cause. No. No. No.
Until there is a decision time, until there is a vibrant socialist movement, you tolerate the crypto-fascist, and the gentler company is less brutal, than the company of the brutal socialist with no respect for your spirit.
All theory, no spirit. Fuck-off you bastard. I don't want to know you!
I would rather be with a fucking crypto-fascist!

Aristotle. Ethics
Starts clear, then gets a bit clumsy.

"The unjust man does not always choose the greater, but also the less, - in the case of things bad absolute;
but because the lesser evil is itself thought to be good, is itself, there for grasping, therefore he is thought to be grasping. And both he is unfair; for this contains commont to both."
Final sentance is clear.

If you cannot distinguish between what is an absolute evil and a lesser evil, your value judgement of the both is going to be deeply flawed.

True enough, but not deep enough.

You have to know mugging someone for money is an evil, even though it is less than genocide. There has to be a rock within you, that knows what is the nature of unethical behaviour everytime you see it. If you do not possess the rock, you are unethical.

Leibniz: Philosophical Writings

Clear enough.
"There exists, therefore, that which is most the most perfect, since perfection is simply a quantity of reality."
Quality, not quantity. The most perfect. You never get there. Human societal development is open ended. The perfect is not really the same of the absolute.
Thus you can see absolute evil, but not perfect evil, words have meaning, the perfect is a postive value judgement, the positive negative is illogical.
Ofcourse you can go into perfection, much deeper.
It like perception has two meanings.
The most excellent. Letgitimate.
The idealisation of perfection, "the perfect wife". Perfect for the husband. Not perfection as a person.
Erroneous missuse of the word.

Schelling. From a general book on German idealism.
Get back with the title tommorow unless I am dead.

This is extremely poor thinking:

"The first stage is the one in which the absolute subject, finds itself in absolute inwards = A.
This corresponds with the knowldege in which the absolute it is absolute, ie, ignorance = B.

Not for the beginner in philosophy, that simplistic subjective shit. I am glad I never began with Schelling, I began with transparently clear Karl Marx.

What does it mean?
Say the subject is a concept. The concept looks inwards, analyses itself, bringing forth knowledge, which is absolute knowledge.
This is the same as absolute ignorance.

If it is a clumsy way of saying there is obectivity within subjectivity, it is extremely clumsy. Absolute truth corresponds with ignorance? Besides, a concept, cannot analyse itself, the philosopher has to analyse the concept/subject.
What did you think it meant? Any wiser? Nope.

Haebermas

The Philosophy Discourse on Modernity.

Reasonably clear.

"Why fundamental ontology had to run off into the blind alley of the philosophy of the subject it was supposed to steer clear of, is easy to see."
A critique quasi-Marxist philosophy, after Marx, a critique of their subjectivism, but no blind my friend, no blind alley. It is their blind alley not our blind alley, we can see exactly that blind alley, and we came from that "blind alley" before Marx. It was never a blind alley my friend.
Haebermas, is the best of a bad bunch, and it is not saying much.
A lot of people find him hard going, he's not too bad, except when he gets into his diagrams. Sore on the eyes that stuff.
Not the way to explain philosophy, at least not to me, and I am better than it than you.

Levis Strauss.

Be back on the source. Got it from The Continental Philosophy Edited by two irish academics, includes Rosa on Lenin. Had the same kind of criticism, as John MacLean, the renowned Scottish socialist. You should not export Leninism, mechanically, to Western Europe. Rosa, and John were correct, but they did not know how correct.
We cannot have revolutions, we need the majority, to possess our ethos, or the ethos is never going to work.
We are true democrats. That is enshrined in our ethos.
Levi-Strauss:
He relates to the Oedipus myth:
Clear thinking, but poor thinking.
"The 'demonstration' should therefore be conceived, not in terms of what the scientists of what means by this term, but atleast by the steet peddlar."
Street trader. "peddlar" is a pejorative stress.
Just what are you peddling?
Demonstration, always has to come from an oveview of your subject matter, it is the example. You cannot get from a street trader. My qualifications, are in management, and I can tell, you it is a piss-poor theory on how to bring out the best in people in a work place.
Its most advanced overview is Total Quality Management, and you know what a slogan is "empower the workers" Fuck-off. What the fuck does a street trader know except interpersonal skills needed for selling, the mark up, the best place to go to buy, and where to sell.
You can go to them when they read my treatise, and then they can tell you where to shove your "demonstration" useless to science.

I have to go soon.

.You can do deep research. Any philosophy. Any philosopher.

I am not the selfist here. You are. You are human gods.
I am the human. Except, if you are too young or learning difficulties prevent your understanding.

The method is an open book on my website, and who have they got to deconstruct me?
Derrida?
Don't make me laugh.

I have read his Spectres on Marx twice.
He harps on about the "dead burying the dead", in
this highly selective mystical view on the spirituality of Karl Marx. He only is clear when he talks about "capitalism" and I like that stuff my friend. That is tremendous stuff, even if it is weak stuff, because it is indeed in our spirit, in the spirit of the founder of our movement. I am not the founder. It is Karl Marx, and I do not forget that for a nano-second.
In those parts you did some pride to his memory, but as for the rest. Atrocious. An insult to his memory.
The dead burying the dead?
Your desconstruction, deconstructing modern symbolic logic. That is the dead, bury the fucking dead!
Who have the got to deconstruct me?
Who have the got to deconstruct objective methodology?
Who have the got to deconstruct the definitive proof that the God, is only the invention of a complete non-tangible, and an invention constructed upon abstract nothingness?
Who have the got?
No one. Not even you.
Selfist. Not even you.
I am the only modest one among you, because if not you would tell me you are my spiritual equal, because what is preventing you from not seeing the clarity?
Get some real modesty, it goes with a high ethos.
It is not that a child can be my spiritual ethos, in a shit manner like that. It is a child is my spiritual equal.

I know the beauty of Daniel Ortega, but I know the opium of the people. I know the genocide of the wanton neglect, something you never knew, and not to see genocide.

Monkerated. Blah, blah blah.

derminated. Durp.


(Edited by TheDerminator at 11:41 am on April 7, 2002)

[TheDerminator]

Have been very busy responding to clarity of thought.
Will respond tommorow.

[Moskitto]

There is no God.
It has been proved difinitevely.

And the principle arguement behind you belief is...?

[TheDerminator]

Lost a response. Said it didnt edit.
It was to El Che and capitalist.
How dare this person come here with that brand of evil as a tag.
A joke.
A sick fucking joke.


Tommorow. Paragraph, by paragraph. Each paragraph pointed out. I only started. I got upset, I cannot really apologise, never felt up to it, it would be unethical and dishonest of me to say sorry. I do not feel sorry.
I will continue. You are right to make the demand.
I will continue, and then you can give your response.
I am not that scared of you, you know.
I will persist. Please be a little more patient with me.
Thankyou.

Moskitto
Crude dodger.
Principle of the argument of why everything exists for believers:
One word:
God.
Principle of the argument for the definitive proof of the non-existence of God.
One word:
Nothingness.

Do you see the nothingness?

Yep, you see nothingness alright!

Major style.

One fucking word. How simple can I make it?

There is nothingness, and nothingness.
Capitalist has faith in nothingness.
I have faith in the ignorance of nothingness. Complete and utter faith.

derminated.
derminated.

[Moskitto]

You seem to be basing highly complex philosophical and theological theories on 2 words. Most philosophers would not consider this enough to be worth considering their positions.

I knew you couldn't actually prove it. In fact all you've done is proved that you can't prove or disprove the existence of god.

[peaccenicked]

His Early Life
His Epistemology
Newman Revolution
Bibliography
Newman’s own words on his new definition of "proof"

It is by the strength, variety, or multiplicity of premises, which are only probable, not by invincible syllogisms, --by objections overcome, by adverse theories neutralized, by difficulties gradually clearing up, by exceptions proving the rule, by unlooked-for correlations found with received truths, by suspense and delay in the process issuing in triumphant reactions,--by all these ways, and many others, it is that the practiced and experienced mind is able to make a sure divination that a conclusion is inevitable, of which his lines of reasoning do not actually put him in possession. This is what is meant by a proposition being 'as good as proved,' a conclusion as undeniable 'as if it were proved,' and by the reasons for it 'amounting to a proof,' for a proof is the limit of converging probabilities. [320-321]
Moskitto, you asked for one arguement.
Then you said"You seem to be basing highly complex philosophical and theological theories on 2 words. Most philosophers would not consider this enough to be worth considering their positions."
It looks to me as though, The Derminator(younger brother of mine) put forward his central thesis. Succintly,
if you look at the Newman definition of proof which is one def. (There might be plausible others.)
It seems that a proof is challenged on the basis of its premises.
To say that something canot be proved seems like a pre emptive strike that has no premis other than perhaps intuition which is not the best of premises. There is much harder work needed to be done.(I would think)

peaccified yet

[RedRevolutionary87]

god is the tool men in power exploited to keep the masses under control, but was created because of mans fear of death, an example of human weakness used against them. it is tru ther is no way to prove that god doesnt exist but one cannot prove otherwise either, in all its a pretty good lie, very refined

[El Che]

But peace I have premises have I not ? premises that stand do they not?

My position is then "as good as proved". Thats as good as it gets...

(Edited by El Che at 1:55 am on Feb. 17, 2002)

[peaccenicked]

maybe you could enumerate these premises as concisely
as you can I dont want to put words in your mouth or limit you by any demand of brevity, but I know you like informality
so let rip.

[El Che]

You can not prove god does not exist, because man can prove nothing, because god is the metaphysical, the absolute reality, humans only know the real through imperfect means, and actualy dont even know if what they are "in contact with" is reality. Therefor it is impossible for Determinator to prove the non existence of god, his methods are irrelevant. Man can only prove something on a provisorial status. That is to say man can never arrive at truth that he, can in truth, assert to be a perfect, unchanging, absolute truth. This regrading any issue. The existence of this banana im eating is one such issue. Now compair that issue to the existence of god, if u can not prove to me this banana i have here exists (thats what im discussing (or trying to) with determinated) how then will our friend prove to me the non existence of an absolute entity. the absolute reality. think about this notion. i mean really think about the notion of absolute reality! what makes you think its going to fit in your head!?(i.e that your head can grasp it) what arrogance... Allas it escapes you. Determinated is going to prove to me absolutly, an absolute reality, regrading an absolute entity. And I am waiting. For this will be thee greatest atchivement in human history! Determinated is going to be famous! and rich too...

If you wish to enter the discussion peace please read me threads in the back so i wont have to repeat my self.

(Edited by El Che at 4:24 am on Feb. 17, 2002)


(Edited by El Che at 4:26 am on Feb. 17, 2002)

[Imperial Power]

I say there is a God! and what I say is final.

[El Che]

IP you need more than 1 neuron to discuss in here. Run along.

[Imperial Power]

El Che how funny you are

Derminator, my God, I just read some of your posts. I think you should see a psycologist. I am wondering how many hours you spend per day on this?

[TheDerminator]

Sometimes, you have to begin with an apology, and that is my only real delay at the moment El Che.

The apology is not to you it is to every "fellow traveller" in the community.

You see,
I have a poor ethos.
All I should have told captalist to do is to fuck-off.
You do not try to convert the enemy on your own, it is just arrogant egoistical argumentative mastrubation.
The only time you respond to the enemy is when there is a vibrant socialist movement, and then you do not spare the enemy from your brutal honesty, so I was wrong to post a reply to capitalist, I should have posted it, to the community.
I was also wrong to try to appeal to their scum ethos.
I deeply regret my errors.
We dearly pay for our slow consciousness.
I will not edit my errors.
I only edit when, I see small errors which I can easily rectify, and I would lose my ethos, if I did not change them as soon as possible.
Lenin once wrote, that intelligence, is not about not making any mistakes, it is about the rate by which you rectify, your errors, and that is a principle, I have known a long time, even though, I have wasted many years of my life, not studying philosophy, and not doing what I am doing now.
I am poor Christian.
There are only two sets of people I cannot respond to in this thread. One set is the enemy. You are not the enemy. No one has been except capitalist. You are organic socialists, and that is where or whole movement stemmed even before Marx. He founded our modern movement, but there was movement before Marx, and Jesus Christ was an organic socialist, so do not knock it too much, just know our modern movement overtook, organic socialism, and that is something Ortega should have known, and Pol Pot should have known. Moskitto. I can ram the difference between, Pol Pot and Ortega down your throat, but we should call Pot Pot for what he was an evil monster, who was an organic "socialist" without the spirit of our socialism.
As for Stalin, it is complex. Stalin came from the primitive our modern movement, a movement which has become non-movement, but our "modern" movement, was too organically derived, because Marx was the only Marxist. There have be no other Marxists, not Lenin, not even Engels. Only the selfist. There are not even any Christists, or a Mohammedists, or any Godists, only selfists.
The worship turns to self worship.
The worship of your own inner righteousness, as compared to the righteousness of socialist human ethos.
It has been the tragedy of the human condition, and from it stems my poor ethos.
The only other set of people I cannot respond to are my loved ones. If my sister came into the community, I could not respond to her, I cannot likewise respond to my brother Peaccenick.
I was wrong to respond to you on essentialism and to use a terrible brutal tone on my own brother. Not much brotherly love in that, but you know I am in a bad state, and I know you will forgive me, and it would be awful for me to ask forgiveness of my own brother.
Forgiveness with a loved one is a fait accompli, and I know that.
I can only respond to you in privately, and I can only respond after you have studied my treatise. These are strangers. What ever inner beauty the possess, I do not know it deeply, I only know some are organic socialists, and some are from our tradition.
I cannot always tell so easily the difference, because our tradition is although not organic, because it came from the highest point of philosophy, still has organic philosophy as its roots.
I will not be brutally honest with you again. Not ever.
Your beauty is tangible to me, and so is your depth of analysis. You are the deepest essentialist in the community, and for all I know the deepest in the world, because I gave up essentialism in 1995.
I do not know who else is carrying it own, and I am not too interested in knowing who.
It is still the highest point of the "modern" tradition, and you have went beyond Karl Marx, you know, the "ABC of Marxism" better than his grasp. You know Lenin. You know Trotsky. You know Gramsci. You know Jamieson.
You know de Beauvoir, although I am sure you would accept our sister could teach both of us more about the spirit of de Beauvoir in our ethos, and she could teach de Beauvoir about the spirit of our socialist movement, and every other feminist out side our movement too.
Our non-movement. It is her force. She can ram it down my throat, better than I could do it to anyone, because she has the deeper spirit and deeper experience of the feminist movement, and thus possess a deeper outrage, than us. She would have rammed the unethical "*****" and "whore" down throats more strongly than me, and has not read my bit on the Language of Ethos. We both know that. My honest brutality? Imagine if they met our dad, with the tool of objective methodology, you know the power of his brutal honesty.
So where's the word for Connolly,
In the tolling angelus bell?
With Ireland's traitor's sanctified
And Ireland's saints in Hell!

Or on Churchill..
He maybe gone,,
but all the maggots bred in him live on.

Never mind the stuff on ex-"Communist" Jimmy Reid.
Me brutally honest? I am an infant in comparison! And we both know it.
I cannot be brutal to you again on this level although I will always possess small brutalities, towards you, because of my poor ethos, and that is the tragedy of the human condition.
I do not need to apologise to you, because we both know of the Bad Faith of our fellow traveller Jean-Paul Satre, and that is the apology to a loved one. It is unnecessary, because they love you, and you love them, the apology, is a disrespect upon the knowledge of the love.
There are other essentialists.
That is why I cannot respond.
My response would not carry enough force.
My response must carry the force of brutal honesty.
I wish it could be otherwise, but the thing is that sometimes it is appropiate to use brute force. It is the only way to open sealed tin, containing a can of worms.
You are obligated to use force, no matter how much you are damaged in the process. It is your moral obligation, to use the appropiate force.
There is a difference between my brutality, and everyone elses. They possess no blue print.
I possess the only blue print, and that blue print is in my mind in my treatise. It is a blueprint from my methodology, and it can be your method too.
It is a power tool, and I am no scientist, I am a philosopher. Once the scientists grasp this tool. Just watch science.
I am the only one who is not a selfist. You know my love for you and our sister is very deep, and I should not have to really state that, but I am only making a little point: I cannot stab myself in the heart.
And people have to know why I do not respond to you. It is early in Glasgow. Did not wish take wake you on the phone. Wish I could have told you to your face first.
And yes, I think you are a lot deeper than any Althusserian. That is the only error in my treatise that I have noticed, except perhaps, one final clarity.

You see Althusser, was never a Marxist, always just Althusser, and Althusser rejected essentialism to some extent. It is complex. Althusser went beyond Marx in relation to false consciousness, objective reality etc, but
you never threw the baby out with the bathwater, and Althusser did. I reject essentialism. I do not reject Gramsi-Leninism, and I never noticed Althusser's work on the issue of Gramsci-Leninism, and no one else has noticed either. It does not exist, and that is why essentialism is still deeper. It is has the spirit of our socialism in its roots. Silences speak volumes.
My silence here to you, speaks volumes about me, volumes you know, and the volumes within your own spirt.
No, the stuff on Althusser, is not the final clarity, I just wonder if I made this point on the "concrete" clear enough.
It relates to the philosophical Notebooks by Lenin.
It is about Plato, I was in hurry, will give the quote in an edit tommorow.
It is about the concrete being limitless, in the view of Lenin, but my brother, Lenin is wrong.
You see historical development is limitless, unless the bastards wipe humanity off the face of Planet Grime, and that is a real possibilty. It is not only historical development that is limitless, there is also science, unless there is the tragedy, that science will reach a plateau some time in the future, and we can never speculate either way, we simply do not know. We possess no crystal ball, is there infinite invention, stretching into infinity, do we really know the answer?
Only in culture, but even there, inifinity, is a hell of a long time. Every plot, every psychology, every fantasy, will the quality constantly improve into infinity or is it going to plateau? I suspect the latter, but I hope I am wrong.
Still the essence is not about my speculation, that is not part of the core, this is the essence, and this is what has to be understood:
The concrete is the concrete, because it is concrete.
Yep. The concrete is set in stone.
All you are doing is you expand science and expanding ethos is adding to the concrete.
The concrete becomes a richer deeper concrete.
And you build on the concrete. You build on the concrete! You add concrete to the concrete!
On concrete science!
On concrete ethos!
There are no empiricists really.
Each scientist is a selfist, even Einstein, even Darwin, selfists.
Built on eclectic foundations, is not built on concrete, and every scientist is an eclectic to his/her own self. (Some times I say her/his, one is not more correct than the other, its better to interchange), though science now possess plenty that is concrete to build upon.
You see this is how I should talk in private, and there is a huge difference, as you notice. No need for brutality in language. Come the day! Come the fine day!
Think about the concrete. If Lenin is wrong about the concrete, what else is Lenin wrong on?
You know the "Marxist" who used the Socratic method on me. If this person joins, I will be brutally honest, and I should not lose one ounce of sleep, except I cannot promise that to myself. I am not as strong as I used to be. Three and a half years ago, I would not have asked El Che to be so patient. I would never have got upset. I wish I was as strong as I was back then, because it is not nice to be so upset, and I should not have been so upset.
We are witnessing many silences by the fellow traveller's, and those silences speak volumes. Some one with the name tag capitalist should be banned.
What next: Die-You-Commie-Bastards!.
Who is going to use that name tag?
Silences speak volumes.
I see all the silences from Vox, James, and so on. Volumes.
They are still monkernating me. I know support when I see it, and you are the best among them.

El Che. There is no socialist movement, and my brother is closer to movement than you, so the main movement is my brother, and no apologies.

Now, this cafe, I am in, is not very good. It closes early these days, because when it was a 24 hour place some unethical people made it a hell after midnight. It brought out the ghouls.
Additionally there is no printing facility, which is deplorable for us users, so I cannot print out your text.
I need to look at your text.
I was going to tell you this last night when I lost my edit.
Just as well it was lost. I was calling capitalist scum eccetra, eccetra. It was a real brutal pounding, and I forgot it was the enemy. I lost the plot in my total outrage, but atleast I possed the outrage.

There is another cafe in Glasgow, but me and my brother seldom go, it is far too expensive. It is much smaller, it has fewer hours, and because I studied management, I know straight away, that it has to be more expensive in bourgeios society, because its running costs are much higher than the huge company which owns this place.
I have a monthly pass, I got here as early as I could.
I have to return to the page of your thread. I have no print out. Sorry for the inconvenience, and sorry it screws up the thread a bit, but when you are poor you are poor. I have went hungry for days in London, in rich opulent London. Do not expect me to aplogise for being poor. Ever went hungry for more than a whole day in a rich city in the "Free World" Too much pride to take Christian charity. I am not the only one. Returning to my edit, which begins with the stuff about you not being a traitor. If I can add a stuff on that page I will, if not I will maybe need to wait til Monday to get a print out from the other cafe. Not sure of the technicalities. I am a new comer remember. If my brother was here he could tell me, but I am on my own. I am on my own quite a lot. Turn back to the stuff on you about Discourse, please. You are the priority. I will be here until it is done, then I will take a break.
Tired thinking is tired thinking, as the stuff I lost on capitalist showed. No block letters. You see evil for what it is. You do not respect evil. Did you see the evil? Do you know the difference between good and evil in real depth? Silences speaks volumes. Mine too.
You next El Che You next. Not long to wait. Sorry the stuff on the discourse. Not the traitor stuff. My memory lapsed. The stuff on the discourse! Will edit this later. In a hurry to answer you! By I will not hurry in my answer. Less haste more speed!
derminated.

(Edited by TheDerminator at 11:35 am on Feb. 17, 2002)

[phrognog]

This is my first post on Che-Lives.com. I was hoping that this may contribute to the seemingly endless discussion you have been havng on the existence of 'God'. It is a short story written by the Marquis De Sade during his second imprisonmnt in Vincennes on or about July 12, 1782. I hope that it will raise some questions, or perhaps answer some...

Dialogue Between A Priest And A Dying Man
by the Marquis De Sade

PRIEST - Come to this the fatal hour when at last from the eyes of deluded man the scales must fall away, and be shown the cruel picture of his errors and his vices—say, my son, do you not repent the host of sins unto which you were led by weakness and human frailty?

DYING MAN - Yes, my friend, I do repent.

PRIEST—Rejoice then in these pangs of remorse, during the brief space remaining to you profit therefrom to obtain Heaven's general absolution for your sins, and be mindful of it, only through the mediation of the Most Holy Sacrament of penance will you be granted it by the Eternal.

DYING MAN—I do not understand you, any more than you have understood me.

PRIEST—Eh?

DYING MAN—I told you that I repented.

PRIEST—I heard you say it.

DYING MAN—Yes, but without understanding it.

PRIEST—My interpretation—

DYING MAN—Hold. I shall give you mine. By Nature created, created with very keen tastes, with very strong passions; placed on this earth for the sole purpose of yielding to them and satisfying them, and these effects of my creation being naught but necessities directly relating to Nature's fundamental designs or, if you prefer, naught but essential derivatives proceeding from her intentions in my regard, all in accordance with her laws, I repent not having acknowledged her omnipotence as fully as I might have done, I am only sorry for the modest use I made of the faculties (criminal in your view, perfectly ordinary in mine) she gave me to serve her; I did sometimes resist her, I repent it. Misled by your absurd doctrines, with them for arms I mindlessly challenged the desires instilled in me by a much diviner inspiration, and thereof do I repent: I only plucked an occasional flower when I might have gathered an ample harvest of fruit—such are the just grounds for the regrets I have, do me the honor of considering me incapable of harboring any others.

PRIEST—Lo! where your fallacies take you, to what pass are you brought by your sophistries! To created being you ascribe all the Creator's power, and those unlucky penchants which have led you astray, ah I do you not see they are merely the products of corrupted nature, to which you attribute omnipotence?

DYING MAN—Friend—it looks to me as though your dialectic were as false as your thinking. Pray straighten your arguing or else leave me to die in peace. What do you mean by Creator, and what do you mean by corrupted nature?

PRIEST—The Creator is the master of the universe, 'tis He who has wrought everything, everything created, and who maintains it all through the mere fact of His omnipotence.

DYING MAN—An impressive figure indeed. Tell me now why this so very formidable fellow did nevertheless, as you would have it, create a corrupted nature?

PRIEST—What glory would men ever have, had not God left them free will; and in the enjoyment thereof, what merit could come to them, were there not on earth the possibility of doing good and that of avoiding evil?

DYING MAN—And so your god bungled his work deliberately, in order to tempt or test his creature—did he then not know, did he then not doubt what the result would be?

PRIEST—He knew it undoubtedly but, once again, be wished to leave to man the merit of choice.

DYING MAN—And to what purpose, since from the outset he knew the course affairs would take and since, all-mighty as you tell me he is, he had but to make his creature choose as suited him?

PRIEST—Who is there can penetrate God's vast and infinite designs regarding man, and who can grasp all that makes up the universal scheme?

DYING MAN—Anyone who simplifies matters, my friend, anyone, above all, who refrains from multiplying causes in order to confuse effects all the more. What need have you of a second difficulty when you are unable to resolve the first, and once it is possible that Nature may all alone have done what you attribute to your god, why must you go looking for someone to be her overlord? The cause and explanation of what you do not understand may perhaps be the simplest thing in the world. Perfect your physics and you will understand Nature better, refine your reason, banish your prejudices and you'll have no further need of your god.

PRIEST—Wretched man! I took you for no worse than a Socinian—arms I had to combat you. But 'tis clear you are an atheist, and seeing that your heart is shut to the authentic and innumerable proofs we receive every day of our lives of the Creator's existence—I have no more to say to you. There is no restoring the blind to the light.

DYING MAN—Softly, my friend, own that between the two, he who blindfolds himself must surely see less of the light than he who snatches the blindfold away from his eyes. You compose, you construct, you dream, you magnify and complicate; I sift, I simplify. You accumulate errors, pile one atop the other; I combat them all. Which one of us is blind?

PRIEST—Then you do not believe in God at all?

DYING MAN—NO. And for one very sound reason: it is perfectly impossible to believe in what one does not understand. Between understanding and faith immediate connections must subsist; understanding is the very lifeblood of faith; where understanding has ceased, faith is dead; and when they who are in such a case proclaim they have faith, they deceive. You yourself, preacher, I defy you to believe in the god you predicate to me—you must fail because you cannot demonstrate him to me, because it is not in you to define him to me, because consequently you do not understand him—because as of the moment you do not understand him, you can no longer furnish me any reasonable argument concerning him, and because, in sum, anything beyond the limits and grasp of the human mind is either illusion or futility; and because your god having to be one or the other of the two, in the first instance I should be mad to believe in him, in the second a fool. My friend, prove to me that matter is inert and I will grant you a creator, prove to me that Nature does not suffice to herself and I'll let you imagine her ruled by a higher force; until then, expect nothing from me, I bow to evidence only, and evidence I perceive only through my senses: my belief goes no farther than they, beyond that point my faith collapses. I believe in the sun because I see it, I conceive it as the focal center of all the inflammable matter in Nature, its periodic movement pleases but does not amaze me. 'Tis a mechanical operation, perhaps as simple as the workings of electricity, but which we are unable to understand. Need I bother more about it? When you have roofed everything over with your god, will I be any the better off? and shall I still not have to make an effort at least as great to understand the artisan as to define his handiwork? By edifying your chimera it is thus no service you have rendered me, you have made me uneasy in my mind but you have not enlightened it, and instead of gratitude I owe you resentment. Your god is a machine you fabricated in your passions' behalf, you manipulated it to their liking; but the day it interfered with mine, I kicked it out of my way, deem it fitting that I did so; and now, at this moment when I sink and my soul stands in need of calm and philosophy, belabor it not with your riddles and your cant, which alarm but will not convince it, which will irritate without improving it; good friends and on the best terms have we ever been, this soul and I, so Nature wished it to be; as it is, so she expressly modeled it, for my soul is the result of the dispositions she formed in me pursuant to her own ends and needs; and as she has an equal need of vices and of virtues, whenever she was pleased to move me to evil, she did so, whenever she wanted a good deed from me, she roused in me the desire to perform one, and even so I did as I was bid. Look nowhere but, to her workings for the unique cause of our fickle human behavior and in her laws hope to find no other springs than her will and her requirements.

PRIEST—And so whatever is in this world, is necessary.

DYING MAN—Exactly.

PRIEST—But if everything is necessary—then the whole is regulated.

DYING MAN—I am not the one to deny it.

PRIEST—And what can regulate the whole save it be an all-powerful and all-knowing hand?

DYING MAN—Say, is it not necessary that gunpowder ignite when you set a spark to it?

PRIEST—Yes.

DYING MAN—And do you find any presence of wisdom in that?

PRIEST— None.

DYING MAN—It is then possible that things necessarily come about without being determined by a superior intelligence, and possible hence that everything derive logically from a primary cause, without there being either reason or wisdom in that primary cause.

PRIEST—What are you aiming at?

DYING MAN—Atto you that the world and all therein proving may be what it is and as you see it to be, without any wise and reasoning cause directing it, and that natural effects must have natural causes: natural causes sufficing, there is no need to invent any such unnatural ones as your god who himself, as I have told you already, would require to be explained and who would at the same time be the explanation of nothing; and that once 'tis plain your god is superfluous, he is perfectly useless; that what is useless would greatly appear to be imaginary only, null and therefore nonexistent; thus, to conclude that your god is a fiction I need no other argument than that which furnishes me the certitude of his inutility.

PRIEST—At that rate there is no great need for me to talk to you about religion.

DYING MAN—True, but why not anyhow? Nothing so much amuses me as this sign of the extent to which human beings have been carried away by fanaticism and stupidity; although the prodigious spectacle of folly we are facing here may be horrible, it is always interesting. Answer me honestly, and endeavor to set personal considerations aside: were I weak enough to fall victim to your silly theories concerning the fabulous existence of the being who renders religion necessary, under what form would you advise me to worship him? Would you have me adopt the daydreams of Confucius rather than the absurdities of Brahma, should I kneel before the great snake to which the Blacks pray, invoke the Peruvians? sun or Moses? Lord of Hosts, to which Mohammedan sect should I rally, or which Christian heresy would be preferable in your view? Be careful how you reply.

PRIEST—Can it be doubtful?

DYING MAN—Then 'tis egoistical.

PRIEST— No, my son, 'tis as much out of love for thee as for myself I urge thee to embrace my creed.

DYING MAN—And I wonder how the one or the other of us can have much love for himself, to deign to listen to such degrading nonsense.

PRIEST—But who can be mistaken about the miracles wrought by our Divine Redeemer?

DYING MAN—He who sees in him anything else than the most vulgar of all tricksters and the most arrant of all impostors.

PRIEST—O God, you hear him and your wrath thunders not forth!

DYING MAN—No my friend, all is peace and quiet around us, because your god, be it from impotence or from reason or from whatever you please, is a being whose existence I shall momentarily concede out of condescension for you or, if you prefer, in order to accommodate myself to your sorry little perspective; because this god, I say, were he to exist, as you are mad enough to believe, could not have selected as means to persuade us, anything more ridiculous than those your Jesus incarnates.

PRIEST—What! The prophecies, the miracles, the martyrs— are they not so many proofs?

DYING MAN—How, so long as I abide by the rules of logic, how would you have me accept as proof anything which itself is lacking proof? Before a prophecy could constitute proof I should first have to be completely certain it was ever pronounced; the prophecies history tells us of belong to history and for me they can only have the force of other historical facts, whereof three out of four are exceedingly dubious; if to this I add the strong probability that they have been transmitted to us by not very objective historians, who recorded what they preferred to have us read, I shall be quite within my rights if I am skeptical. And furthermore, who is there to assure me that this prophecy was not made after the fact, that it was not a stratagem of everyday political scheming, like that which predicts a happy reign under a just king, or frost in wintertime? As for your miracles, I am not any readier to be taken in by such rubbish. All rascals have performed them, all fools have believed in them; before I'd be persuaded of the truth of a miracle I would have to be very sure the event so called by you was absolutely contrary to the laws of Nature, for only what is outside of Nature can pass for miraculous; and who is so deeply learned in Nature that he can affirm the precise point where her domain ends, and the precise point where it is infringed upon? Only two things are needed to accredit an alleged miracle, a mountebank and a few simpletons; tush, there's the whole origin of your prodigies; all new adherents to a religious sect have wrought some; and more extraordinary still, all have found imbeciles around to believe them. Your Jesus? feats do not surpass those of Apollonius of Tyana, yet nobody thinks to take the latter for a god; and when we come to your martyrs, assuredly, these are the feeblest of all your arguments. To produce martyrs you need but have enthusiasm on the one hand, resistance on the other; and so long as an opposed cause offers me as many of them as does yours, I shall never be sufficiently authorized to believe one better than another, but rather very much inclined to consider all of them pitiable. Ah my friend! were it true that the god you preach did exist, would he need miracle, martyr, or prophecy to secure recognition? and if, as you declare, the human heart were of his making, would he not have chosen it for the repository of his law? Then would this law, impartial for all mankind because emanating from a just god, then would it be found graved deep and writ clear in all men alike, and from one end of the world to the other, all men, having this delicate and sensitive organ in common, would also resemble each other through the homage they would render the god whence they had got it; all would adore and serve him in one identical manner, and they would be as incapable of disregarding this god as of resisting the inward impulse to worship him. Instead of that, what do I behold throughout this world? As many gods as there are countries; as many different cults as there are different minds or different imaginations; and this swarm of opinions among which it is physically impossible for me to choose, say now, is this a just god's doing? Fie upon you, preacher, you outrage your god when you present him to me thus; rather let me deny him completely, for if he exists then I outrage him far less by my incredulity than do you through your blasphemies. Return to your senses, preacher, your Jesus is no better than Mohammed, Mohammed no better than Moses, and the three of them combined no better than Confucius, who did after all have some wise things to say while the others did naught but rave; in general, though, such people are all mere frauds: philosophers laughed at them, the mob believed them, and justice ought to have hanged them.

PRIEST—Alas, justice dealt only too harshly with one of the four.

DYING MAN—If he alone got what he deserved it was he deserved it most richly; seditious, turbulent, calumniating, dishonest, libertine, a clumsy buffoon, and very mischievous; he had the art of overawing common folk and stirring up the rabble; and hence came in line for punishment in a kingdom where the state of affairs was what it was in Jerusalem then. They were very wise indeed to get rid of him, and this perhaps is the one case in which my extremely lenient and also extremely tolerant maxims are able to allow the severity of Themis; I excuse any misbehavior save that which may endanger the government one lives under, kings and their majesties are the only things I respect; and whoever does not love his country and his king were better dead than alive.

PRIEST—But you do surely believe something awaits us after this life, you must at some time or another have sought to pierce the dark shadows enshrouding our mortal fate, and what other theory could have satisfied your anxious spirit, than that of the numberless woes that betide him who has lived wickedly, and an eternity of rewards for him whose life has been good?

DYING MAN—What other, my friend? that of nothingness, it has never held terrors for me, in it I see naught but what is consoling and unpretentious; all the other theories are of pride's composition, this one alone is of reason's. Moreover, 'tis neither dreadful nor absolute, this nothingness. Before my eyes have I not the example of Nature's perpetual generations and regenerations? Nothing perishes in the world, my friend, nothing is lost; man today, worm tomorrow, the day after tomorrow a fly; is it not to keep steadily on existing? And what entitles me to be rewarded for virtues which are in me through no fault of my Own, or again punished for crimes wherefor the ultimate responsibility is not mine? How are you to put your alleged god's goodness into tune with this system, and can he have wished to create me in order to reap pleasure from punishing me, and that solely on account of a choice he does not leave me free to determine?

PRIEST—You are free.

DYING MAN—Yes, in terms of your prejudices; but reason puts them to rout, and the theory of human freedom was never devised except to fabricate that of grace, which was to acquire such importance for your reveries. What man on earth, seeing the scaffold a step beyond the crime, would commit it were he free not to commit it? We are the pawns of an irresistible force, and never for an instant is it within our power to do anything but make the best of our lot and forge ahead along the path that has been traced for us. There is not a single virtue which is not necessary to Nature and conversely not a single crime which she does not need and it is in the perfect balance she maintains between the one and the other that her immense science consists; but can we be guilty for adding our weight to this side or that when it is she who tosses us onto the scales? no more so than the hornet who thrusts his dart into your skin.

PRIEST—Then we should not shrink from the worst of all crimes.

DYING MAN—I say nothing of the kind. Let the evil deed be proscribed by law, let justice smite the criminal, that will be deterrent enough; but if by misfortune we do commit it even so, let's not cry over spilled milk; remorse is inefficacious, since it does not stay us from crime, futile since it does not repair it, therefore it is absurd to beat one's breast, more absurd still to dread being punished in another world if we have been lucky to escape it in this. God forbid that this be construed as encouragement to crime, no, we should avoid it as much as we can, but one must learn to shun it through reason and not through false fears which lead to naught and whose effects are so quickly overcome in any moderately steadfast soul. Reason, sir—yes, our reason alone should warn us that harm done our fellows can never bring happiness to us; and our heart, that contributing to their felicity is the greatest joy Nature has accorded us on earth; the entirety of human morals is contained in this one phrase: Render others as happy as one desires oneself to be, and never inflict more pain upon them than one would like to receive at their hands. There you are, my friend, those are the only principles we should observe, and you need neither god nor religion to appreciate and subscribe to them, you need only have a good heart. But I feel my strength ebbing away; preacher, put away your prejudices, unbend, be a man, be human, without fear and without hope forget your gods and your religions too: they are none of them good for anything but to set man at odds with man, and the mere name of these horrors has caused greater loss of life on earth than all other wars and all other plagues combined. Renounce the idea of another world; there is none, but do not renounce the pleasure of being happy and of making for happiness in this. Nature offers you no other way of doubling your existence, of extending it. —My friend, lewd pleasures were ever dearer to me than anything else, I have idolized them all my life and my wish has been to end it in their bosom; my end draws near, six women lovelier than the light of day are waiting in the chamber adjoining, I have reserved them for this moment, partake of the feast with me, following my example embrace them instead of the vain sophistries of superstition, under their caresses strive for a little while to forget your hypocritical beliefs.

NOTE

The dying man rang, the women entered; and after he had been a little while in their arms the preacher became one whom Nature has corrupted, all because he had not succeeded in explaining what a corrupt nature is.
- The Marquis De Sade

I would like to close by saying that I appreciate all views and accept everyone's beliefs, but each and every belief shows something about the person who chooses to believe it. What do your beliefs say about you?

P.S. - Hope this has been helpful to some of you.

[MindCrime]

That's an excellent piece, I really enjoyed it. I especially took notice of the passage in the second speech where he asked if God did exist, would need maricles and maryters to be known to us? Wouldn't he, through divine insperation, be known to us inherently?

Here's another thought excercise to toy around with. The stage, as it is set, shows an omniponent, supreme, creator being, worshiped by a collection of mortals who seek reward for their loyalty. They fear punishment.

My question is: what do they owe to him? Human reproduction is a clearly defined process, we can rule out and divine hand in it. Therefore, a person upon birth is totally free of any obligation to the divine. He only makes himself accountable by entering into a covenant with God, at which point he is indebted.

Otherwise they owe God nothing, and worship him only out of fear. We are enslaving our existances to him! What use does a supremely divine creature have with a handful of mortal creatures anyway? Suppose we stop caring about him, but he is still interested in us. Now, instead of existing for him, he is exesting for us as it were. A supreme being, concerning his entire existance over a pack of apathetic mortals. Will he send us to Hell? That would be rather pethetic of him. A childish response towards those who disagree, and in doing so, such a God would be below the mortals he punishes.

It is through such a means that we can turn the table on this God. He exists for us, and so we can dispense with him if necessary. Will he punish us? If he does, then you have become greater than the divine.

[TheDerminator]

El Che
Find out what it is all about you need a printer!
Got the text!
Time is running out.
Only time to respond in short bursts to some new comers to the thread.
Will return later to give proper time.

Just noticed one thing by someone, apologise for not catching the name....
....Use Objective methodology,
to expoit the masses? Not masses, the workers and the poor. People with identities, not a faceless mass.
If the bastards ever understand the method, their own ethos will make the bastards contemplate mass fucking suicide, because, the tool has to be in your head, it starts with the question:
Why?

Besides that is not the real point.

The real point.
Durp.

The real point
Durp.

If nothing can never become something.

Durp.

If the creation of God is only grounded in nothingness

Durp.

If that all ethos you possess, all knowledge you possess is grounded in concrete understanding.

Durp.

Come on. Have some fucking self-confidence!

Durp.

They use our method unethically?

Durp.

Do we not ram it down their fucking throats?

Durp.

Yes you can use the method to do great evil

Durp.

Genocide of wanton neglect

Durp.

Do we go on as a non-fucking movement?

Durp.

What is your fucking alternative?

Durp. Durp. Durp.

Fucking nothingness.

Durp.

Fine fucking comforter to those grieving for the dead

Durp.

Durp. Durp. Durp. Durp.

Have some fucking self-confidence yourself!

Have some fucking self-confidence in the socialist movement!

Durp.

No why you are scared?

No fucking self-confidence...

Be afraid, be very afraid..

Durp.

Be afraid you bourgeios bastards, our movement is going bury your shit Planet Grime.

Durp.

That is confidence.

Durp.

If we ever get some movement...
That is my complete confidence.

Durp. Durp. Durp......

derminated.

[TheDerminator]

er um.
beam me up Scottie.

(Edited by TheDerminator at 12:30 pm on Mar. 3, 2002)

[Imperial Power]

Derminator I am becoming interested in your condition. Have you been diagnosed with any psychological conditions? Some of your rantings appear to be compulsive schizophrenia. Perhaps you could explain your last post a little.

[Moskitto]

Nice one IP, for once I agree with you.

[El Che]

Determinator i understand your point, but this is unnecessary... I get it, legit metaphor. Yea ok thats very nice, but i would much rather you determinated me with an objective academic response. Do it, i really dont care, im just arguing this point because to me it is the logical one. If you can show me it is not, if anything i will be greatfull for to me all religion is nothing more then corrosive virus. But its a matter of opinion. I can prove nothing in the natural level much less in the supernatural one(?). Does it exist? i dont know, i cant for it posits it self above my natural understanding. Come its time to obejctivly determinate me with philososphical arguements, add some legit metaphors if you with so you can change the from of the content. But this content must obejctivly, logicaly justify its self for if not it must recognise its self as a matter of opinion. In which cass you will have to admit it. I have all respect for you, arguing a different point is surly not percieved by you as a personal atack of any nature. I am infact glad you are here for superficial debates tend to get boring. But allas you are being a bit superficial your self... Not by nature but by choise.

[The Iron Heel]

The existence or non-existence of God, cannot be proven. Irrespective if one is a theist, atheist, or agnostic, these sort of (epistemological, ontological) discussion cannot in anyway be tied with the praxis of Marxist theory (the social, economic, etc. consequences of religion are very relevant however).

Recently the issue of God arose in the form of the Hot Big Bang Model (a very theistically inclined model). The alterative (and equally plausible, in my opinion even more convincing) cosmological model of Plasma Cosmology, developed by the Swedish (and Marxist) Nobel Prize phsyicist, Ahnnes Alfven, of course recieves a lot less publicity due to obvious institutional bias.

I highly recommend the very informal & inteligable book written by two remarkable scholars, Ted Grant (worked with Alfven, I believe) & Alan Woods. It deals with these question and beyond in a very dialectical and poignant fashion.

If you're a Marxist, this book is a must read, and best of all, it is available to read for free online.

Click here for -> Reason in Revolt : Marxist Philosophy and Modern Science (http://www.marxist.com/rircontents.asp)

The question of religion is also discussed at some lengths, this book is one of the most insighful modern Marxist writings I have yet to read.

[Nateddi]

LOL @ Derm

[El Che]

I might take you up on that sugestion comrade if i can find the time.

[peaccenicked]

dermi. phone me immediately.

[munkey soup]

That boyo dermy should write a book, one that resembles that last post, I would surely read it. It was the most interesting one of his posts yet.
You are a crazy one, dermy, but its always the crazy ones who write the greatest books.

[Rosa]

Dermy, your proof of god's non-existence will decorate every toilette doors on Faculty of Philosophy, that I'm studying on. Long live The Determinator!
Crazy= unnormal=not like 50 percent of people that we could call "the average", , so: (for Monkey soup): yes, only crazy people should write books, and their books only are worthy of somebody's time. (the 25% of underaverage people probably wouldn' write a book bec. they prob. can't write) . That's how humankind is making a progress.
...will send responses from toilette's door

[TheDerminator]

Odbar, the wisest of the wise, sat with Rodbar, the majician, high overlooking the Valley of Fuckemskum.
"Odbar", I really want to learn the OM.
"Easy. Just name a subject"
"Invisibility"
"Of what?"
"Just in general"
"What is general invisibility?"
"Stuff you cannot see".
"So the subject is invisble stuff?"
"Yep."
"So where is the ground?"
"How can there be ground if it is invisible you cannot see any ground!"
"What do you mean by ground?"
"It's foundation."
"That is not the only meaning you know."
"We are being philosophical, you cannot mean the ground we are sitting on!"
"No, I do not mean that kind of ground, I am thinking of your foundation meaning, but I am relating it to the environment. I am saying the invisible stuff, must have a foundation in the environment, or it rules out even the possibility of existence."
"Yep, but it does not rule any possibility either just to say it is environmental ground".
"I never said it did, but do you agree it must have an environmental foundation?"
"What if it came out of the blue from another planet?"
"There is still the universe as the environmental ground."
"True"
"We can even be more specific than that about the invisble alien."
"How so?"
"Well think of the totality of the universe, we can say that some things are visible, they are not invisible, so for instance say you were to be exact and say you are talking about an invisible being here on Earth that is an alien, then you cannot be that invisible alien, can you?"
"But how do you know anything exists outside of our consciousness and we are not invisible. Is there not the possibility that nothing exists?"
"So perhaps, or not perhaps nothing exists?"
"Exactly!"
"You wish to rule out common-sense?"
"Only, a probability, my dear Odbar, it is not an exact science."
"So your question comes only from your consciousness?"
"I wouldn't go that far, everything has to be proven"
"So where did you get the question from?"
"For you to answer"
"Would you accept it is in the form of a language?"
"Yes."
"Sorry?"
"I said, yes"
"What does that word mean?"
"You have to prove that too."
"You are talking in alien language."
"I am being clear enough!"
"Well how is it I can understand you?"
"Eh, I am confused, I thought you said that I am talking in alien language!"
"You have to make up your mind my friend, either we both know the meaning of your words or we are speaking alien languages. How can it even be a possibility that it is a totally alien language if you comprehend my speech?"
"Say I do not."
"Sorry?"
"There is no need to be sarcastic Odbar!"
"You have to admit my friend, that either you comprehend the language or it is incomprehensible, it is a negative or a positive with no room for a neutral in between".
"Okay, say I accept you have proved commonality of language between me and you, it does not disprove or prove anything about the invisible!"
"Nope, but it means the idea that you cannot prove anything whatsoever, has just be knocked on the head, because you are saying absolutely, yes or no to the question about language."
"Could not I invent my own language!"
"Just to speak to yourself?"
"Yep!"
"Give me just one word"
"Gluga"
"Does it have a meaning?"
"No"
"Then it is just is a sound of little fury signifying nothing."
"Possibly, it has a meaning."
"Sounds like an either, or situation to me."
"So?"
"Positive or negative, those absolutes again."
"Just a possibility, my friend!"
"Not really, you see my dear Rabdo, there are only two choices, and either you have given the word a meaning or you have not, there is nothing in between, no maybe."
"How do you know?"
"Because the word maybe means you are contrasting the perhaps, with perhaps not, the perhaps is a positive, the perhaps not is a negative, and you cannot remove the contrast without making the word an absolute initself.
Either you have an absolute contrast, or you have an absolute positive or negative, which absolute do you like the best my friend? You do not know the meaning of the possible or probable!
"What is wrong with accepting the contrast perhaps or not perhaps?"
"It is still an absolute contrast! The contrast is necessitated in the meaning of the word."
"So either Gluga has a meaning or does not?"
"Yes."
"Why couldn't you have said that in the first place!"
"You miss the point. You have accepted an absolute, and there is no maybe or possibility or even probability in an absolute, an absolute is an absolute, because it is indeed an absolute certain fact or truth.
Even the most relativisitic of terms the "possible" contains the absolute contrast in its meaning."
"Ah, but you miss the point! The word Gluga exists for me only! I possess the meaning, you do not!"
"It has a real meaning?"
"Yes."
"It is translatable into our language?"
"Yes."
"Sounds like yet another abosolute to me, my friend. An exact meaning is an absolute, it is absoluteness, is contained within its exactness!"
"Aha, you sophist, aha! I have another word, Grotus, I can relate it to! It is now a relative!"
"Does Grotus, have an exact meaning too?"
"Yes"
"You have only related one absolute to another, I never threw out relativity, you just threw out the absolute"
"The possibility"
"Back to absolute contrast and are you sure Gluga relates to Grotus?"
"Yes".
"Absolutely sure!"
"Okay, you have made, your point, in the realm of language there are some absolutes, and we need them to relates which possess meanings we understand in common language, but language is not reality, and we have to return to invisible reality!"
"Back to reality. There is this possibility, you are saying that it exists or not"
"Yes"
"You now know why the excursion in to language was necessary, you are saying perhaps or not perhaps the invisible exists."
"Okay two absolutes"
"So there is absolute existence or absolute non-existence!"
" I suppose."
"It could or could not be in the environment"
"Yes"
"The invisible stuff"
"Yes"
"Do I need to accept the premise that it exists?"
"You can or cannot, all your decision."
"Two more absolutes"
"Admitted."
Is there an sign in nature, that you can point to as proof as sign of the existence of the invisible?"
"No, it is motionless invisibility."
"So, I just have your word for it?"
"Yes."
"So what is the subject?"
"Invisibility."
"General invisibility"
"Yes".
"It came from your consciousness not mine."
"Yes"
"So the subject is general invisibility withing your consciousness."
"Yes"
"So what is the subject?"
"General invisibility."
"No, my friend you are the subject, your consciousness, and you created topic in your head, just like you created the words Gluga and Grotus in your head.
You are the subject!"
"You sophist. You know there is a difference, you possess the words general invisibility in your head too, you know exactly what they mean!"
"Ah, my friend, if you had provided a translation I would have known exactly what you meant by Gluga and Grotus!
You miss the point."
"That is?"
"I have no ground upon which to accept the premise. None. You have given me none, and that you cannot deny!
You possess a belief in general invisibility, and say we were to call this general invisibility the phenonemon of God, you would have just created the concept of God in your own consciousness, is that not the case?"
"I suppose, but there is more to God, than invisibility"
"Accepted."
"So, what is the point?"
"The point is that the subject is not God!
The subject is human consciousness!
The first rule was broken by the creator of the OM. Always ask what is the heart of the matter!"
"The heart of the matter?"
"The relationship between the subject and the ground. You see the ground does not exist outside your consciousness, you created the ground in your head, the subject outside of your own being.
You are the subject, human consciousness created God as a concept."
"Mighten have God created us to create God?"
"So you accept that God is a creation of human conciousness?"
"Yes"
"We invented it in our minds?"
"Yes"
"There is no ground outside of our minds"
"No"
"God only exists in our minds?"
"No, we conceived of God, because gave us consciousness in order to conceive of God."
"And all we have the basis of our belief is what?"
"Our consciousness".
"So why isn't the belief of God in my consciousness? I am an athiest. How come God is not in my consciousness as a belief?"
"You have no Faith."
"In what?"
"In God."
"In the God created in human consciousness?"
"Yes."
"I have no blind belief in this invention in consciousness"
"God gave us the power of invention."
"Says who?"
"I have faith"
"In human invented God?"
"No, that God, invented us so we could invent God."
"Sounds a lot of invention."
"You shouldn't mock."
"Isn't the problem that your Faith all stems from the invention of God, and if you never invented God, you could not possess that Faith. Your whole Faith is based upon the invention of God in human consciousness, an existence which only exists inside your heads."
"It is the chicken or egg thing, what came first."
"The egg came first."
"How do you know?"
"The species of the parent is different from the species of the child", that is the only way species can evolve."
"You have answer for everything!"
"It is evolution, we evolved God in human consciousness, we evolved Faith in human consciousness and you all you are doing is using that Faith to say God came first, pure and simple."
"Does not mean it is not true!"
"Er um. Invention upon invention, you accept you invented God, you accept your faith is based upon invention, you have no ground for your subject except your consciousness.
No ground for your Faith except your consciousness. A subject that only has human consciousness for its ground is by its very own defenition only an invention of consciousness."
"But God gave us the capacity!"
"How do you know?"
"I have Faith! Ihave Faith!"
"In invention! In invention! Not in God! Your Faith is only ground in invention!"
"Sounds an eternal circle to me!"
"No, my friend. When the ground is only in human consciousness, there is no ground outside human consciousness, God does not exist outside human consciousness, and the heart of the matter is only in your head.
There is no relationship between the subject and the external ground, all foundation, is internal ground it is inside of your head.
If the subject is only grounded in human consciousness, God does not exist outside our consciousness, and if God only exists in our consciousness, God does not exist!"
"Yet, I say God created us to have Faith in God".
"My friend, you are doomed to your own circular logic, that cannot see beyond the creation of God, and the creation of Faith."
"What about something cannot come from nothing, you are usually consistent!"
"We invented God, from not having a greater level of consciousness, from the nothingness of our ignorance, and it is still the cornerstone of the historical development of the creation of God, but it is the heart of the matter which matters most, and you have to forgive the writer of the OM, it was his first try at the OM, and as the old saying goes practise makes perfect!"
"Perfect my ass, I still have my faith!"
"Grounghas, grogmidas, groffid"
"What does that mean?
"I still have my faith!"
derminated.

(Edited by TheDerminator at 11:50 pm on Feb. 21, 2002)

[El Che]

hell yea :) wellcome back man.

[El Che]

im going to have to ElCheminate you though :)

[El Che]

Nice edit there derminator, allow me a few questions of my own to odbar if you will. A small matter of cross examination.


Odbar how do you know all that is real has an environmental foundation?

Odbar the wise, how do you know we can preceive all that is environamental? how do you know there isn`t a part of the ground, of the enviorment that we canot see, understand and catalog?


Odbar do you claim that the same word means exactly the same to me and to you? the absolute exact same? Being a wise man im sure you would not make such a childish mistake... But then again do you?


Odbar how do you know the absolute exists if you know no absolutes? you can be sure it exists, its just a possibility. And would it be wise to say Odbar, that because we can assert no absolutes we can not pronounce our selves on its very existence of that is in its self a claim over an absolute reality. The absolute is absolute get it? if you cant odbar pronounce your self absolutly on any subject how can you then pronounce your self on the question of the existence of the absolute? Either way you cant.

Odbar there isnt only faith.. God manifests him self through miracles and other such activities. Once again, to prove he does not exist you would have to know eveything, all of reality absolutly. And even then you would be able to prove he doesnt exist. You know why? because this being claims he exists on a plain, a level that you can not achive that you can not precieve. Odbar if you cant precieve things/entities on that level, the supernatural, how can you prove it doesnt exist? you can claim it... But you cant prove it. It setts its self above your reach wise one, you can especulate but u cant prove. I can always say i have faith in god because i feel him, i have seen his miracles and he gives me peace. You see Odbar we cant preceive into the supernatural but the entities there in(?) can interfere in the natural.

Odbar can you see gravity? but it exists does it not? Could i say then that gravity is invisible? we cant see can we? but we can preceive it, yes. How do you know then Odbar the wise that there arent some invisibles you can preceive at all? Well if you cant how dare you pronounce your self!?

(Edited by El Che at 7:34 am on Feb. 22, 2002)

[TheDerminator]

Glad you liked the edit El Che.

How do I know the real has an environmental foundation?

There are only two possibilities.
You are using the word "real" the latter presupposes some form of actual existence does it not?
It is the actual, same thing.
How do we know the actual exists outside of ourselves?
There are only two possibilities, ofcourse.
It exists or it does not and the "possibility" cannot escape the inevitability of the collapse into a negative or an affirmation, a point you skipped somewhat.
Let's examine the negative possibility that reality does not exist outside of our selves?
It can only be consciouness that exists in such a possibility, you have rid yourself of all externality, hence there is only your own consciousness, you are isolated consciousness and all that exists is your isolated consciousness, because if you move from consciousness to your body, you are giving your body and environment, and it has to be consciousness without a brain, since they brain is the environment of consciousness.
It can only be completely isolated consciousness, alone in the universe, except there is no universe only your isolated consciousness.
Your isolated consciousness is now the only subject, it is the internal ground. It is its own self-contained environment.
Yet, you have a problem, you are thinking words, any words, exact meanings or not, you have words in your head, and you never invented those words, because you are speaking or writing in a language and you never invented that alphabet, that language, and every thought you have depends upon its existence before you existed otherwise you would indeed be Tarzan in the Jungle without the power to express words in your own consciousness. It is a legit example, because language is a social phenonemon.
Every time you utter a word no matter how vague you are asserting reality beyond your own consciousness exists and that is an absolute recognition of the necessity for language.
El Che
All words have exact commonality except when a new word is invented, we can find every common meaning in a dictionary, and context tells us how to differentiate even with a metaphor, there is no mystification within language.
You ask "do you?" I know exactly what you mean, you are asking me a question, no one else, and it is not a rhetorical question, it a question, you want others to feel is just, but your prime objective is to address the question to me.
You are mystifying the process of how language develops.
You say, I know no absolutes, but how do you get around the absolute of having to possess some form of language in your own consciousness?
Your premise is wrong, and it makes your either or question in relation to the absolutes a non-starter, and you are still stating absolute contrast positive or negative, you cannot get around the absolute contrast of positive and negative contained in the word possible.
You are stating that absolute time and again! The possibility, to or not to be that is the question!
You cannot have it both ways either there is the absolute possibility or non-possibility, and nothing can be more absolute than nothingness.

El Che
What fucking miracles?
You are stating an absolute!
I have no Faith that such miracles exist, I have never witnessed a miracle in my life, where was the miracle of September 11, live on television, when we saw all those fearful people waving for help before the towers collapsed. They needed a fucking miracle, and so do many on Death Row in the United States, but the miracle is not going to come, you know where you can put shit miracles, we should flush the shit down the toilet as more than one person has done to my proof that God does not exist.
At least my shit is tangible!
You who wants proof of reality believes in miracles, now that is what I call irony!
We do know everything absolutely about God, we know why we created God, we know it came from non-knowledge, it came from nothingness, we know every attribute of God is otherness to a human attribute, we know we created God only in our conscious activivity and that we have no tangible proof of the "miracle" only mystifications of the unknown.

El Che
Where does the claim come from?
What is the foundation for the claim?
The Bible, The New Testament etc. Did God speak to you directly to tell you? No, you have accepted a premise without question its validity, and that is dogma my friend, that is dogma and only dogma, just like your belief in miracles, just like your Faith. Unquestioning dogma.
You cannot perceive that which does not exist, and as soon as give a name to any supernatural phenemenon, you fall into the exact same arguments of invention and of nothingness attached to the concept of God.
There is no "supra" existing outside of consciousness, because the unnatural is natural, it is the natural mystification of the unknown of the glorification of ignorance, of the saturation of mystification. Come to the darker waters, purify yourself. I would rather stink for an eternity!

You see the miracles. Well, I watched September 11 as it unfolded on television, and if I ever wanted to see a miracle live on television it was at that juncture. If, I had seen one, you know my eyesight isn't that bad, and if those towers had went up again, if everyone in the towers who died was brougth back to life again, I would be more devout than you my friend, more devout than you.
What miracles? Do you call every great thing in life a miracle and every bad thing God moving in mysterious ways, you probably do?
What miracles?
Why can we atheists never see the miracles?
What is the difference between our eyesight and your eyesight?
The difference ofcourse is Faith.
You see the "miracles" because you possess Faith.
I see at most the mystification of the unknown, because you possess complete unadulterated dogma, blind dogma, blind Faith.
And what of my Faith?
Earlier in the thread, I said that we should have self-confidence, and confidence in the socialist movement, if we ever go beyond non-movement.
What is confidence, other than belief.
What is belief other than faith.
You see I possess faith, you possess Faith.
My faith is tangible faith, your Faith is the idolisation of abstract nothingness, because that is what the concept of collapses into, abstract nothingness.

Invisibles, invisibles.
You have lost the plot, gravity is a complete tangible. There are laws of gravity. Newton was one of our earliest scientists. Gravity exists. Gravity is real. Gravity is a physical force, just like the infinite continuums of time and force, which are other tangible invisibles.
There is invisibility invisibility, I cannot see an atom, but I know everything has atoms related to its existence, the atoms are invisible, but again like gravity, space, time and even the wind, we know there are physical laws which govern their being, their existence, and thes laws prove their existence.
Invisible God is only attached to an abstract concept created in the nothingness of the imagination as an alternative to nothingness.
I can perceive and understand the laws of physics if I wish to apply myself to them, there is nothing to apply to the concept of God, because it is an empty concept, and all my application thus far is centred on the subject of human consciousness, not of God.
God has never been the subject, and the subject has always been Faith in "God" it has always been dogma, Christ was the only exception, because out of his version of the Faith led directly to the toleration of atheism, and thus it contains a doctrinal element capable of going beyond dogma. It is the doctrinal element which makes Christ a spiritual socialist, and without it, Christianity would have just been another dogma from which atheism could not spring.
My faith comes from the spirit of Christ, your Faith comes from the spirit of those who crucified Christ, the dogmatists. That is what Christ challenged, blind faith in previous religions, and previous religious dogma, it is not enough to say he just created another dogma, he created atheism due to the toleration in the creed he propounded.
Thankyou for your welcome, I must admit I have acheived my greatest breakthrough in philosophy bar none. I am beginning to grow on Monkey Soup!
Ye of little faith!
There is nothing schizophrenic in my argumentation, I do not believe in God, and when I lost the plot with Peaccenick God was a metaphor, and so was the "Promised Land". Still the cheap shots are always the best!
I am not going to answer the shootist too directly, I still think is a bit discraceful to call yourself something that is pure fucking evil. Imperialism, I mean was Adolf Hitler not an imperialist? Fucking Hell, he never spotted that!
derminated.

[La Resistance]

i really wont take sides on this issue, but im leaning towards atheism.

good job in making the opposition shit in their pants btw ;)

[KOMUNISTKa]

I think that all the thing with great God above all is just to simple and trivial to be true. The world is a beautiful place of many things, which can all be explained with the power of human intelligence. And even if they can't be, we have no reason not to keep trying:).

I believe universe is a bunch of vibrations, like ones and zeros in machine code. We form them into our 4-dimensional world with our senses, which convert this "machine code" to some sort of "human code" which our brain understands. From there, we can run "applications" according to our environment and needs.

Ummm, if you call this God, okay. But i'm sure he's not an old man with a long white beard:)

[El Che]

Derminator, i have said before that i am an athiest, im only arguementing with you because i like a good discussion. And also because i feel i have ample ground on which to base my position. Now to your objections.

You say there is the absolute, you say the mear concept of "possibility" proves this because the is a dictomy there in. It either is or isnt, it possibly is and possibly isnt, either way you have two absolute oposites. Granted. But to this i would counter that our words, our concepts mean nothing because we are nothing our selves! You see where im getting at? You might have trouble because it requires some abstraction. You are so confident the your emperical aproch to reality that i fear you wont make that abstraction. Abstraction from what? from concepts for one thing. That you can prove the absolute is recognised within our languege i dont doubt, that you can prove it exists out there, in the real we fail to achive in full, i am sure you cant.

Consciousness yes, here too i see where you want to get at, here too i see your lack of abstraction. In dealing with such concepts as this discussion encompases do you realise the logical error that lack of abstraction constitutes? Back to consciousness. I think, im think right now... im think about what to right next and im remembering how words are spelled etc. Shit if im thinking then i have to be here, my mind, consciousness has to exist... Right? wrong. I am not absolutly sure of this, because any number of obscure forces/entities could be producing in me this ilusion[? is it?] that i am here discussing with you. Whether it sounds absurd or not is irrelevate for what concerns us is it possibility. Words are nice tools but when it comes to proving stuff they fall short of the mark. I am not absolutly sure that consciousness exists and neither are you, you know why? because i wont let you be, i will continue to present possibilities over which you can not pronounce your self, and therefore can not recognise the absolute existence of consciousness. You said you did know an absolute, and yet are unable to give me one example... And i dont mean of absolute within your head, something you recognise as absolute, that would be to easy and to irrelevant too. No what I want is that you show me an example of absolute out there in reality[? is"out there" reality?] for that is the subject matter.


What micracles? oh i dunno.. How about walking on water, parting the sea, resurection etc. Please dont personalise :) to say that i believe in these miracles is to insult my inteligence :) But can i prove them wrong? nop. And do you know why i brought this up? because you told us that we invented god and therefor it is impossible for him to exist out side our head. But the religious dudes say god came to them, jesus came, he came to show them the light and give them the "good news". This was to illustrate the fact that while we can not achive the supernatural, the supernatural can manifest its self onto the natural. Does the supernatural not exist? how do you know if you can not achive it? "Because --you say--if we cant achive it we cant know of its existence". "Yes but its manifests its self in our world!-- the religious dude counters-- it comes to give us the good news, that how i know it exists, thats why i have faith!"


You know its a good thing you bring up time. Did you know the every existence of time is now in question? Yes in avanguard physics... My father is reading a book on that subject and just the other day he was talking to me about it :) You see the mistakes you exposse your self to when claiming absolute existence of any given reality? Btw my reference to gravity was only to make the point that for many centuries we didnt know it existed (in scientific terms where no absolutes are every asserted) but it was there non the less... Ask your self how many realities you dont know exist but are there non the less? As with Thales de Mileto and his answer to the question "what is the essence of things", it is the fact that he made the question that is importante and not the answer (water:)). Too, with you the importante thing is that you make the question and not give the answer.


Hit me back,

(Edited by El Che at 6:38 pm on Feb. 22, 2002)

[MJM]

I don't know if this is really relevent to the subject, but it may help to see why I think we can't have definitive proof of the non existance of god in a universe we don't even fuuly percieve.

The italics are mine.

From Michio Kaku's web site.
A 10 DIMENSIONAL UNIVERSE

The curious feature of superstrings, however, is that they can only vibrate in 10 dimensions. This is, in fact, one of the reasons why it can unify the known forces of the universe: in 10 dimensions there is "more room" to accommodate both Einstein's theory of gravity as well as sub-atomic physics. In some sense, previous attempts at unifying the forces of nature failed because a standard four dimensional theory is "too small" to jam all the forces into one mathematical framework.

To visualize higher dimensions, consider a Japanese tea garden, where carp spend their entire lives swimming on the bottom of a shallow pond. The carp are only vaguely aware of a world beyond the surface. To a carp "scientist," the universe only consists of two dimensions, length and width. There is no such thing as "height." In fact, they are incapable of imagining a third dimension beyond the pond. The word "up" has no meaning for them. (Imagine their distress if we were to suddenly lift them out of their two dimensional universe into "hyperspace," i.e. our world!)

However, if it rains, then the surface of their pond becomes rippled. Although the third dimension is beyond their comprehension, they can clearly see the waves traveling on the pond's surface. Likewise, although we earthlings cannot "see" these higher dimensions, we can see their ripples when they vibrate. According to this theory, "light" is nothing but vibrations rippling along the 5th dimension. By adding higher dimensions, we can easily accommodate more and more forces, including the nuclear forces. In a nutshell: the more dimensions we have, the more forces we can accommodate.

One persistent criticism of this theory, however, is that we do not see these higher dimensions in the laboratory. At present, every event in the universe, from the tiniest sub-atomic decay to exploding galaxies, can be described by 4 numbers (length, width, depth, and time), not 10 numbers. To answer this criticism, many physicists believe (but cannot yet prove) that the universe at the instant of the Big Bang was in fact fully 10 dimensional. Only after the instant of creation did 6 of the 10 dimensions "curled up" into a ball too tiny to observe. In a real sense, this theory is really a theory of creation, when the full power of 10 dimensional space-time was manifest.

[TheDerminator]

El Che, I was posting a new topic on poverty in the capitalism v socialism threads. This cafe is about to close, so I will just make a few points, okay you were giving a hypothesis, but you are ducking and diving on the question of the absolute.
You know you could not comprehend me without language, and the necessity for a language is an absolute that overrides every concept abstract or otherwise.
I have studied the nature of abstract concepts, and Gop is an abstract concept. If you were not an atheist I could end this subject with one sentance there is nothing more absolute than blind faith in God, how is it possible to be more sure than blind faith!
You do not understand the relationship between absolutes and abstract concepts.
The quality of "difference" is an abstract concept, it is a judgement value we place on qualities of a subject or on subjects themselves.
Take the simple idea of counting on our fingers. The number one can only be realised if you can differentiate between one and greater than one or a fraction of the one or a minus or zero.
Counting just to one requires differentiation. It does not need to be fingers ofcourse, any thing could do, such as a few apples. The means is not important, it is the abstract symbolism in the head which does the counting!
Now think of that one, for you to count even to one, the difference must be an absolute difference.
You cannot be semantic, one plus one does not make eleven, it makes two, and that is the process of arithmetic.
The process is the same no matter the language. There is no room for interpretation. One and one must always make two and that is set in stone or you reject simple arithmetic as a fantasy of the mind.
There is a huge difference between a fantasy of the mind and an abstract concept even though the concept comes from consciousness. Difference determines a quality of reality, it does not branch into the supernatural.
I haven't the time to give you a paragraph by paragraph response at the moment, but you avoiding the isssues. Our concepts are nothing because we are nothing ourselves!
Oh yeah, there is a lot of something coming from your nothingness my friend, a hell of a lot of something, and you have caught me in a good mood!
How do you explain all that somethingness of your own consciousness? This is the main question you must answer.
As for your examples of miracles, are these absolute examples? No my friend they were made up, just like God, just like Faith in God.

I have not time to answer the others except that La Resistance resistance is not sitting on the fence, it is jumping off the fence, and you really should live up to your great name you know. You are heading in the right direction, you know the enemy!
KOMUNISTIKa.
I am not sure if you read the thread or not, but the very first monotheist from Europe also rejected the old man with the white beard stuff. It is immaterial as to the form of God to a large extent, it is the concept of God, which matters and you are right to see it as simple, but it is far from trivial, too many billions believe in the shit to make it trivial and the opium of the people leading to the genocide of wanton neglect is the very opposite of being unimportant.

MJM
I have not intention of visiting Kaku's website, no matter how well intentioned he is, the thinking is extreme mechanical thinking taken to one of its greatest absurdities. How can you prove nothingness does not exist in a laboratory? Ludicrous, the only way to prove God does not exist is through an understanding of how the concept of God, was developed from the nothingness of essentially non-conception.
derminated.

(Edited by TheDerminator at 9:53 am on Feb. 23, 2002)

[TheDerminator]

El Che, I know you may well be busy with other stuff, so I just want to cut to the chase, the point has been reached when I am asking you to explain the absolute existence of your own consciousness, because that is the proof of Descartes "I think therefore, I am".

In matter of fact Descartes could have said any combination of words before "therefore I am" and it is the same proof because conscious thought is interdependent upon existance, and even the words "I am" reflect conscious existance" in fact if Descartes, was a minimalist like myself, he could have reduced the proof to any word, even one he invented in his own consciousness, but "I" would have been the logical minimalistic approach.
Now, I know you might well say how can you prove absolutely words exist in your consciousness, how can you prove absolutely that you possess any language?

You see my friend, you have the proof in your head every time you think, every time you read. I cannot give you the proof, you have to see the proof for yourself.

It is deja vu.

I see somethingness, and you see nothingness, just like all Moskitto could see was nothingness. We have probably just reached an impasse, and I cannot take us through that impasse my friend, you have to start addressing the questions, without dodgery or we are just shooting the breeze and talking about nothingness in an endless monotonous "discourse".
I have better things to do in my life than devote it to monotony, I was beginning to sound like a broken down record to Moskitto and it is easy to predict more deja vu.
You see, I understand that there is only one answer to the question, and that is all human existence is conscious existence, and you cannot detach your own existence from your own consciousness, it is impossible, and you can never give an example that goes against that simple rule. You see I am not Selfist, and I did not invent the word Selfist, you can check it out with a google search. You cannot return the dead as an example, the dead are the dead, and although the spirit of their consciousness can live on, their actual consciousness dies with death.
You have no escape except into irrationality, and I cannot help an irrational "logician" become a rational logician, because this is all quite simple rational logic at this stage my friend.
I am not going to appeal to your humanity, because I have read some of your other threads, and you are a very humane human being, but all I would say is that you have never really met the best of the enemy, because they have a best my friend and the best would say to you prove we are your oppressors, prove there is oppression, prove there is the genocide of wanton neglect, prove Che was one of the good guys.
Proof! Proof! Proof!
That is a big difference between us my friend, I can ram the proof down their avaricious throats, they can walk away from you feeling your moral superior, and that in my view is appalling, because the bastards have a much lower ethos than us.
We are fast reaching an impasse, it may have been reached. This is my last post, forget the one before, this one you have to concentrate upon, because it focuses upon the main point of our disagreement, and we cannot go beyond the main point.
No dodgery please, only this one main point, and if you cannot see that it is the main point, I cannot help the irrational become rational.
derminated.

(Edited by TheDerminator at 10:34 am on Feb. 23, 2002)


(Edited by TheDerminator at 10:36 am on Feb. 23, 2002)