(I’m just gonna take this step by step)
No. I change it to:
No! I change it to:
(I’m gonna add one here.)
And, finally, I change this:
To this:
Thus Speaketh Shane.
I’m not an atheist.
i prefer to come at the “curse” from the perspective of it being the dominant form of language used by most of the less intelligent among our species. most often, the people that i hear using profanity are the people that have little to offer the world besides their labor. another large portion of the people spew obscenities are the people that have such a pathetically limited vocabulary, that these are the only words they know to fit the circumstances. if i revert to foul language, i chastise myself for slipping down a bit closer to average joe.
complain about it being due to the mild stigma all you want, but i suggest it to be more along the lines of something that offers a class glimpse at the class distinction.
I see it being about people trying to pervert words to fit their feeble notions of what’s ‘right,’ ‘socially acceptable,’ ‘non-taboo,’ etc. It’s just a word. It’s not going to make me stupid, it’s not going to make me immoral, it’s not going to limit my vocabulary, it’s just going to allow me to create and put emphasis on ideas that I want to get across. I don’t care about being seen as the average Joe. In fact, all it does is give me leverage over people who assume that I’m stupid or less smart than them because I curse.
Do what you will, but don’t assume that I’m stupid, less evolved, or somehow more average than I was before because of a specific word I used.
Fuck me. The whole swearing issue really fucks me right off. It is pissy complaining about a word. There is worse out there than a person using a word that ‘society’ deems unacceptable. As I stated on the racism thread, words have no intrinsic meaning. They are assigned meaning through collective agreement, which is why it makes conversation possible. But ultimately each individual can chose their own meanings for any term. Swearing conveys extreme emotions, usually either anger or joy. Pardon me if I don’t judge, ‘oh fiddlesticks’ to convey my anger at something as well as ‘shitey fucking arse wank!’ People who are offended by this chose to be offended, so as its your choice, deal with it. So please don’t revert to criticising someone’s language, it is just as bad as criticising someone’s spelling and grammar. As for being an average Joe, what the hell is wrong with that? I’m sorry but do you need to be blue-blooded toffs to have intelligence? If the average Joe’s of the world stopped offering their labour, I’m pretty sure most folk would be pretty pissed off. Your posts stink of upper class patronising. I generally don’t tend to swear in an intellectual conversation, but only because I don’t deem it necessary, but don’t presume that just because I say ‘bastard’, its because I have a limited vocabulary.
End of fucking rant
i agree, i am just complaining about a set of words. perhaps i am wasting my time. did i put down the average person for only offering labor to the world? no, i pointed out that some only have that to offer. that doesn’t reduce them, it just goes to support my point that not everyone is capable of in-depth conversation about abstract concepts. following this path, when i hear or read someone that starts cursing often and consistently, i save myself the time of listening to their (what is often) unproductive drivel. i will grant, there are a fair number of people that use plenty of offensive language and are quite intelligent, but that is another bridge i’ll cross when i meet people that cannot say something intelligent without dispensing excessive foul language.
if cursing is used to expressive extreme anger, than your life must be awfully miserable, that you should be living with so much rage at something, anything, all of the time. i don’t hear people cursing (keep in mind, i’m sticking to words that have pejorative meaning) out of joy… so, i cannot comment there.
Fuck yeah, I curse out of joy!
that says it all, god cannot be faith demanding
Surely it hasn’t been proved that God cannot be faith demanding. I don’t see any explicit reason in this chain of posts to believe that. So if you think otherwise you must provide good reasons. Otherwise your view is just dogmatism concerning the nature of God.
What the Babelfish Arguement assumes to prove that God doesn’t exist is the premise that God’s existence depends on faith. There are no good reasons to believe this. But more importanty, the Babelfish Arguement doesn’t have any obvious implication about the subject of God’s being faith demanding or not. It seems that the argument you implicitly endorse to support could be found in the following post:
That’s a fallacy of Equivocation (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation) because ‘to be faith demanding’ in Impious sense is plausibly this: An object is faith demanding iff it existence depends on faith; but ‘to be faith demanding’ in Tortoise sense seems to be this: An object is faith demanding iff it commands someone to have faith on him
Now, there seems to be reasons of this sort for such a view:
But what is the reason to believe that a benevolent God most certainly can’t punish somebody for a lack of faith.
Perhaps there is no moral reason to punish someone for having not faith in oneself, but why should God must act only in accordance with moral reasons. Are moral reasons the only kind of reasons a perfect being can have?
Probably not, but as imperfect beings, how are we to tell? Hence God works in mysterious ways.
Which seems to be the end of any philosophical discussion as to the boundaries of God’s behavior, which cannot be discussed under the given premise: we are not perfect and therefore unable to judge/setup rules for a perfect being.
Didn’t Jesus himself deny he was the son of god? Doesn’t this answer the question?
Anybody seen the Life of Brian?
whistle solo
-Imp
Brian: I’m not the Messiah! Will you please listen? I am not the Messiah, do you understand? Honestly!
Girl: Only the true Messiah denies His divinity.
Brian: What? Well, what sort of chance does that give me? All right! I am the Messiah!
Followers: He is! He is the Messiah!
Brian: Now, fuck off!
[silence]
Arthur: How shall we fuck off, O Lord?
I concur. If God is benevolent then he would understand why as puny humans we question his existence.
Any one that claims morality has its base in God should accept that God must act in accordance with moral reasons. If you don’t believe this and that morality is a human construct then thats a whole different matter
Greatest movie ever
greatest solo/song ever
(I corrected this so I could read it)
What about fossils?
First of all, God doesn’t only play a role in religions. Philosophers, such as Aristotle have develop a view in which some kind of ultimate being is needed to explain everything else existence. The reasons for believe in God’s existence that philosophers are interested shouldn’t have to be the same as religious people have. For example, in order to explain the appearance of design in the order that exist in the universe some philosophers have argue that God existence is needed. But insomuch that there is little moral order in the universe God doesn’t seem to be require to explain it. Obviously people that is, for example, Christian and believe that morality comes from God are committed to the view that God should be moral. But it is absolutely possible for a rational people to believe in God and to believe in morals, but to think both are independent. Surely is not the most usual view, but that doesn’t mean that it is mistaken.
Now, I don’t see why a philosopher should be so interested in demonstrate that a particular religion is mistaken. Surely we philosophers want to investigate truth, but not any truth. Perhaps there are 1244234255 grains of salt in my salt shaker, but who cares to investigate it… surely not philosophers. So, why is Christian’s God interesting for philosophers? I think that philosopher are interested in the idea of God in general, not in this religion’s God or that other religion’s God, and that philosophers are so interested in God because the philosophical relevance of it existence.
What about them…? I don’t understand… are fossils counterexamples of what I said… or what? (if you think they are could you say why you think so?)
I don’t see why imperfect beings could not understand more perfect being than them. There are obvious counterexamples to that principle: a psychologist could investigate for many years the mind of a great genius in order to understand how it works. Surely he hasn’t to be a genius to achieve his goals. Perhaps there are difficulties that make us impossible to understand God’s properties (to we, human beings). But till now I don’t see any reason you have given to justify that statement of yours.
Could a psychologist ever get the ideas of the genius by studying how his mind works? Would he ever understand the genius if he was a lesser man himself?
How can the child fathom the adults judgment, given it’s imperfect rationality and knowledge?
Ok. So let me put you another example. We can understand special theory of relativity of Einstein. But to develop such a theory it was needed a genius like him. But surely we are not genius in order to comprehend that theory. Now, if your argument succeeds perhaps we cannot understand some things about God. But from this it doesn’t follow that we cannot understand anything about him.
More importantly, you cannot hold such conclusion, because if you admit that it is reasonable to attribute more perfect rationality to God as a premise to such conclusion you would be contradicting such conclusion by holding that very premise. In my example the psychologist can understand how the mind of the genius works but, perhaps, he can’t understand the ideas of the genius. But he can understand some properties that the genius has.
And we, finite beings, surely can think some things about Gods ideas. Surely, if there is a God that satisfy the definition proposed, is as rational as it can gets. But surely any rational person should respect the logical principle of “no contradiction”. So surely it is true that if God exist then his ideas are not self contradictory (or at least his ideas are not self contradictory in a much more degree than ours)