basimpson22

I'm close to your sons age you know. I actually thought Amy Winehouse was in her early 30s. I was surprised to learn she was so young. It makes it that much more tragic. Something else I don't understand is how people can make jokes over her death or ridicule her for having demons.

I'm a big fan myself. I love her songs, My Tears Dry On Their Own, Just Friends, Love is a Losing Game, Back to Black all of which she wrote. Her songs came from personal experience. I don't understand how people say she's not talented.

Xray, you are right. Also, the video definitely favors Craig since he is the last one to speak. I'm sure Dawkins came back with an eloquent rebuttal to Craig's magic act. Edit: I went to church with the folks Sunday for the first time in months and the preacher spoke on God demanding Abraham to sacrifice his son. The preacher said,"You know God would've killed him too." I just shook my head. What nonsense, and everyone just eats up everything he says. It seems that noone applies that situation to themselves. They're all lunatics if they'd consider sacrificing their child. And its funny that that was the message cause I remember Neil talking about that in his book, saying that what God really wanted was for Abraham to tell him to go fuck himself. I don't understand preachers. They are like mini-Hitlers in my eyes. They say the most absurd things and go unchallenged, unquestioned. It would be considered heinous to speak out in contest. I sure was considering it Sunday.

Why would you want to avoid waking up in sleep paralysis? Because it can be terrifying. In my last post I was talking about the flash of light just inside my peripheral vision. Well, many times in the past, what I sense is a man just 'outside' of my peripheral vision. Of course, when I finally come out of the paralysis and check things out, nobody's there.

Is there supposed to be something in this post to view? Adam just my avatar

I'm guessing this is what you meant by Bart. Clock's ticking, hope you're able to enjoy it. Truly, I don't wish to remain in bad faith with anyone here on OL. I was naively defending Neil and making absurd accusations.

....I'm gonna do some research first

Perhaps this was intentional on Nick's part. It appears that politics and economics are highly intertwined (if not one in the same)(haven't they always been?). Federal Reserve, political or economic? IRS, Political or economic? SEC, political or economic? Bailout, political or economic? And 'pragmatically'/realistically speaking, I mean come on lets be real, the government is only concerned with money and power. Our foreign policy has much more to do with economics than it does human rights. So I would say that the contradiction is not his. I would say he presents his argument well.

I believe this explains well what I've come to conclude about you. I believe that you are simply looking for someone who shares this opinion with you. That supporting the government as an Objectivist is contradictory. Well, I agree with you. It is a contradiction. I think some Objectivists shy away from this issue because it seems quite radical. Rand saw tax as a form coercion. If an Objectivist held this non-contradictory view they might consider refusing to pay taxes. I personally believe it would be marvelous if the nation participated in a collective act of civil disobedience by refusing to pay their taxes.

And if it is subject to proof or disproof wouldn't it present us with a case of infinite regress?

Short answer: no. you can do better than that

So could it be said that objective reality is indeed subjective, and that objectiveness is for all intents and purposes an illusory concept, and that anyone who holds there "objective reality" above that of another is dogmatic.

A couple months after posting this I actually had experienced a visual sensation. It was a flash of light just inside my peripheral vision. Hasn't happened since. I try to avoid waking up in sleep paralysis by sleeping on my side or stomach.

I thought you may have skipped this Xray, so I posted it again. Tell me Xray, what other type of facts are there other than objective facts? Also, what makes a fact objective as opposed to just simply being a fact?

I truly don't believe Schulman was fibbing either. Also, I didn't believe God would be found free of coercion in the Bible. If that were the case, it would be pretty phenomenal, but Schulman, like myself, does not believe the Bible offers a completely faithful representation of God. From me:

I believe Dr. Craig does an excellent job of explaining this. See for yourself. Also, I just came across this video tonight. It pleases me that I am not the only one who has come to this sort of conclusion. Click Here

I felt this deserved another look. How can this not appeal to an Objectivist's reason? If all the world took the same approach to life as say, a William Scherk or a George Smith there would be limited progress, especially in science and research. They seem to fail at examining possible alternatives to their beliefs or better said, dogmatic opinions. Schulman has been verbally "crucified" here. Is he not a mind and voice worthy of your consideration?

Don't you think Mr. Schulman is accurate in describing some of those on OL as snide, condescending assholes.

First, i should apologize for making that suggestion. The last thing I wanted was to make Mr. Schulman feel he needed to make yet another defense of his credibility. Personally, I have ascertained Mr. Schulman as giving an honest and accurate account of his encounter. Again, I apologize.

And it is difficult to defend free will as a premise in of itself, especially if you consider it to be an absolute free will. Truth is, it makes more sense that God would make free will a privilege rather than something commonplace since with absolute free will, we would all be gods. In reality we are bound by natural laws as well as a bounty of social, economic, and genetic limitations. I suppose one could argue that we were given limited free will and if utilized properly we will obtain a more complete version in the next life. but that just sounds like mystic rubbish, huh? And then arises the possibility that Schulman's story is merely a ploy to earn a little extra income from people who wish desperately for a reason to believe in a Deity. Trick is to maintain cashflow he has to stick to his story. I'd say he's intelligent enough, and well, I guess that's something he could be proud of, lol.

Not quite. What I'm getting at is viewing OT passages from a modern perspective of individual rights. I don't know the history of those times, but from emphasis on this 'Tribe' and that 'Tribe', would guess at a form of feudalism - serfs and lords, basically. No chance of liberty for one born 'wrong'. Seen in a purely social context, the prophets preached an ethics of altruism for the privileged - thereby reinforcing the divide of rich and poor, it appears. Thus the poor had their 'uses' for the rich to patronize in their self-righteousness. All the while the immorality of the underlying principles of oppression and tribalism which forced poverty on the masses, went unchallenged by the prophets. Perhaps I am going too far, however, with my limited knowledge. In some ways, though - what's new? Reminds me of Mark Twain: "It ain't the parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand." Tony I must say Tony, that is written extremely well in my opinion. Although I still disagree with your use of altruism as it applies to the particular passage. They do expect something in return. Also, I am not certain if there is overriding evidence that prophets did indeed preach an ethics of altruism to the privileged and/or exclusively to the privileged. And again, I would argue that it ins't actually altruism. I admittedly have a limited knowledge of the OT. That's why I am speaking only of this passage. I like how you turned the utilization comment around, lol. edit: well i might be more accurate in saying you simply revealed the flip-side of the coin. As far as prophets not challenging tribalism and oppression, you can look to Patrick Gates line in National Treasure - Cooperation only last as long as the status quo is unchanged. I believe prophets, as well as, from a speculative standpoint, God, understood the reality of things quite well. Maybe the differences in income, status, etc. may be attributed to the effects of free will. And with free will as a premise one might check the bible for proof that God never actually coerced an individual. If that premise held true then you may very well have a libertarian God, lol.

I can't believe I haven't though of sharing this artist with all of you on OL before. I discovered him a couple years ago on youtube. He may not be everyone's taste but I personally enjoy him. He is a very talented artist and also excels at comedy, in my humble opinion. I've provided a couple samples below. I just want to Here he is on CONAN A horse walks into a bar The english accent may confuse some since Reggie is actually from Seattle, WA. Just part of the act...

Addition: Pertaining to altruistic notions, perhaps you should take the passage at face value. In this passage they're not pretending to be altruistic, they do indeed expect some compensation for their devotion and God also offers it.

yes, reading this brings back the nostalgia of the religious' nauseating self-righteousness. Of course we don't accept that premise. Poverty is just as often the result of the impoverished's own mindset. And you are correct, there will always be poverty and the authors of the bible make the same claim and are not so naive as to believe there is a solution. Tony: No, the implication is that the poor will always be poor, and on Fast days the rich should help them. What do they do on other days? How did the rich become rich? Are the poor in fact a necessity to keep around us? No answers. Yes, no answers. Perhaps, the realistic diagnosis of poverty as a chronic condition of society coming from the bible is a surprise to you. On other days they are devout Objectivists, lol. The rich of that time? Does it really matter? Are the poor in fact a necessity to keep around us? A necessity for what? The question seems to imply that the poor don't possess the same fundamental rights as the rest of us. Do they not have a right to be around whoever they so choose and do others have a right to displace them? I think not. This also seems to imply that if a person cannot be utilized they are to be dismissed. Anyways, I doubt any of these questions are serious. Also, we seemed to have strayed from our previous discussion....