Please have a look at this: The Magic of Stereographic Projection


BaalChatzaf

Recommended Posts

I argue to test my idea of the truth. I don't care to change a mind for all the smoke, mirrors and gunshots. If you don't want to argue, bettering what's in your mind is not important to you.

Well, that's where we each have totally different approaches, Brant.

I test my idea of truth in my own life...

...and objective reality renders the final verdict by the just and deserved consequences my actions spin into motion.

The last thing I'd ever depend on for validation would be the subjective opinions of others.

Heck, I don't even depend on my own subjective thoughts for that! :laugh:

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Not true...

Trying to dodge around arguing about arguing is just a smokescreen, Frank. The objective fact remains that denial of God is your freely chosen view that you will never change...

...and even you can't deny that you're getting exactly what you deserve in your own life as the result of your choice.

Greg

You want to cut out the smoke? Fine. Then cut out the talk about deserved consequences and stop evading the points I raised in Post #5 and Post #13.

If the "exquisitely sophisticated order" of the world is proof of a God, then by the same logic a thing as sophisticated as a world-creator cannot have resulted by mere accident and must himself be the creation of a yet greater entity. If the world must have a maker, then so must the maker. And so must the maker of the maker.

You say a creator has to be uncreated? By what rule? Let's see some real world evidence for that claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's fine, but not for complicated and detailed staff work.

The subjective opinions of others are valuable if you share their moral values. The trick is first knowing whether or not those values are shared and that's a matter for your own Conscience.

Greg.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the "exquisitely sophisticated order" of the world is proof of a God...

We're going over the same ground again and again, Frank. I already told you that the exquisitely sophisticated order of the laws governing the physical universe is proof for me... but it is not proof for you. The choice of whether to acknowledge or deny the fact of those well ordered laws is up to each of us, and we each have already made that decision.

Can't you see your own need to argue, Frank? It's a sickness not to see it. From the nature of your posts I don't believe that you possess the self awareness to acknowledge that fact... even to yourself. It's because you fantasize that you have the power to change the subjective views of others with your subjective words. Truth is, you are utterly impotent in that regard.

Only getting what you deserve in your own life has that power.

Sorry, sooner or later someone has to tell you:

You do not have it.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the "exquisitely sophisticated order" of the world is proof of a God...

We're going over the same ground again and again, Frank. I already told you that the exquisitely sophisticated order of the laws governing the physical universe is proof for me... but it is not proof for you. The choice of whether to acknowledge or deny the fact of those well ordered laws is up to each of us, and we each have already made that decision.

Can't you see your own need to argue, Frank? It's a sickness not to see it. From the nature of your posts I don't believe that you possess the self awareness to acknowledge that fact... even to yourself. It's because you fantasize that you have the power to change the subjective views of others with your subjective words. Truth is, you are utterly impotent in that regard.

Only getting what you deserve in your own life has that power.

Sorry, sooner or later someone has to tell you:

You do not have it.

Greg

Good luck on changing Frank's mind. You are affirming what you are denying by denying*. It's a variation on the old philosophy is next to nothing crap. My friend Petr Beckmann once said that. That was from a scientist's purblind perspective. Your purblind perspective is from the religious. Rand was half blinded by her philosophical perspective over-valuing "philosophy" in the affairs of men not understanding what she thought of as philosophy didn't exist as such except as words--not even for her in spite of her intellectually unbalanced brain--but only as a conglomeration of psychology and philosophy which is the true operating system (plus genetics?) of the mind.

--Brant

*someone has to tell you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the "exquisitely sophisticated order" of the world is proof of a God...

We're going over the same ground again and again, Frank. I already told you that the exquisitely sophisticated order of the laws governing the physical universe is proof for me... but it is not proof for you. The choice of whether to acknowledge or deny the fact of those well ordered laws is up to each of us, and we each have already made that decision.

Can't you see your own need to argue, Frank? It's a sickness not to see it. From the nature of your posts I don't believe that you possess the self awareness to acknowledge that fact... even to yourself. It's because you fantasize that you have the power to change the subjective views of others with your subjective words. Truth is, you are utterly impotent in that regard.

Only getting what you deserve in your own life has that power.

Sorry, sooner or later someone has to tell you:

You do not have it.

Greg

You say you don't like smoke or going over the same ground, but you keep evading a point I've made several times: if only a god can create "the exquisitely sophisticated order" of the world, then such a god cannot have been unplanned or accidental. He too must be the product of a yet higher entity.

In other words, once one makes the claim that the creatures of the earth must have come about through intelligent design, there is no rejoinder to the claim that the creator of the earth must also be a creature of intelligent design.

Furthermore, as George H. Smith observed, the argument for an uncaused god is self-contradictory. "The premise, which states that everything must have a sustaining cause, contradicts the conclusion, which posits an uncaused god." (Atheism: The Case Against God, p. 143.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good luck on changing Frank's mind.

Frank already made his his choice and is getting what he deserves just like everyone else.

Greg

Or your mind. I see your mind as a castle with a moat around it all buttoned up. Have you learned anything except about the posters since you came here? Anything? If you don't use facts, logic and reason (reasoning) your abstractions reach out and only touch a few of many should be targetable targets. 95% or more of what you post is ad hominem this and ad hominem that especially directed at other posters getting what they "deserve." How is anyone to agree with you about anything except through abstract, rational thinking, something you exempt yourself from?

Go ahead, try and start a thread with at least 300 words and three paragraphs about something important to you--your writing--you'd think we'd find important to us. Importance will meet importance and it will be important to give and get both ways in the give and take and someone will come up with something, fact(s) or analysis no one had thought of before through arguments that stimulate the mind and encourage research and putting up links. Etc.

Isn't this better than telling one and all you don't care for their opinions; you've got your own and everybody's getting what they deserve?

Here's the kicker: you can't reply to my questions without affirming I am right just by the replying. All you can do is to continue to pretend to reply for you are the preacher even though OL is not a church.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is anyone to agree with you about anything except through abstract, rational thinking, something you exempt yourself from?

Go ahead, try and start a thread with at least 300 words and three paragraphs about something important to you--your writing--you'd think we'd find important to us. Importance will meet importance and it will be important to give and get both ways in the give and take and someone will come up with something, fact(s) or analysis no one had thought of before through arguments that stimulate the mind and encourage research and putting up links. Etc.

Isn't this better than telling one and all you don't care for their opinions; you've got your own and everybody's getting what they deserve?

I am stumped, with a question I cannot answer: why Greg posts at OL.

I liked reading Greg's stories of Carlos Castaneda and the odd cult life he and his wife documented. I'd lke to see more of that. I'd also be interested in Greg's telling the story of his acquaintanceship with Zen ideas, how his spiritual views have changed over time, how he has struggled with his faith ...

The to-and-fro about argument has been revealing. Greg appears to absent himself from the sometimes tedious process of argumentation, in the sense of argument as logical persuasion, built from objective observations, buttressed by a framework for reasoning.

In that sense, Brant is correct and Greg is correct -- Greg is not offering an argument nor is he interested in arguing in the classic sense.

This doesn't mean Greg is not interested in arguing in other informal senses -- meaning respond/reply/react/attack. I think it is clear that Greg relishes a crude kind of argument, where one simply counters an opponent with a sermon or platitude or insult or passive-aggressive misspelling or all combined into an arch moralistic posturing.

The least savoury aspects of Greg's argumentative ploys are malefic labels like pussy, feminized, degenerate, immoral, stinking, sickness, impotence. These are, sadly, the most memorable retorts. The condescension and hostility to "Helen," the too-sleazy pokes at the worthless "Frank." Jonathan cast as some random leftist moral cretin. It's this off-by-a-mile meanness that I find quite revealing. Is this a lively, bright collaborator in reason, or a live and let live kind of guy, one who is interested in what you have to offer? If you disagree, are you more than a target for a half-baked put-down?

I don't think Greg is aware of what his ploys look like to an agnostic/atheist audience. I don't think he cares. His payoff is probably in feeling morally superior, not in the satisfaction of successful communication or the advancement of reason.

Of course, the most incoherent parts of Greg's postings are the proclamations on God, creation, cosmology, evolutionary science, reason, logic, evidence, objectivity. Why does he think mere proclamations will be well-received here? What is his aim or goal, besides the light entertainment of trolling?

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

95% or more of what you post is ad hominem this and ad hominem that especially directed at other posters getting what they "deserve."

Just one question that can put all your complaining to rest, Brant.

Is the statement that everyone gets what they deserve as the consequences of their own actions the truth, or is it a lie?

I'll give you a hint::

It's either true, or it's a lie.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've already answered that question here a number of times, William... but I don't mind repeating it.

Entertainment. :smile:

I don't watch any television because it's passive. Whereas the internet is virtual interactive public television.

If you are interested in Carlos Castaneda, the BBC filmed a documentary that included our adventures in the story. They needed video, and we have the only film of Carlos in existence, so we licensed some of our file footage to them which helped to make the story more interesting.

It's called "Carlos Castaneda, Tales from the Jungle".

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've already answered that question here a number of times, William... but I don't mind repeating it.

Entertainment. :smile:

I don't watch any television because it's passive. Whereas the internet is virtual interactive public television.

If you are interested in Carlos Castaneda, the BBC filmed a documentary that included our adventures in the story. They needed video, and we have the only film of Carlos in existence, so we licensed some of our file footage to them which helped to make the story more interesting.

It's called "Carlos Castaneda, Tales from the Jungle".

Greg

That's a troll's motivation.

As for Carlos I enjoyed a couple of his early books, especially because of my southwest US (Arizona) roots, but it was all fiction to me. I almost busted a gut when I read it got him a PhD from UCLA.

Nathaniel Branden's wife Patricia was infatuated with his work, Nathaniel less so.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

95% or more of what you post is ad hominem this and ad hominem that especially directed at other posters getting what they "deserve."

Just one question that can put all your complaining to rest, Brant.

Is the statement that everyone gets what they deserve as the consequences of their own actions the truth, or is it a lie?

I'll give you a hint::

It's either true, or it's a lie.

Greg

The fallacy is that I'm complaining. I'm just saying there's a big world of ideas out there and you aren't out there even though you're here.

--Brant

not "everyone"--most everyone, so the answer is "No"--perhaps you might better formulate your question beyond its too much simplicity so we could really have something to talk about; I refuse to be reduced to your world of blatant anti-intellectualism

Link to comment
Share on other sites

95% or more of what you post is ad hominem this and ad hominem that especially directed at other posters getting what they "deserve."

Just one question that can put all your complaining to rest, Brant.

Is the statement that everyone gets what they deserve as the consequences of their own actions the truth, or is it a lie?

I'll give you a hint::

It's either true, or it's a lie.

Greg

not "everyone"--most everyone, so the answer is "No"

So then in your view, some people's actions transcend the law of causality? Is that your view? I just want you to be clear on your view.

And just for clarity of my view before it gets smeared with innuendo...

I've never exempted myself from that statement that everyone gets exactly what they deserve. I'm happy to get exactly what I deserve as the consequences of my own actions. So it's impossible for what I said to be ad hominum... or even hypocritical for that matter.

The only people who could possibly get offended are those who angrily blame ( unjustly accuse) others for the just and deserved consequences they are getting from their own actions. Those are the ones who see themselves as "innocent victims"...

...when in reality they're guilty as hell.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've already answered that question here a number of times, William... but I don't mind repeating it.

Entertainment. :smile:

I don't watch any television because it's passive. Whereas the internet is virtual interactive public television.

If you are interested in Carlos Castaneda, the BBC filmed a documentary that included our adventures in the story. They needed video, and we have the only film of Carlos in existence, so we licensed some of our file footage to them which helped to make the story more interesting.

It's called "Carlos Castaneda, Tales from the Jungle".

Greg

That's a troll's motivation.

Then that makes everyone here a troll... as everyone here enjoys engaging in lighthearted entertaining discussions. :smile:

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

95% or more of what you post is ad hominem this and ad hominem that especially directed at other posters getting what they "deserve."

Just one question that can put all your complaining to rest, Brant.

Is the statement that everyone gets what they deserve as the consequences of their own actions the truth, or is it a lie?

I'll give you a hint::

It's either true, or it's a lie.

Greg

not "everyone"--most everyone, so the answer is "No"

So then in your view, some people's actions transcend the law of causality? Is that your view? I just want you to be clear on your view.

And just for clarity of my view before it gets smeared with innuendo...

I've never exempted myself from that statement that everyone gets exactly what they deserve. I'm happy to get exactly what I deserve as the consequences of my own actions. So it's impossible for what I said to be ad hominum... or even hypocritical for that matter.

The only people who could possibly get offended are those who angrily blame ( unjustly accuse) others for the just and deserved consequences they are getting from their own actions. Those are the ones who see themselves as "innocent victims"...

...when in reality they're guilty as hell.

Greg

I've already answered that question here a number of times, William... but I don't mind repeating it.

Entertainment. :smile:

I don't watch any television because it's passive. Whereas the internet is virtual interactive public television.

If you are interested in Carlos Castaneda, the BBC filmed a documentary that included our adventures in the story. They needed video, and we have the only film of Carlos in existence, so we licensed some of our file footage to them which helped to make the story more interesting.

It's called "Carlos Castaneda, Tales from the Jungle".

Greg

That's a troll's motivation.

Then that makes everyone here a troll... as everyone here enjoys engaging in lighthearted entertaining discussions. :smile:

Greg

Bad things can happen to people who don't do anything to deserve them. You can't reduce human action and being to a law of physics. Your position as a generalization with some exceptions is supportable, arguable and defendable. The way you present it it is almost axiomatic or a purely deductive proposition with no empiricism allowed. The latter is you go get data. Opps! There's an exception--the plane he was a passenger on blew up. Etc. I can certainly see the value of using what you say as a life-orienting principle deserving of rigorous application--buuuuut.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

95% or more of what you post is ad hominem this and ad hominem that especially directed at other posters getting what they "deserve."

Just one question that can put all your complaining to rest, Brant.

Is the statement that everyone gets what they deserve as the consequences of their own actions the truth, or is it a lie?

I'll give you a hint::

It's either true, or it's a lie.

Greg

Bad semantics. A lie is a false or only partly true statement uttered or written for the purpose of deception. There are false statements written or uttered because of a good old plain mistake. No intention to deceive existed.

All we can -observe- and judge is the truth or falseness of a meaningful declarative sentence. Only rarely can we tell if a false sentence or a partially true sentence is a lie.

Consider arithmetic errors for example. A weary person trying to add up a long column of numbers comes up with an incorrect sum. Was it a lie or was it just a good old ordinary arithmetic error which can be corrected when the addition is checked again.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bad things can happen to people who don't do anything to deserve them.

Well, then that is NOT the just and deserved consequences of their own actions is it, Brant.

You're not paying attention to what is actually being said. :wink:

However... what people do about what happens to them is.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only rarely can we tell if a false sentence or a partially true sentence is a lie.

Really? I would think that all depends on how much awareness of the world a person bothered to develop in themselves. And that would begin with their own self awareness.

Consider arithmetic errors for example. A weary person trying to add up a long column of numbers comes up with an incorrect sum. Was it a lie or was it just a good old ordinary arithmetic error which can be corrected when the addition is checked again.

A clerical error is pretty low on the gradient of morality... even though there is nothing good about a "good old ordinary arithmetic error".

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only rarely can we tell if a false sentence or a partially true sentence is a lie.

Really? I would think that all depends on how much awareness of the world a person bothered to develop in themselves. And that would begin with their own self awareness.

Consider arithmetic errors for example. A weary person trying to add up a long column of numbers comes up with an incorrect sum. Was it a lie or was it just a good old ordinary arithmetic error which can be corrected when the addition is checked again.

A clerical error is pretty low on the gradient of morality... even though there is nothing good about a "good old ordinary arithmetic error".

Greg

There is nothing necessarily bad about it either, particularly if one checks one's own work or has other people check it. We are an error prone lot, we humans are.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only rarely can we tell if a false sentence or a partially true sentence is a lie.

Really? I would think that all depends on how much awareness of the world a person bothered to develop in themselves. And that would begin with their own self awareness.

Consider arithmetic errors for example. A weary person trying to add up a long column of numbers comes up with an incorrect sum. Was it a lie or was it just a good old ordinary arithmetic error which can be corrected when the addition is checked again.

A clerical error is pretty low on the gradient of morality... even though there is nothing good about a "good old ordinary arithmetic error".

Greg

There is nothing necessarily bad about it either, particularly if one checks one's own work or has other people check it. We are an error prone lot, we humans are.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Just as there's nothing good about a "good old ordinary arithmetic error... there's nothing bad about correcting it.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now