Jonathan Posted July 20, 2015 Share Posted July 20, 2015 There is no connection between Christianity and Islamic fascism today. Jonathan needed to go back 500 years into the dead past to find something. He's blind to the fact that the church went through the Reformation (something I believe Islam has yet to do).Invoking the 500 year old Inquisition to condemn Christians today is a secular liberal mantra that Jonathan mindlessly chants.I haven't "chanted" anything. To chant is to repeat a statement over and over, and I haven't repeated anything, let alone made a single statement. Rather, I asked a question. I haven't condemned any Christians of today, but asked about Christians of the past. Why won't you answer the question? Do you not condemn their behavior? Do you excuse them because they're Christians?Secular leftists do exactly the same with slavery. While people owned slaves 200 years ago in the dead past, therefore they are condemned as racists today.You're still having a purely emotional reaction to my question, and making all sorts of irrational assumptions and judgments based on your frantic little feelings. Answer the question, Apey. I'm not condemning anyone for behavior that others indulged in. You're only imagining that I'm doing so. Get control over yourself, calm down, and answer the question.These liberal mantras are stamped into the doughy minds of mass produced monkeys by the tenured government employed do-nothing failures of the liberal government funded education system. The government trained monkeys merely need to spout them back by rote to "graduate". Government trained monkeys now comprise the political majority. They infest the bureaucracy created in their own simian image......of the monkeys... by the monkeys... for the monkeys! I haven't "spouted" any "mantras." I've asked a simple question. I oppose murder and torture regardless of whether an Islamist extremist or a Christian extremist commits it. Do you?J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted July 20, 2015 Share Posted July 20, 2015 There is no connection between Christianity and Islamic fascism today. Jonathan needed to go back 500 years into the dead past to find something. He's blind to the fact that the church went through the Reformation (something I believe Islam has yet to do).Invoking the 500 year old Inquisition to condemn Christians today is a secular liberal mantra that Jonathan mindlessly chants. Secular leftists do exactly the same with slavery. While people owned slaves 200 years ago in the dead past, therefore they are condemned as racists today.Greg:I do not know Jonathan personally.However, I am certain that he virtually never does anything "mindlessly," nor, would he be a "chanter."Jonathan is not making any argument, or, comparison of Christianity/Inquisition and Islamic Fascism.He is challenging your "reflexive" "chanting" of your basic foundational assumptions which is fair game.You gain nothing by dismissing him.Simply answer his question.A...Post Script: Yes, Greg, I know that you are not trying to "gain" anything and that all these statements are our subjective positions.Exactly!Thanks, Adam.J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted July 20, 2015 Author Share Posted July 20, 2015 However, I am certain that he virtually never does anything "mindlessly," nor, would he be a "chanter."Jonathan chants with a mind molded by the liberal government subsidized "education" system. Politically correct secular leftism is both ubiquitous and monolithic on University campuses... and Jonathan took the government imprinting very well, as years later he can still spout the party line like a government trained monkey......and the answer to that 500 year old question was the Reformation. Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted July 20, 2015 Share Posted July 20, 2015 Greg does not do that kind of logical inference and analysis.That's right, Brant.I state my subjective view which is just as subjective as your view or anyone else's subjective view...You are left free to determine for yourself how well your own subjective view agrees with objective reality by the consequences of your own actions.The only difference between us is that I know my view is subjective... and you don't! GregI know the role of being rational is to make the subjective objective, if possible...and you don't! You can't; that's using one's rational faculty. And you objectively do know a lot of things. You suggest not bumping into them, like liars, cheaters, robbers and the generally untrustworthy--and the car coming at you in the opposite direction. Those are not subjective opinions.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted July 20, 2015 Share Posted July 20, 2015 However, I am certain that he virtually never does anything "mindlessly," nor, would he be a "chanter."Jonathan chants with a mind molded by the liberal government subsidized "education" system. Politically correct secular leftism is both ubiquitous and monolithic on University campuses... and Jonathan took the government imprinting very well, as years later he can still spout the party line like a government trained monkey......and the answer to that 500 year old question was the Reformation. GregDoesn't answer Jonathan's question. If he had put it to me I'd have declined to answer and stated my reason: I don't like the Socratic method. It's for college freshmen. I'm not Luke and you're not Yoda--at least to me. Make a statement and I'll reply. You, though, simply bob and weave all over the place and if he had made a statement you'd have simply ignored it. Jonathan knows this so he hit you with the question. You know he's trying to pin you down, somehow, and you're not for that and neither is a greased flagpole for climbing.--Brantthis is entertaining, but soon the law of diminishing returns kicks in Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted July 20, 2015 Share Posted July 20, 2015 However, I am certain that he virtually never does anything "mindlessly," nor, would he be a "chanter."Jonathan chants with a mind molded by the liberal government subsidized "education" system. Politically correct secular leftism is both ubiquitous and monolithic on University campuses... and Jonathan took the government imprinting very well, as years later he can still spout the party line like a government trained monkey......and the answer to that 500 year old question was the Reformation. GregThe question was: "What has caused and nurtured Christian murderers and torturers, was it American-hating feminized leftists who started the Inquisition?"Apey says that the answer is "the Reformation." So, therefore is he saying that "the Reformation" caused murders and torture?!!! That's what it sounds like.J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syrakusos Posted July 20, 2015 Share Posted July 20, 2015 I already offered this here http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=15358No one was interested.The comments in this thread are evidence of a lack of intellectual vigor. William Scherk trashed the speaker. Robin Reborn had no need to actually watch the video before replying. It went downhill from there.Eric Hoffer dissected the problem in The True Believer in 1951. The current situation of the islamist jihadi is a just a case in point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted July 21, 2015 Author Share Posted July 21, 2015 Greg does not do that kind of logical inference and analysis.That's right, Brant.I state my subjective view which is just as subjective as your view or anyone else's subjective view...You are left free to determine for yourself how well your own subjective view agrees with objective reality by the consequences of your own actions.The only difference between us is that I know my view is subjective... and you don't! GregI know the role of being rational is to make the subjective objective, if possible...and you don't! You can't Brant! It's impossible.You can never be objective reality. You can only either subjectively agree or subjectively disagree with objective reality.Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 Sure, if you eschew reason. Knowledge is not a matter of mere opinion.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted July 21, 2015 Author Share Posted July 21, 2015 Sure, if you eschew reason. Knowledge is not a matter of mere opinion.--BrantKnowledge is from books.Knowing is from living. Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 Sure, if you eschew reason. Knowledge is not a matter of mere opinion.--BrantKnowledge is from books.Knowing is from living. GregThat's why we bounce ideas off walls.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted July 21, 2015 Author Share Posted July 21, 2015 Sure, if you eschew reason. Knowledge is not a matter of mere opinion.--BrantKnowledge is from books.Knowing is from living. GregThat's why we bounce ideas off walls.--BrantExactly. That wall is objective reality.We can never BE that wall.All we can do is bounce our subjective ideas off of it to know by the direct personal experience of the consequences of our actions which of them either subjectively agrees or subjectively disagrees with it.Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 But, if I bounce an idea off you . . . ? Aren't you "objective reality"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted July 21, 2015 Author Share Posted July 21, 2015 But, if bounce an idea off you . . . ? Aren't you "objective reality"?Hardly! I'm just another totally subjective humanwhose totally subjective opinionswill either agree or disagreewith objective realityjust like yours do. Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 But, if bounce an idea off you . . . ? Aren't you "objective reality"?Hardly! I'm just another totally subjective humanwhose totally subjective opinionswill either agree or disagreewith objective realityjust like yours do. GregGreg:His point being are you as the shape that we call Greg a piece of objective reality? Yes ___ No ___ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted July 21, 2015 Author Share Posted July 21, 2015 But, if bounce an idea off you . . . ? Aren't you "objective reality"?Hardly! I'm just another totally subjective humanwhose totally subjective opinionswill either agree or disagreewith objective realityjust like yours do. GregGreg:His point being are you as the shape that we call Greg a piece of objective reality? Yes ___ No ___No.I'm just another a subjective being who is perceived subjectively by other subjective beings... whose subjective perceptions will either agree or disagree with objective reality......which I'm not. Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 But, if bounce an idea off you . . . ? Aren't you "objective reality"?Hardly! I'm just another totally subjective humanwhose totally subjective opinionswill either agree or disagreewith objective realityjust like yours do. GregGreg:His point being are you as the shape that we call Greg a piece of objective reality? Yes ___ No ___No.I'm just another a subjective being who is perceived subjectively by other subjective beings... whose subjective perceptions will either agree or disagree with objective reality......which I'm not. GregYou can lead Greg to rationality, but you . . .--Brantwill marvel what he does with it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted July 21, 2015 Author Share Posted July 21, 2015 But, if bounce an idea off you . . . ? Aren't you "objective reality"?Hardly! I'm just another totally subjective humanwhose totally subjective opinionswill either agree or disagreewith objective realityjust like yours do. GregGreg:His point being are you as the shape that we call Greg a piece of objective reality? Yes ___ No ___No.I'm just another a subjective being who is perceived subjectively by other subjective beings... whose subjective perceptions will either agree or disagree with objective reality......which I'm not. GregYou can lead Greg to rationality, but you . . .--Brantwill marvel what he does with it...and I marvel what It does with me. By doing my best to act in harmony with objective reality, I can then use the consequences of my own actions as an indicator.Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 Greg:His point being are you as the shape that we call Greg a piece of objective reality? Yes ___ No ___No.I'm just another a subjective being who is perceived subjectively by other subjective beings... whose subjective perceptions will either agree or disagree with objective reality......which I'm not. GregYour atoms and molecules are not part of objective reality?A... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted July 24, 2015 Author Share Posted July 24, 2015 Greg:His point being are you as the shape that we call Greg a piece of objective reality? Yes ___ No ___No.I'm just another a subjective being who is perceived subjectively by other subjective beings... whose subjective perceptions will either agree or disagree with objective reality......which I'm not. GregYour atoms and molecules are not part of objective reality?A...Those aren't me... I'm what subjectively experiences objective reality... but I can never be objective reality.Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 Those aren't me... I'm what subjectively experiences objective reality... but I can never be objective reality.GregThe "me" would be defined by the "you" as "non-corporeal?" This is a serious question and I am certainly not attempting to be flippant with you.A... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted July 24, 2015 Author Share Posted July 24, 2015 Those aren't me... I'm what subjectively experiences objective reality... but I can never be objective reality.GregThe "me" would be defined by the "you" as "non-corporeal?" This is a serious question and I am certainly not attempting to be flippant with you.A...Of course, Adam... and the answer is yes. I understand that this is a highly scorned illogical superstitious mystical view here.......but if we are solely physical electro-chemical reactions then there can be no morality because there is no free will to choose right from wrong......and the solution to every human behavior problem known to mankind can be found simply by ingesting just the right combination of drugs.And you see how well that's working with mass murderers! Question: How did people come to be so damned stupid as to believe such an obvious lie that they're only physical matter?Answer: The secular political religion of leftismGreg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 Those aren't me... I'm what subjectively experiences objective reality... but I can never be objective reality.GregThe "me" would be defined by the "you" as "non-corporeal?" This is a serious question and I am certainly not attempting to be flippant with you.A...Of course, Adam... and the answer is yes. "...an obvious lie that they're only physical matter?"GregFair enough.Let's restate. The essential entity that the "we" perceive as "Greg," is the corporeal shell that exists objectively as part of reality.Correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 (edited) Question: How did people come to be so damned stupid as to believe such an obvious lie that they're only physical matter?Answer: The secular political religion of leftismThat danged Ayn Rand. She was an atheist, and inspired the creation of this forum.It is good to know that you think Rand the atheist was so damned stupid, that her belief that humans are integral units (without a mind/body split) was an obvious lie, and that what led her to reject gods must have been -- can only have been -- the secular political religion of leftism.Of course, almost every person here is not a believer in gods (save for a pantheist here and a deist there). Which makes almost every person here to be damned stupid, believers in obvious lies. By your lights, surprise surprise, all of us got to this godless state via the secular political religion of leftism. Which would seem to mean that everyone who does not accept a Lord of the Universe is an example and product of secular leftism.I leave open the possibility -- in your mind -- that some folks can be secular and be generally of the 'right.' At the moment your secular-leftist-stupid-liar generalization seems to extend to everyone. Which is logically irrational and, er, damned stupid and an obvious lie.Signed, the Hobgoblin Consistency. Edited July 24, 2015 by william.scherk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobinReborn Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 Wow, this thread got ugly and insulting pretty quick...@Brant, sorry I don't accept your paranoid definition of Islam. Islam has been around for around 1300 years and has varied in its tendency towards violence over those years. There's no reason to believe it will be violent permanently. Ultimately Islam did initiate force against Christianity, but then decades later Christianity initiated even more force against Islam. It's a stupid conflict and while one side may be better than another rational people shouldn't take sides in conflicts between the irrational.@Selene, more paranoid nonsense. No need to go on a crusade to eliminate a philosophy based on the actions of 1% of the adherents. Furthermore if you look into the history there's quite a bit of US meddling in the Middle East which these terrorists use as justifications. Not that I expect you to actually look into that, you'll probably just attack the way I think and spout more irrelevant facts that don't counter my argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now