axel

And why not? Just because we haven't yet reached a conclusion about it doesn't mean that it's impossible I repeat God is not an "object of study" for reason. Even Kant would agree with me. Can you prove that life is worth living? Btw, I think someone has already mentionned that all philosophical systems are based upon axioms which constitute their dogmatic part. Adhering to these axioms or creeds is in itself a matter of faith. This is an extremely arrogant statement on your behalf that shows you do not have a clue about what true Faith is. PS: The following is not to serve as an argument but I'd like to point out that my own background is scientific and that I graduated from university when I was still a teenager so that I am neither a complete idiot nor an irrational individual.

I believe you are refering to the french "à l'anglaise" as in the expression "filer à l'anglaise" which translates into english as "to run off" and actually has its symmetric equivalent (ie "to take french leave" )

I totally agree with the rosbeef above

Well I guess there is at least one "feminine feminist" in this thread who is intelligent enough to relate to this view but, of course, she will not admit it. at least, not in public

Why is that? It is not because our perception of absolutes is relative that these absolutes do not exist. Man can go beyond his mere perceptions. But that he may only do through faith. The other alternative is solipsism. Faith is not about proofs. In fact, life is not about proofs. One has to distinguish between atheists who think they are atheist but who are not and the true atheist who negate the existence of God in a manner that is more akin to theophobia/satanism than agnosticism. Most self-proclaimed atheists do not understand the true implications of their faith. Faith is the word for atheism is not rational. Only agnosticism is acceptable from the standpoint of reason. PS: I do not see any fallacy in my reasoning. The question of the existence/non-existence of God is not one that can be addressed through reason.

If I were a woman, I would despise you. If I were a feminist, not only would I try to hide my contempt but I would pretend to be appreciative of your opinions inasmuch as they would suit my ends.

I don't think this is a male/female issue. The problem is rather with infantilism and immaturity which is endemic to the neo-western world. Women are not any more sensitive or compassionate than men are. This is a cliché. They simply have a greater tendency to exteriorize their emotions. Profound (as opposed to superficial) emotions usually keep silent.

Following the same line of reasoning, in case of being unable to prove that God doesn't exist, one cannot assume that God doesn't exist. So your attitude has to be the sterile one of the skeptic. In case of being unable to prove that Love exists, you cannot assume that Love exists. In case of being unable to prove that Beauty exists, you cannot assume that Beauty exists. ... I am glad you noted that (1) is fallacious. I will just add a few observations. God gave Man free will and Man misused it. From this misuse follows the existence of evil. If you understand the idea of free will, then you shall admit the fact that God is not omnipotent to the level of playing around with the soul of humans and their will as if men were mere puppets. Attributing evil (man's own shortcoming) to God is fallacious if not blasphemous. It is the point of view of the cynic to justify man's baseness by his nature as if Man was enslaved to his instincts. This is precisely what religion rejects by proclaiming Free will. God sent his Son for the remission of our sins. He who suffered on the Cross and whose Resurrection stands as the triumph of Life over Death, of Good over Evil, shows the one and only true path for Man to attain Freedom. Of course the latter is not arguable as it belongs to the domain of Faith, not to that of reason which is inherently limited. Rationalism cannot give meaning to life. This is quite presumptuous a belief. Objectivity? It depends on how you define "existence". If it is that of wild beasts or that of humans.

Feminism is inverted sexism. It professes that of which it denounces the negative effects: gender polarization. Instead of working towards mutual understanding and emphasizing complementarity, it fosters division and breeds hatred. So-called "Positive discrimination" is inept. It is insulting for someone to be recognized because of political correctness instead of his/her own abilities. I don't understand people who lament the lack of meritocracy and then argue for the establishment of anti-meritocratic policies.

Kind of ironic to hear that from you. I tend to consider your posts/opinions as belonging to that very category.

Well, if you invite me... The problem is I have great recordings at home so I am likely to be disappointed given the lack of truly outstanding wagnerian singers these days.

Nietzsche never understood God/Christianity. As Sasun pointed out, most of his arguments are based upon misconceptions. Regarding "Also sprach Zarathustra", I read it almost ten years ago so my memory is not quite fresh but this whole idea of Übermensch supposedly "freeing himself" from all constraints "imposed" onto him by society (religion, culture, ethics...) is not only pointless and absurd but unachievable. As all absurd ideas however, it is extremely destructive. This philosophy is to be related with anarchism, "modernity" (defined as the rejection of all possible form of tradition), perpetual revolution... In fact, these "modern" conceptions (which principally find their roots in antichristian judaism) are the direct expression of the religion of man-god (or man divinised) as opposed to the religion of God-man. Isn't it Zarathustra himself who proclaims that "God is dead"? It seems Nietzsche did not reflect enough on the myth of Promotheus. http://www.artmagick.com/images/paintings/delville/delville36_t.jpg as he forgot about the second part. http://www.artmagick.com/images/paintings/moreau/moreau23_t.jpg He would also have benefited from meditating on the following: http://www.geog.ucla.edu/Department/Humboldt/images/cosgrove_25.jpg Bruegel, Pieter. Landscape with the Fall of Icarus c. 1558 http://twist.lib.uiowa.edu/introling/images/babel.jpg Bruegel, Pieter. The Tower of Babel 1563

Wagner: everything except the early works (Die Feen, Das Liebesverbot) . I particularly like Parzival and Tristan. Mussorgsky: Boris Godunov, Khovanshchina Tchaikovsky: Eugen Onegin.

Vanitas Vanitatum, Omnia Vanitas. Understanding this has been my greatest accomplishment so far.

Siegfried Act III scene 2.

The following text is obviously heterodox and loosely related to the topic at hand yet interesting in that it asserts the symbiotic relationship between spirituality and culture. If we agree to this relationship, then the mere existence of ancient cultures stands as an evidence of early spirituality.

Which one am I to enjoy? Wilde's or me's? I have to confess I know a lot of great quotes by me, definitely one my favorite authors. Seriously though, I think you need to grow up a bit. Add a beard to your avatar, that'll make you look more mature. after all, we are in the wisdom thread

Each individual is unique and irreplaceable in the eyes of the Creator and should be in eyes of his neighbor. That is the precondition for Love to exist.

Sireli Naïri, every one of your thoughts is priceless, every one of your words is a source of inspiration.

So I shall let the brute kill the innocent? So I shall let the evil one destroy the good and thus be the accomplice of evil? Is that how Jesus Christ wants me to act? I tell you I shall rather "burn in hell" than allow evil to be perpetrated against my neighbor. But I have no hate in my heart. I do forgive my enemies (in fact I am not aware of having any). I do forgive the wrong that is brought upon myself. However how can I forgive the wrong that is being brought upon the innocent? only Christ may do so.

Did you learn this in Sophistry 101? eof

Does one have to know of the motives of people stating countertruths in order to refute the latter?

ask yourself

True a lie repeated a hundred times has more value than a truth stated once. It seems Goebbels' ideas are still relevant.