den_wolf

Excellent. You drove my point home! That God is not an object of study implies that God should not be used to prove anything. God is nothing more than a belief. If you can use God to prove something, then you can also use the "presence" of aliens to prove something. So let us base astronomy and all our knowledge of the solar system on the assumption that aliens exist. Mmmm, sounds interesting! Moreveor, that Kant said it does not mean that he is any more correct than I am. That is irrelevant. That we exist is the point. That we can prove things, that we are beings of reason and thought, are good reasons to consider life worth living, and what's more, that life is and should be about proofs and logic. Because without logic, the world would be a chaos of he said-she said and other things like cultural relativism, which would imply that infanticide is correct for some, incorrect for others. Which would also mean that there are no moral truths and that everything goes. Which would then mean that murder can be right. MMmmm. Not that I am saying that murder is wrong, just that we should be able to prove that either it is wrong or right, a few exceptions permitted (there are exceptions in everything, but that does not imply that the theory is wrong - exceptions are the things that go out of their way, not the theory). No it is not. Axioms are observable truths. The fact that the existence of God is not widely accepted in all societies like the axiom A = A goes to show that A = A is universal, because it is a logical conclusion we arrive to following our observation, whereas God is not. That is not to say that God exists or does not exist. It tells nothing of the sort about that. It just tells that God cannot be used like A = A is used. This is an extremely arrogant statement on your behalf that shows you do not have a clue about what my Knowledge is. Mmmm. Can you say argumentum ad hominem fallacy? You're right. But, why did you mention it then? How is it superficial? Just because you said so does not mean that it really is superficial. Please tell me what fallacy it used, and/or what is it in the argument that assumes that God is superficial or represents "him" as such. Philosophy and faith can very well go together, correct, but that doesn't mean that faith can prove philosophy. It can only work the other way around, because philosophy DOES work with logic, whereas faith works with beliefs in non-observable things, and assumes they are true, for whatever reason, be it lack of imagination (where would we have come from if we weren't created by God, etc.). So it works the other way around, Sasun. Faith is not necessary for (and in fact it should NEVER EVER be used) for someone to arrive to a universal philosophy that claims truth (personal philosophies can be based on whatever your heart desires). Yes, I will tell you. I disagree. See above for explanations. Please explain what the flaw in that sentence is. if he is using a fallacy, point out which fallacy he is using. Dig out that book from your closet, and read it!! LOL. But for the benefit of those who don't have the book, I have typed what Rachel says:

Try tea. Calms you down LOL. And much more healthy.

Again, from James Rachels, this guy is simply amazing: Arguing against the Divine Command Theory: (1) Suppose God commands us to do what is right. Then either (a) the right actions are right because he commands them or (B ) he commands them because they are right. (2) If we take option (a), then God's commands are, from a moral point of view, arbitrary; moreover, the doctrine of the goodness of God is rendered meaningless. (3) If we take option (B ), then we have admitted there is a standard of right and wrong that is independent of God's will. (4) Therefore, we must either regard God's commands are arbitrary, and give up the doctrine of the goodness of God, or admit that there is a standard of right and wrong that is independent of his will, and give up the theological definitions of right and wrong. (5) From a religious point of view, it is undesirable to regard God's commands as arbitrary or to give up the doctrine of the goodness of God. (6) Therefore, even from a religious point of view, a standard of right and wrong that is independent of God's will must be accepted. There is more than just blind faith in God. Philosophy is just that. You will find the contrary to be scary if you did this sort of thing for a living.

Why should they be? Unless you can give good reasons for it, I am afraid we must all stick by the biological differences reason for having social differences between men and women. Again, back to point 0, point 0 being the basic biological differences between men and women.

Dear oh dear... THOTH, do you feel like you have the calling by God (or Gods, as the case may be) to ruin each and every thread that you take a look at? So far, I have only seen a few thoughtful (not necessarily agreeing with what you say though) posts by you in all the threads, especially in the politics forums. While I appreciate your get-a-free-trial diagnosis of my (or others') intelligence, I suggest that you think twice about posting such things. I am not telling you what to do, merely suggesting. You are making a big fool of yourself. No matter how passionate or dedicated you are to defending the genocide cause or arguing against people who have differing views, I think you need to "chill", take a deep breath, READ, THINK, and THEN reply. Rather than taking the easy way out and making comments here and there about people's intelligence.

And why so? Are men and women equal physically? Even in the animal world, those who are more powerful rule. The rest obey. I am not saying that this is my view. I am simply trying to be objective. Just making sure that it's clear, I don't want people starting with the name-calling. Feminism is self-contradictory. It admits that there are biological differences yet fails to present good arguments as to why those biological differences should not determine the social, political, and economical differences. There can be no equality in difference. In fact, no two human beings are or can be equal, in all aspects, physical, social, political, and economical. That is why we tend to see races, classes, political groups, majority lobbies, minority lobbies, and so on. The premises of feminism might be correct, but the conclusions it arrives to are not related to the premises. I am yet to see an argument that correctly (without fallacies and jumping from premise to unrelated conclusion) defends the ethics of feminism. If you have one, or if you have read it somewhere, please do share.

You know, the right phrase to describe some members on this forum would be "ganging up on others." It is very annoying to see a bunch of 15 year olds or even 20 year olds who are immature, post 2 worders in threads that are supposed to be analytical, intelligent, and thoughtful. Frankly, my take on this is that if you have nothing to say about a certain cause or issue, don't dip your nose in it. If you like chit-chatting and threads that do not take so much of your time to post or read, by all means, feel free to confine yourself to those, but to force trash on other members just because you can, is, well, beyond my ability to comprehend. Feel free to further argue with me about this, but you are off-topic, and I will not reply to any of your statements directed at me. Feel free to continue talking about feminism, and if you have something to contribute, I will gladly read it and comment on it. Otherwise, this discussion has gone way out of hand, and I have no intentions of wasting my time with gibberish, because I've seen all too many childish people. And note that age is not necessarily a marker of maturity.

I am bowing out of this thread, because it seems to be a waste of time, effort, and breath. Think outside the box, people!

Accusing people of what? I never accused anyone of anything. I simply stated an observable truth, that people take things too seriously. Even your reply proves it. When did I say this forum this this forum that? I suggest you take a deep breath and stop trying to sound like a smart*ss, because you're making a complete fool of yourself. I didn't even compare this forum to any other named forums. I simply said that there's too much anger on here. And if I'm not allowed to voice my view on what the reality of the situation is, then why the hell have a forum in the first place? Meeting of like minds? I don't see the point. That I despise you!?!??! Whoever said I despise you? I don't even know you enough to despise you. I am not angry at you or anyone else. I am simply stating that there's too much anger and hatred, and if saying that automatically implies that I'm angry and hateful, then I suggest you get your head checked. I think you're being paranoid. Stop playing the part of the victim. Grow up! That goes to everyone.

What the hell are you talking about???? I thought the jewish holocaust was AFTER the Armenian genocide. :huh: ???????????

I agree. People take things too seriously on here. I must say I've never seen a bulletin board that has this much anger. Anyhow, I'm not aware of who was banned and why, and how trivial matters were, but if posts can be removed that quickly then I'm assuming so could members. None of my business anyway, I guess!!! I couldn't have said it any better, Steve.

Mmm, I don't know if anyone mentioned this, but, how about Shirley Bassey? Beautiful lyrics to "Yesterday, When I was Young." Makes one think. How about Travis - "Hit Me Baby One More Time" (I hate that song, but VERY nicely done by Travis). Or The Flaming Lips?

If Communism had adhered to the philosophical principles, it would've succeeded. But as always, the corruption of politicians caused its failure. It was not the philosophy that failed to do its job, it was the practical that failed - your so called politicians. Yes, communism was not religiously oriented. In fact, it banned religion and the Bible. The result? Millions of people perished under communism. I suppose that's not comparable to religious systems. Remember that a philosophy is a philosophy until applied. And unless the politician who applies it is a philosopher who is objective and unbiased, there will be no chance of success. My imagination.. I guess that's good. At least there is a positive side to my constant engagement in philosophy. LOL

Could be, could be, but that still doesn't mean that faith can be taken as a premise in a proof. I never said faith was about proofs. I said faith cannot be used IN proofs. proof, n. evidence of truth or correctness (Webster's English Dictionary). So do tell me how you can use faith as an evidence of truth or correctness. Life is not about proofs? Why not? Can you prove it? You are making huge assumptions and assertions based solely on your VIEWS (or BELIEFS, or FAITH). That rarely if ever qualifies as proof. And why not? Just because we haven't yet reached a conclusion about it doesn't mean that it's impossible. Open up your imagination. If everyone had thought like that, we wouldn't have had planes right now. Because flying is simply not in our nature, and we're not supposed to, because God supposedly "created" us without wings. Here's an excerpt from James Rachels' The Right Thing to Do: Basic Readings in Moral Philosophy (including it just for the heck of it, and because it is in a way relevant):

axel, man, great posts!!! I agree with your last 2 posts. Well said.

No, that is not true. You're using a fallacy of slippery slope. You cannot assume that something exists if you can't observe that it does. You start from point 0, point 0 being non-existence. Something has to exist in order for it to exist. Otherwise it doesn't exist. Well, you cannot compare Love and beauty to what we're talking about. God either exists or does not, correct? Love and beauty, however, are things that one cannot be objective about. I might consider something beautiful, whereas you might not. That is an observable fact. People's tastes of beauty differ. Hence, you cannot say that, (1) she is beautiful (2) beautiful people are nice => (3) she is nice. Because your assumption of her beauty is nothing more than a personal belief. Similar to your belief in God. This differs from the idea of the apple, and the following: (1) Apples are either green, yellow, or red. (and if there is a blue applie, then you can add that to the list of observable colours) (2) i am eating an apple => (3) the apple I am eating is either green, yellow, or red. MMmmm.. And were you there when God gave man free will? Can you observe it? How do you know we have free will? What if we are pre-determined to act in one way or another, or are thoughts in the mind of another creature? How do you know that rationalism cannot give meaning to life? What if the meaning to life is rationality and thinking based on observation and deduction? Are you telling me that atheists have no meaning in their lives? I look at things from all sides. Unlike people who claim what you said above, that God created man and gave him free will, etc. So atheists then are like beasts, being non-believers?

No indeed I do not. I said most of it is, some of it isn't. The fact that most of it is trash is not my fault. So don't blame me for it. I don't like women who play the blame-victim game with me, especially when I never said something to the effect of "all women are b*tches/pigs." Excuse me? It's called comparative literature. Why would I not compare women writers to male writers? If you want equality, you must accept what comes with it, including competition with men. You cannot have double standards. My perspectives are evident, yes, but you have chosen to misinterpret them. I still believe that half the literature of women and Caribbean/African writers is trash, and by trash I mean "something that shouldn't have been published, even." But it has been published, and is being glorified in university curricula. I have nothing against women writers. I love Austen's novels, the Bronte sisters' poems and novels, Dickinson's poems, but things like Dionne Brand are pure trash. Trash. Unimaginable. What has literary value come down to? Affirmative action. And perhaps that is why we no longer see Austens and Brontes.. I am not against courses for and about women. You can have all the courses about women in the world, just don't force me to take them, especially that half of the material is TRASH. If they had been written by males, I would've said that same!! And indeed, I do make that comment for some male writers too. The difference is not that there are less women writers who are gifted, but that there are so many who are overrated, which really overshadows the REAL gifted women. And 90% of all English Literature departments are now women. In England, about 60 years ago, 90% were men. Were they too "effeminate" to study English Literature? I think not. So what happened in 60 years that made things look so "good" for women? Affirmative action. Quotas. And they wonder why there are no men in English Literature? That no men are interested in it because they are more interested in applied things (science, engineering) is a myth. the myth of radical feminism, affirmative action, and other sexist and racist systems. Yes, you got that right. Racist and sexist. Both. That it is against white "privileged" males makes it no less racist than a system that was against black "underprivileged" men/women.

Mullahs hate democracy? I didn't know that. So are you saying Bush doesn't? But let me get this straight, I am not talking about culturally relative morality. I am talking about absolutes. The philosophy of absolutes. Your point is irrelevant. gamavor, what did you mean by that funny piece you posted? Were you being sarcastic of me???!

Gevo, and how many women have used guys?!?!?!?!?!? I can tell you of at least a dozen I've seen personally, most of them in my class. I teach people who are at least 18 years old (3 years younger than me), and I can tell you that there are a lot of women who are "slutty", and who would do anything to get into a guy's pants. So let's drop the stereotypes and the generalisations please. What's with the b*tchiness and anti-man feelings on this forum????? I don't really get it. If you're having problems with a man (or men), fine, but don't call all men pigs because of it, because it's not that simple. Human beings have more than one aspect in their personality, and certainly more than just the genitals that define them as male or female. So to say that men are pigs because you had the same result with 5 men is just plain stupid. Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending the men who "dumped" the girl, but please, nothing makes one lose credibility than stupid generalisations like these. Channel your anger elsewhere, perhaps at understanding the nature of the men before you start dating them.

You mean "the B word"?

How does that solve anything? Besides, have you thought that you end up with the *sshole guys all the time, thereby having bad experiences? Why blame the guy for it? Damn right.

SlowJamz22, i think you are jumping to conclusions. What you're saying is mere speculation. You cannot claim to know what was on his mind when he did it. I agree with Sip. And these days a lot of women "dump" their b/fs. But men never play the victim. If women want equality, then can start from there. If you don't want to be stereotyped as the "weak, dependent, whining woman," then prove that you are not. [here "you" is in general, not aimed at anyone specific]. I see this all the time, and it does annoy me. Pretty pretty please, we might not know what it is like to be a woman, but you cannot know what it is like to be a man either. It works both ways.

Now now, you are jumping to huge huge conclusions about (Armenian men) based on a few (or more) cases. You are generalising. But that is in no way to underestimate your feelings. I think in these cases, one is to take each situation separately and judge it. Perhaps he really wasn't ready for a relationship? Did you talk with him about it? And by talk, i don't mean Armenian style talking and HIGH levels of anger and lack of temper. And even if he did dump you for that reason or another, does that mean that all guys are "pigs"? I don't mean to make you feel worse. I am sorry to hear that you're having problems. But I am an Armenian guy, and I wouldn't do that. Maybe there are a few of us left? lol. I don't know.

You’re right. But I never said that it was right because Plato said it. I am simply referring to the “ideas” behind things. Can you change the idea of an apple in your mind? (not talking about terminology here). How do you know? Again, I am not saying I believe you’re wrong. I am just trying to point out that you cannot know. Maybe things are relative? Perhaps the absolute truth is that everything is relative, and that there are no absolute, universal truths? You just drove my point home. How do you know that there is a single absolute truth, i.e. God? Maybe all there are, are smaller truths that are not related to any bigger picture or being? Maybe all there is is chaos? I am not claiming you did. I am trying to compare the issue of our existence and the issue of God’s existence used in proofs. Then how does the fact that we exist prove that God exists? Yes, I agree with you 100% about: If God doesn’t exist then God cannot do anything. But that doesn’t mean that if God doesn’t exist, humans could not have existed. Or does it? I can’t see your point. I never said that if atheists exist it implies that God doesn’t exist. I simply said that God’s existence (and our belief in it) isn’t a necessity for our own existence, and atheists are a proof to that. And you then claimed that “God doesn’t make a distinction between atheists and theists when granting and sustaining life.” How do you know? Has God told you that? Yes, the Bible, but how do you know that the Bible was INSPIRED by God (not even written – it was written by human beings just like you and me).. How can you base an entire philosophy on something that you claim to know based on the assumption that has its roots in an inspiration?

I do feel your pain, but a little "fun" doesn't hurt anyone. In serious threads like genocide discussion or philosophy, I would agree with you, but with all due respect, I disagree with this. The human mind is much more complex than thinking about just one thing at one time and expressing it.