I think if you believe in God , then you have to believe , he created the sciences as the operating system
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
You’ll do well to notice I didn’t say you definitely don’t believe in evolution, I said PROBABLY. And it was just an example to illustrate a point. This is what I’m talking about. You take relatively small things, twist them, them blow them entirely out of proportion. My point had nothing to do with whether you actually believe in evolution or not, you just chose to focus on that so you’d have something to complain about.
[/quote]
And you’ll do well to notice that I didn’t use a definitive word either, hence “assume” rather than “believe.” I know it was an example and you don’t have to explain every little thing to me, it becomes tedious.I was highlighting the irony of your complaining about assumptions when there was clearly a massive, glaring assumption about my beliefs right there in the exact same post.
Saying I made an assumption about you is not a definitive statement? Um… yes, yes it is Cortes. A definitive statement is one that is either true or false. A non-definitive statement is one that could be EITHER true or false. For example, saying I made an assumption about you relative to your belief in evolution is either correct or incorrect, there is no middle ground. However, saying that you PROBABLY don’t believe in evolution is non-definitive because the word “probably” infers both possibilities simultaneously, even if it leans towards one answer over the other. You made the definitive claim that I assumed you deny evolution. For the sake of argument I had to marry one option simply to make the point, but the specifics of the example were unimportant as whether or not you actually believe in evolution doesn’t impact our debate (at least not as of when that post was made). If our debate was actually on evolution you can be sure I would just ask you if you believe in it or not.
What exactly have I said that makes it “blindingly clear” that I haven’t read the bible? You probably have more of the bible memorized than I do (as you should being as you are a Catholic and I am not), but that doesn’t mean I haven’t read it. I probably have more of “Othello” memorized than you do, that doesn’t mean you haven’t read it.
“Fair” infers “should” statements. X “should” result in Y. Logic is the necessary progression of a given premise. Basically, X results in Y. While the former may or may not be necessarily true, the later is. To bring this in line with our discussion, God has condemned homosexuality and as such homosexuals are destined to burn in hell for all eternity… but why? What is the mechanism in God’s moral framework that makes the eternal torment of homosexuals simply for being homosexual necessary? Locking up a violent person is logical. They are causing needless violence and this is a problem, locking said person up solves this problem: but what is the outcome of allowing homosexuality that logically justifies the eternal torture of them? Especially after they die when their bodily sexual orientation is no longer relevant?
I see none, so I call it arbitrary, and I view making an arbitrary decision resulting in eternal torment to be sadistic. Do you have an answer as to why homosexuality is necessarily immoral? That is, can you bridge the gap between why homosexuals “should” burn in Hell and why they actually are burning in Hell?
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Ok, so can I like fuck your Mom and make you watch? After all, it’s not a ‘bad thing’?[/quote]
Behold, the championed “maturity” of my elders…[/quote]
Instead of weaseling out of answering yet again, why not entertain his question as logical exercise, however absurd it may appear?
Pat and I, at least, can answer with a simple “no.”[/quote]
He’s not asking for an answer, he’s just trying to irk me with this sort of nonsense.
Though, there does seem to be a misunderstanding here. Just because something isn’t “bad” doesn’t mean it is “good”. This kind of reasoning is still within a moral framework. I don’t judge actions as being “good” or “bad” so this would be neither, but this should already be clear to him given my preceding post. So this question, as a logic exercise, is simply nonsense. [/quote]
More evidence that you are wholly incapable of taking a firm stance on any hard question.
Tell me, does cognitive dissonance burn, or is it more of a dull ache? [/quote]
I firmly take the stance that your “good vs. evil” world view is entirely too simplistic to accurately describe reality while simultaneously being over complicated in its analysis of reality.
Just because my answers aren’t as simple as “yes or no” doesn’t mean they aren’t “firm”. This is another example of you guys not arguing my positions, but rather trying to get me to fit into your idea of what you want me to think. I know that would certainly be easier for you, but I don’t base my world view around what ideas are easy for you to debunk, nor do I base them on the ideas that would be hard for you to debunk for that matter.
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
Saying I made an assumption about you is not a definitive statement? Um… yes, yes it is Cortes. A definitive statement is one that is either true or false. A non-definitive statement is one that could be EITHER true or false. For example, saying I made an assumption about you relative to your belief in evolution is either correct or incorrect, there is no middle ground. However, saying that you PROBABLY don’t believe in evolution is non-definitive because the word “probably” infers both possibilities simultaneously, even if it leans towards one answer over the other. You made the definitive claim that I assumed you deny evolution. For the sake of argument I had to marry one option simply to make the point, but the specifics of the example were unimportant as whether or not you actually believe in evolution doesn’t impact our debate (at least not as of when that post was made). If our debate was actually on evolution you can be sure I would just ask you if you believe in it or not.
[/quote]
Wait, so you are now saying that “you probably don’t believe in evolution,” is NOT an assumption on your part of my beliefs?
Good grief. There certainly is no black and white with you. Even the clear meaning of plain English is apparently as malleable as aluminum foil.
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Ok, so can I like fuck your Mom and make you watch? After all, it’s not a ‘bad thing’?[/quote]
Behold, the championed “maturity” of my elders…[/quote]
Instead of weaseling out of answering yet again, why not entertain his question as logical exercise, however absurd it may appear?
Pat and I, at least, can answer with a simple “no.”[/quote]
He’s not asking for an answer, he’s just trying to irk me with this sort of nonsense.
Though, there does seem to be a misunderstanding here. Just because something isn’t “bad” doesn’t mean it is “good”. This kind of reasoning is still within a moral framework. I don’t judge actions as being “good” or “bad” so this would be neither, but this should already be clear to him given my preceding post. So this question, as a logic exercise, is simply nonsense. [/quote]
More evidence that you are wholly incapable of taking a firm stance on any hard question.
Tell me, does cognitive dissonance burn, or is it more of a dull ache? [/quote]
I firmly take the stance that your “good vs. evil” world view is entirely too simplistic to accurately describe reality while simultaneously being over complicated in its analysis of reality.
Just because my answers aren’t as simple as “yes or no” doesn’t mean they aren’t “firm”. This is another example of you guys not arguing my positions, but rather trying to get me to fit into your idea of what you want me to think. I know that would certainly be easier for you, but I don’t base my world view around what ideas are easy for you to debunk, nor do I base them on the ideas that would be hard for you to debunk for that matter. [/quote]
Heh. You’ll find out just how black-and-white this world indeed is in due time, should you try applying this wishy-washy philosophy to real life.
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
You’ll do well to notice I didn’t say you definitely don’t believe in evolution, I said PROBABLY. And it was just an example to illustrate a point. This is what I’m talking about. You take relatively small things, twist them, them blow them entirely out of proportion. My point had nothing to do with whether you actually believe in evolution or not, you just chose to focus on that so you’d have something to complain about.
[/quote]
And you’ll do well to notice that I didn’t use a definitive word either, hence “assume” rather than “believe.” I know it was an example and you don’t have to explain every little thing to me, it becomes tedious.I was highlighting the irony of your complaining about assumptions when there was clearly a massive, glaring assumption about my beliefs right there in the exact same post.
Saying I made an assumption about you is not a definitive statement? Um… yes, yes it is Cortes. A definitive statement is one that is either true or false. A non-definitive statement is one that could be EITHER true or false. For example, saying I made an assumption about you relative to your belief in evolution is either correct or incorrect, there is no middle ground. However, saying that you PROBABLY don’t believe in evolution is non-definitive because the word “probably” infers both possibilities simultaneously, even if it leans towards one answer over the other. You made the definitive claim that I assumed you deny evolution. For the sake of argument I had to marry one option simply to make the point, but the specifics of the example were unimportant as whether or not you actually believe in evolution doesn’t impact our debate (at least not as of when that post was made). If our debate was actually on evolution you can be sure I would just ask you if you believe in it or not.
What exactly have I said that makes it “blindingly clear” that I haven’t read the bible? You probably have more of the bible memorized than I do (as you should being as you are a Catholic and I am not), but that doesn’t mean I haven’t read it. I probably have more of “Othello” memorized than you do, that doesn’t mean you haven’t read it.
“Fair” infers “should” statements. X “should” result in Y. Logic is the necessary progression of a given premise. Basically, X results in Y. While the former may or may not be necessarily true, the later is. To bring this in line with our discussion, God has condemned homosexuality and as such homosexuals are destined to burn in hell for all eternity… but why? What is the mechanism in God’s moral framework that makes the eternal torment of homosexuals simply for being homosexual necessary? Locking up a violent person is logical. They are causing needless violence and this is a problem, locking said person up solves this problem: but what is the outcome of allowing homosexuality that logically justifies the eternal torture of them? Especially after they die when their bodily sexual orientation is no longer relevant?
I see none, so I call it arbitrary, and I view making an arbitrary decision resulting in eternal torment to be sadistic. Do you have an answer as to why homosexuality is necessarily immoral? That is, can you bridge the gap between why homosexuals “should” burn in Hell and why they actually are burning in Hell?[/quote]
I’ll get to the rest of this later. Summer is festival season in Japan and there’s a great one tonight.
Hint to ponder. There is a vast forest looming before you, yet, in addition to seeing nothing but a bunch of trees, you’re holding your map upside down.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
Saying I made an assumption about you is not a definitive statement? Um… yes, yes it is Cortes. A definitive statement is one that is either true or false. A non-definitive statement is one that could be EITHER true or false. For example, saying I made an assumption about you relative to your belief in evolution is either correct or incorrect, there is no middle ground. However, saying that you PROBABLY don’t believe in evolution is non-definitive because the word “probably” infers both possibilities simultaneously, even if it leans towards one answer over the other. You made the definitive claim that I assumed you deny evolution. For the sake of argument I had to marry one option simply to make the point, but the specifics of the example were unimportant as whether or not you actually believe in evolution doesn’t impact our debate (at least not as of when that post was made). If our debate was actually on evolution you can be sure I would just ask you if you believe in it or not.
[/quote]
Wait, so you are now saying that “you probably don’t believe in evolution,” is NOT an assumption on your part of my beliefs?
Good grief. There certainly is no black and white with you. Even the clear meaning of plain English is apparently as malleable as aluminum foil. [/quote]
I suppose you could call it a non-definitive assumption if you really want to push it. But then, it’s really only an assumption in that it acknowledges two options with a favour towards one. =/
Lol. Well, as the old Koan goes, “a truth is that whose contradictory is also true.”
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Ok, so can I like fuck your Mom and make you watch? After all, it’s not a ‘bad thing’?[/quote]
Behold, the championed “maturity” of my elders…[/quote]
Instead of weaseling out of answering yet again, why not entertain his question as logical exercise, however absurd it may appear?
Pat and I, at least, can answer with a simple “no.”[/quote]
He’s not asking for an answer, he’s just trying to irk me with this sort of nonsense.
Though, there does seem to be a misunderstanding here. Just because something isn’t “bad” doesn’t mean it is “good”. This kind of reasoning is still within a moral framework. I don’t judge actions as being “good” or “bad” so this would be neither, but this should already be clear to him given my preceding post. So this question, as a logic exercise, is simply nonsense. [/quote]
More evidence that you are wholly incapable of taking a firm stance on any hard question.
Tell me, does cognitive dissonance burn, or is it more of a dull ache? [/quote]
I firmly take the stance that your “good vs. evil” world view is entirely too simplistic to accurately describe reality while simultaneously being over complicated in its analysis of reality.
Just because my answers aren’t as simple as “yes or no” doesn’t mean they aren’t “firm”. This is another example of you guys not arguing my positions, but rather trying to get me to fit into your idea of what you want me to think. I know that would certainly be easier for you, but I don’t base my world view around what ideas are easy for you to debunk, nor do I base them on the ideas that would be hard for you to debunk for that matter. [/quote]
Heh. You’ll find out just how black-and-white this world indeed is in due time, should you try applying this wishy-washy philosophy to real life.
[/quote]
Well, things have been smooth thus far. Though, I don’t think calling my world view a ‘philosophy’ by its own right is accurate. I outright reject the idea of labelling things as “good and evil” and instead withhold creating any judgement on a particular circumstance that is not the natural logical progression of said situations general utility given the situations context. If anything I would call my world view the lack of a philosophy, the “belief in non-belief” so to speak.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
You’ll do well to notice I didn’t say you definitely don’t believe in evolution, I said PROBABLY. And it was just an example to illustrate a point. This is what I’m talking about. You take relatively small things, twist them, them blow them entirely out of proportion. My point had nothing to do with whether you actually believe in evolution or not, you just chose to focus on that so you’d have something to complain about.
[/quote]
And you’ll do well to notice that I didn’t use a definitive word either, hence “assume” rather than “believe.” I know it was an example and you don’t have to explain every little thing to me, it becomes tedious.I was highlighting the irony of your complaining about assumptions when there was clearly a massive, glaring assumption about my beliefs right there in the exact same post.
Saying I made an assumption about you is not a definitive statement? Um… yes, yes it is Cortes. A definitive statement is one that is either true or false. A non-definitive statement is one that could be EITHER true or false. For example, saying I made an assumption about you relative to your belief in evolution is either correct or incorrect, there is no middle ground. However, saying that you PROBABLY don’t believe in evolution is non-definitive because the word “probably” infers both possibilities simultaneously, even if it leans towards one answer over the other. You made the definitive claim that I assumed you deny evolution. For the sake of argument I had to marry one option simply to make the point, but the specifics of the example were unimportant as whether or not you actually believe in evolution doesn’t impact our debate (at least not as of when that post was made). If our debate was actually on evolution you can be sure I would just ask you if you believe in it or not.
What exactly have I said that makes it “blindingly clear” that I haven’t read the bible? You probably have more of the bible memorized than I do (as you should being as you are a Catholic and I am not), but that doesn’t mean I haven’t read it. I probably have more of “Othello” memorized than you do, that doesn’t mean you haven’t read it.
“Fair” infers “should” statements. X “should” result in Y. Logic is the necessary progression of a given premise. Basically, X results in Y. While the former may or may not be necessarily true, the later is. To bring this in line with our discussion, God has condemned homosexuality and as such homosexuals are destined to burn in hell for all eternity… but why? What is the mechanism in God’s moral framework that makes the eternal torment of homosexuals simply for being homosexual necessary? Locking up a violent person is logical. They are causing needless violence and this is a problem, locking said person up solves this problem: but what is the outcome of allowing homosexuality that logically justifies the eternal torture of them? Especially after they die when their bodily sexual orientation is no longer relevant?
I see none, so I call it arbitrary, and I view making an arbitrary decision resulting in eternal torment to be sadistic. Do you have an answer as to why homosexuality is necessarily immoral? That is, can you bridge the gap between why homosexuals “should” burn in Hell and why they actually are burning in Hell?[/quote]
I’ll get to the rest of this later. Summer is festival season in Japan and there’s a great one tonight.
Hint to ponder. There is a vast forest looming before you, yet, in addition to seeing nothing but a bunch of trees, you’re holding your map upside down.
[/quote]
Alrighty, have fun. =)
And while an upside-down map does nothing for seeing the forest through the trees, it does a pretty good job of showing the trees amongst the forest. 
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
What exactly have I said that makes it “blindingly clear” that I haven’t read the bible? You probably have more of the bible memorized than I do (as you should being as you are a Catholic and I am not), but that doesn’t mean I haven’t read it. I probably have more of “Othello” memorized than you do, that doesn’t mean you haven’t read it.
[/quote]
You don’t have to have memorized the Bible to know what’s in it. You just have to have read it at least once.
I’ll demonstrate what I’m talking about by issuing a challenge: Please find the passage in the Bible that refers to not working on Sunday. Have fun.
This is very keen insight, and I genuinely mean that. That word, “should” is VERY important to this discussion or any discussion of morality. We are going to return to it later. But first, part of the problem is that you insist upon applying your idea of what’s fair, and even what is “logical” to the acts in question. In other words, you would assume the role of God. But you are not God. You are TigerTime. If you are God, then you are good. Now I’m not saying you are bad by any means, or even that you are not a good guy. But if you are God, you are the very essence of good. You define “good.”
Now, because you define what is good (define here meaning “embody”), then what you will for your creation will NOT be arbitrary, but logical, as your will is a product of your nature. At the risk of pressing the point, since your nature is absolutely unadulterated, perfect goodness, then you will logically will for us to do good acts, which also must be good, as you could will nothing else.
Before we proceed, you seem to imply that people go to hell just for being homosexual (if I’m wrong let’s just drop it as it’s not important to my ultimate point). This is not at all true according to almost any Christian denomination. The act of homosexuality falls under the category of fornication, and it is this that can get you in trouble. Understand, that puts homosexuality on equal footing with sex before marriage and adultery, to name a couple.
I’m splitting this off for emphasis:
Read the sentence above this one. Now read it again. Are you getting it yet?
[quote]
and I view making an arbitrary decision resulting in eternal torment to be sadistic. Do you have an answer as to why homosexuality is necessarily immoral? That is, can you bridge the gap between why homosexuals “should” burn in Hell and why they actually are burning in Hell?[/quote]
Well, here’s where that lovely, insightful word, “should” comes into play most importantly. If certain acts are cause for removal from God’s presence (as this is what Hell actually is), and if God is the essence of good, and could thereby will nothing that is not-good, then logically, not arbitrarily, that removal must necessarily be “fair.” It cannot be anything other than fair, definitionally.
Now just because YOU happen not to be able to see why certain acts are considered “bad” does not mean that they automatically become neutral or good.
That, my friend, is the forest. That careworn, dogeared old book that used to belong to your grandfather? It’s the map.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Ok, so can I like fuck your Mom and make you watch? After all, it’s not a ‘bad thing’?[/quote]
Behold, the championed “maturity” of my elders…[/quote]
Instead of weaseling out of answering yet again, why not entertain his question as logical exercise, however absurd it may appear?
Pat and I, at least, can answer with a simple “no.”[/quote]
Correct Cortes! That is exactly what I was doing. The reason is anyone can shirk off hypothetical left and right, but a crude attack gets right to the heart of the matter. All the sudden, it’s not an exercise. It’s not a morally neutral thing, it’s not arbitrary. It pissed him off, it was meant to. Because if your truly morally nihilistic, ‘yes’ would be the right answer. But the reality as evidenced by the angry dodge, is that he isn’t no one is, because it’s impossible. Mortally you have to take a stand at some point. There is a line in the sand and everybody knows it.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I think if you believe in God , then you have to believe , he created the sciences as the operating system[/quote]
That is an interesting analogy. I like it.
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Ok, so can I like fuck your Mom and make you watch? After all, it’s not a ‘bad thing’?[/quote]
Behold, the championed “maturity” of my elders…[/quote]
Instead of weaseling out of answering yet again, why not entertain his question as logical exercise, however absurd it may appear?
Pat and I, at least, can answer with a simple “no.”[/quote]
He’s not asking for an answer, he’s just trying to irk me with this sort of nonsense.
[/quote]
Yup, and it worked too 
Oh no, no weaseling here. There is no ‘good’ or ‘bad’, it’s all arbitrary based on societal norms that evolved from, uh, I guess thin ass air, in your case.
So then the answers is ‘yes’. Fucking your mom and making you watch is not a ‘bad thing’. Or would you prefer "Making loving’ or ‘Doing it’?
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Ok, so can I like fuck your Mom and make you watch? After all, it’s not a ‘bad thing’?[/quote]
Behold, the championed “maturity” of my elders…[/quote]
Instead of weaseling out of answering yet again, why not entertain his question as logical exercise, however absurd it may appear?
Pat and I, at least, can answer with a simple “no.”[/quote]
He’s not asking for an answer, he’s just trying to irk me with this sort of nonsense.
Though, there does seem to be a misunderstanding here. Just because something isn’t “bad” doesn’t mean it is “good”. This kind of reasoning is still within a moral framework. I don’t judge actions as being “good” or “bad” so this would be neither, but this should already be clear to him given my preceding post. So this question, as a logic exercise, is simply nonsense. [/quote]
More evidence that you are wholly incapable of taking a firm stance on any hard question.
Tell me, does cognitive dissonance burn, or is it more of a dull ache? [/quote]
I firmly take the stance that your “good vs. evil” world view is entirely too simplistic to accurately describe reality while simultaneously being over complicated in its analysis of reality.
Just because my answers aren’t as simple as “yes or no” doesn’t mean they aren’t “firm”. This is another example of you guys not arguing my positions, but rather trying to get me to fit into your idea of what you want me to think. I know that would certainly be easier for you, but I don’t base my world view around what ideas are easy for you to debunk, nor do I base them on the ideas that would be hard for you to debunk for that matter. [/quote]
Heh. You’ll find out just how black-and-white this world indeed is in due time, should you try applying this wishy-washy philosophy to real life.
[/quote]
Well, things have been smooth thus far. Though, I don’t think calling my world view a ‘philosophy’ by its own right is accurate. I outright reject the idea of labelling things as “good and evil” and instead withhold creating any judgement on a particular circumstance that is not the natural logical progression of said situations general utility given the situations context. If anything I would call my world view the lack of a philosophy, the “belief in non-belief” so to speak. [/quote]
That would be ‘utilitarianism’, not nihilism.
Hah. I just caught it.
Iago.
If you intended that, it was certainly clever.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
Well, things have been smooth thus far. Though, I don’t think calling my world view a ‘philosophy’ by its own right is accurate. I outright reject the idea of labelling things as “good and evil” and instead withhold creating any judgement on a particular circumstance that is not the natural logical progression of said situations general utility given the situations context. If anything I would call my world view the lack of a philosophy, the “belief in non-belief” so to speak. [/quote]
That would be ‘utilitarianism’, not nihilism. [/quote]
But he’s “not a utilitarian, just so we’re clear.”
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I think if you believe in God , then you have to believe , he created the sciences as the operating system[/quote]
…what? I thought the laws of nature were the operation system? I didn’t know the observational tools were.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Hah. I just caught it.
Iago.
If you intended that, it was certainly clever. [/quote]
Well, I do believe you have seen enough of my posts to know that I may cuss, but I am generally not that directly vulgar. It was deliberate, and I appreciate the compliment.
My purpose was to cross the ‘line in the sand’. It was to illustrate the point that morality and the feelings attached to it are not arbitrary. There is a point, depite your level of tolerance, that something is over board.
We can argue about whether some border line issues are good or evil, but there are absolutes in the realm and save for liars, everybody intrinsically knows them to be true.
I like the example of child rape for instance. You have to be a low horrible piece of detestable shit, to not admit that is evil. It’s not arbitrary, it’s not debatable, it’s not up for discussion. To steal the dignity and innocence of a child permanently is worse than murder. At least a dead child doesn’t have to live with it. It sounds extreme but it happens, unfortunately, a lot, especially in Africa. Anyway, the extreme examples make the point, quite clearly, that morality isn’t arbitrary.
Yep, it was a trick, it worked perfectly, but I don’t think that he’ll be dumb enough to fall for it twice.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
Well, things have been smooth thus far. Though, I don’t think calling my world view a ‘philosophy’ by its own right is accurate. I outright reject the idea of labelling things as “good and evil” and instead withhold creating any judgement on a particular circumstance that is not the natural logical progression of said situations general utility given the situations context. If anything I would call my world view the lack of a philosophy, the “belief in non-belief” so to speak. [/quote]
That would be ‘utilitarianism’, not nihilism. [/quote]
But he’s “not a utilitarian, just so we’re clear.”
[/quote]
I am not sure he knows what he is. It sounds to me like he read some garbage from Nietzsche and has kind of adopted it as his own outlook, in lieu of actual experience. But experience will come and annihilate these notions. Pain has a nasty way of revising paradigms. It’s the ultimate neutralizer. You can only understand it, when you have experienced it.
Even Nietzsche couldn’t out smart his own reality, which sucked. He died a bitter, psychotic, piece of shit.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I think if you believe in God , then you have to believe , he created the sciences as the operating system[/quote]
That is an interesting analogy. I like it.[/quote]
Science isn’t so much the operating system as it is the read-only viewer. Science isn’t reality, it’s a way of viewing it.