ZOMBIE FORUMS

...fixed it for you.

Hrm. Because I lack the will to go back through seven pages of pedantic nonsense, "googled" information and misquotes, I'm just going to give my own. If you don't like it, then it's because you're unreasonable, irrational, an idiot, or all three.

First: God is a precept. I'm not going to align myself with the atheists or the theists in this one, because more often than not, they are both equally as repugnant, stubborn, and wrong. Theists have taken to abusing the linguistics of scripture rather than going by the dictums of the Vatican, and believe what they are told. That is a feeble way to live. Atheists are just as much a waste, because they define themselves by something they oppose, and are as much a slave to the concept of religion as any. There is no "God" in the normative sense - there is a collective, accepted set of moral codes that are widely agreed upon that have, through time and idiocy, been manifested into an actual being. If you look at every major religion, and even many of the not-so-majors, you find a common trend among their main views - they all advocate brotherhood, righteousness, loyalty, etc. IE, a common moral code. They have different details and nuances, so don't pester me about that.

The idea that there is actually a giant man sitting in a throne of gold in the sky, or on an alternate plane of existence that is infinitely prettier than ours, filled with singing angels and bunny rabbits - okay, really, think about that. No.

I'm not attacking any religion or religion at all, just pointing out a flaw with the premise of it. Churches and temples don't really bother me, and they're rather aesthetically pleasing.


Second: Free will, even in morals. Just because there is a commonly accepted moral code doesn't mean you have to follow them. Kind of an "Eligo, ergo sum" paradigm in here, but not as fatalistic.


Third: There is no good and no evil. If there were, God would have to exist, and absolute morals would have to exist. Without proof of these two requisites, there can be no concept of good and evil except those that are individual.


And while Descartes may have been a "wanker", I agree with his Meditations on logic, that the mind has two powers, intuitive, or apprehending direct truths, and deductive, or making logical progression from a priori truths we know by intuition. He did, however, try to reform Anselm's ontological argument, which was not only flawed to begin with, but a waste of time for him to try to ressurect in the Fifth Meditation.

If there is one thing that pisses me off more than anything else in Debate Club, this is it.

"I'm not going to read your posts because I don't care about them. But you all should read mine."


You're definitely not the first person to say this, but it doesn't make you less of a twit for
a) (Not) doing it.
b) Talking about it.

Debate implies discussion. Not just throwing your opinion into the postbox and running away.

Hey, jackass, maybe I just don't feel like reading them because it's 4-fucking-am. Normally, I do respond to previous discussion, but I wanted to give a brief preface as to why I was not and simultaneously be the sarcastic snob I am. And the last sentence of the part you quoted is a parody of one of the values of Anselm's ontological argument which I talk about in my post. And, if you read the actual substance rather than committing ANOTHER "twit"-like debate sin and focusing on the part irrelevant to the debate, <b>you'd see that I did respond to some previous discussion on the last page.</b>

Thanks, I know the rules, please go fuck a chipmunk.

<i>Edited for fucking clarification.</i>

What? You expect me to read your long-ass post? At 4-fucking-am?


You are entirely welcome. Though I would say it's more of a simple courtesy and less of a rule.

/done

Thin, I'm sure that you may, as well, read the rest of the thread at a later date if you so desire.

Thinman is very correct in what he said, it's unreasonable to state that you've not read anything anybody else has contributed to the thread then expect people to read your contribution; if it's 4am then here's an idea, wait until the morning and go through it while you're awake and fresh. Please do not derail the topic any further, if any replys after mine reference this lack of common courtesy then i'll just delete said post (and every post from AoC's through to this one) in an attempt to keep things on topic.

My knowledge on Descartes' meditations is limited to the first two. That's all we were given for class.

That being said - Just because someone drinks doesn't mean they don't have good ideas every now and then. Look at Goethe. I mean, I know alcohol can cause brain damage, but that should be irrelivant. Nietzche had syphilis, yet he still had some golden ideas. Credibility is one thing, dismissing an arguement from someone based on the opinion that "he's a wanker" is rather ridiculous and narrow minded.

Faust! Not my favorite, but entertaining to no small end.

It's kind of difficult to denegrate someone with a substance addiction when we're sitting around here, waiting for posts like crack addicts looking for another hit.

o.O

Yeah, but it's the internet. Who are we to take each other seriously? It's all for fun anyways (why else would you be here if you didn't enjoy it?). It's mental masturbation, so we're all wankers. So being a wanker doesn't make a damned of a difference. Plus most of us have gotten drunk and abused a substance at one time or another. (Me- pot that one time). :P

Speaking of Faust, I want to get around to reading that book someday. And reference it in my gawthic journal which I've been completely neglecting.

Mental masturbation, I love it!

*searches for someone to argue with*

I mentaly fap.

Fixed.

My calling Descartes a wanker was simply my way of saying his ideas are completely stupid.

Is that your most humble opinion? I know a lot of his ideas are screwy, but do you mean ALL of them? Why? What have you found makes that so? DEBATE, MAN! This is the club for it afterall.

Some of them, yes, they are. Which?

Well, let's see. Ol' Rene had some good ideas. He had an affair with ex-Queen Christina of Sweden, who was by all accounts a fairly exciting woman. He invented Cartesian geometry. He found the formula for the path of a cannonball -- before Newton and Leibniz invented differential calculus, by the way. And, yes, his cogito is a masterpiece of philosophy. It's wrong, true, but it's an idea worth understanding anyway ...

<taunt> unlike any of Michel Foucault's. </taunt>

You just had to do it, didn't you?



How many books by Foucault have you read?

In completely unrelated news, I think Godel is an idiot who never contributed anything of value to mathematics. I'm not a mathematician and my knowledge of his woek is limited to a general understanding of the Incompleteness theorem, but I don't need to actually be familiar with his ideas when blindly dismissing them is so much easier.


...



(My Descartes post is still being worked on.)

After a PM from Tamayo i've decided to close this topic.

Icy, if you ever get around to writing that post about Descartes then PM me and i'll unlock it, otherwise I think it's for the best that we let this thread die.

ptlis

And I've decided to unlock it after Tam's request. I don't fiddle much around in these parts anymore, but I like this thread. My biggest question is: Where did the fuss originate? Wasn't this one of the fun threads?