Suscipe Domine Traditional Catholic Forum

The Church Courtyard => General Catholic Discussion => Topic started by: Probius on October 12, 2013, 08:23:04 PM

Title: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 12, 2013, 08:23:04 PM
Louis IX and Gerard, we can pick up where we left off here.

I'll start by stating that humility is bad and I prefer pride.  Humility is anti-humanistic, while pride is a wonderful virtue that celebrates man qua man.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: LouisIX on October 12, 2013, 09:18:36 PM
How is humility anti-humanistic?  What value do you give to empathy and altruism?  To what extent can these things flourish when pride (and not humility) is celebrated as a principle virtue?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on October 12, 2013, 09:29:41 PM
QuoteI'll start by stating that humility is bad and I prefer pride.  Humility is anti-humanistic, while pride is a wonderful virtue that celebrates man qua man.

You are seriously mistaken.  You have probably heard sermons where we are to view ourselves as nothing but worms.  This really is meant for mystics and those at very high level spiritual life.

Humility is simply this:  telling the truth about yourself TO yourself and to God, and to others where it doesn't conflict with your personal privacy, e.g. telling everyone about your sins would be too much.

Ask yourself this:  How can the Church preach humility and magnanimity at the same time?  And yet both are Catholic virtues.  You are working on the wrong definition, something meant for meditation and not daily life.  Humility is an incredible blessing.  Alpha males and all the great leaders were humble.  Because humility allows you to know yourself.  Magnanimity is only possible from a humble person.

Pride is a horror to behold.  Pride goes far beyond self-respect, which is healthy.  Prideful people are oftentimes failures in life.  There is a reason for this.  Once they refuse to face their real self, they live a lie and can no longer grow.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on October 12, 2013, 09:31:13 PM
So you are really an atheist?  Good to have you here and I hope you are here to learn the opposing argument and not to troll.  I enjoy conversations with SINCERE atheists who really want to know the truth.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Gerard on October 12, 2013, 09:37:02 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 12, 2013, 08:23:04 PM
Louis IX and Gerard, we can pick up where we left off here.

I'll start by stating that humility is bad and I prefer pride.  Humility is anti-humanistic, while pride is a wonderful virtue that celebrates man qua man.

Let's start by clarifying terms.  What do you mean by "bad"?  Probably you should also supply definitions for pride and humility as well as what "good" means.  The discussion can be worthwhile if I know we are all submitting to the same understanding of the language used. 

Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 12, 2013, 09:37:46 PM

Quote from: james03 on October 12, 2013, 09:31:13 PM
So you are really an atheist?  Good to have you here and I hope you are here to learn the opposing argument and not to troll.  I enjoy conversations with SINCERE atheists who really want to know the truth.

I am.  All I care about is the truth, and I respect the Church very much.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on October 12, 2013, 09:45:28 PM
Well that's good.  You will discover that the only rational philosophy of atheism is semantic nihilism, something that I think is implausible, to say the least.

And I'm glad you respect the Church.  For she teaches the following:

QuoteWith reason, then, the common opinion of mankind, little affected by the few dissidents who have contended for the opposite view, has found in the careful study of nature, and in the laws of nature, the foundations of the division of property, and the practice of all ages has consecrated the principle of private ownership, as being pre-eminently in conformity with human nature, and as conducing in the most unmistakable manner to the peace and tranquility of human existence. The same principle is confirmed and enforced by the civil laws-laws which, so long as they are just, derive from the law of nature their binding force.  The authority of the divine law adds its sanction, forbidding us in severest terms even to covet that which is another's: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife; nor his house, nor his field, nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is his.

If you like Ayn Rand, please consider reading my book:   Link to FREE book (http://www.scribd.com/doc/76085375/Anthem-2012-The-Catholic-Libertarian-Manifesto)  It fills in the holes.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 12, 2013, 09:45:49 PM

Quote from: Gerard on October 12, 2013, 09:37:02 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 12, 2013, 08:23:04 PM
Louis IX and Gerard, we can pick up where we left off here.

I'll start by stating that humility is bad and I prefer pride.  Humility is anti-humanistic, while pride is a wonderful virtue that celebrates man qua man.

Let's start by clarifying terms.  What do you mean by "bad"?  Probably you should also supply definitions for pride and humility as well as what "good" means.  The discussion can be worthwhile if I know we are all submitting to the same understanding of the language used.

Excellent point.  A thing is bad in so far as it does not advance man in his quest for survival.  Pride is the joy one takes in achieving one's own moral perfection.  Humility is self-abasement, it is to see no value in one's own self.  The humble man says 'I am no good, and I do not intend on improving'.  Clearly y'all are using the term differently.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Gerard on October 12, 2013, 09:49:15 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 12, 2013, 09:37:46 PM

Quote from: james03 on October 12, 2013, 09:31:13 PM
So you are really an atheist?  Good to have you here and I hope you are here to learn the opposing argument and not to troll.  I enjoy conversations with SINCERE atheists who really want to know the truth.

I am.  All I care about is the truth, and I respect the Church very much.

So much more that we should clarify terms.  Pride as a word even in its etymology is not about truth. Pride is about puffing out one's chest unnaturally and creating an illusion of being more than one is. 

Humility is about truth, knowing one's place.  A prideful person is a 40+ year old oversized person in bad shape that still thinks they can become an Olympic gymnast and win the gold.   A humble person is a person that is young and is really a gymnast and has competed to the point where the Olympics is a real possibility and they do have a reasonable chance of winning.

As an aside, due to a lecture I listened to tonight by Micheal Coren, I would describe you as a subjective atheist and objectively agnostic. 
 

Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on October 12, 2013, 09:49:34 PM
QuoteA thing is bad in so far as it does not advance man in his quest for survival.

Are you a communist?  What do you mean by "man"?

Also my question still stands, how can the Church preach humility and magnanimity at the same time?

I guess you answered this in saying we use different definitions.  Another example is the Cardinal Virtue of Prudence.  Prudence today means pragmatic.  That is not the classic definition.  The classic definition (read: Aristotle) is this:  aligning yourself with reality.  Note that the Church places this as the first cardinal virtue.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 12, 2013, 09:52:49 PM

Quote from: james03 on October 12, 2013, 09:45:28 PM
Well that's good.  You will discover that the only rational philosophy of atheism is semantic nihilism, something that I think is implausible, to say the least.

And I'm glad you respect the Church.  For she teaches the following:

QuoteWith reason, then, the common opinion of mankind, little affected by the few dissidents who have contended for the opposite view, has found in the careful study of nature, and in the laws of nature, the foundations of the division of property, and the practice of all ages has consecrated the principle of private ownership, as being pre-eminently in conformity with human nature, and as conducing in the most unmistakable manner to the peace and tranquility of human existence. The same principle is confirmed and enforced by the civil laws-laws which, so long as they are just, derive from the law of nature their binding force.  The authority of the divine law adds its sanction, forbidding us in severest terms even to covet that which is another's: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife; nor his house, nor his field, nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is his.

If you like Ayn Rand, please consider reading my book:   Link to FREE book (http://www.scribd.com/doc/76085375/Anthem-2012-The-Catholic-Libertarian-Manifesto)  It fills in the holes.

Ayn Rand toyed with nihilism early in her life, but broke with it later in her life.  In fact, she became a fierce critic of nihilism.  I don't like nihilism, it's what happens to a theist who has given up his faith and hasn't yet learned how to cope.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 12, 2013, 09:59:41 PM

Quote from: Gerard on October 12, 2013, 09:49:15 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 12, 2013, 09:37:46 PM

Quote from: james03 on October 12, 2013, 09:31:13 PM
So you are really an atheist?  Good to have you here and I hope you are here to learn the opposing argument and not to troll.  I enjoy conversations with SINCERE atheists who really want to know the truth.

I am.  All I care about is the truth, and I respect the Church very much.

So much more that we should clarify terms.  Pride as a word even in its etymology is not about truth. Pride is about puffing out one's chest unnaturally and creating an illusion of being more than one is. 

Humility is about truth, knowing one's place.  A prideful person is a 40+ year old oversized person in bad shape that still thinks they can become an Olympic gymnast and win the gold.   A humble person is a person that is young and is really a gymnast and has competed to the point where the Olympics is a real possibility and they do have a reasonable chance of winning.

As an aside, due to a lecture I listened to tonight by Micheal Coren, I would describe you as a subjective atheist and objectively agnostic. 


Understood.  I am not agnostic because this term means that something can not be known.  I think that if God were to exist, surely he would reveal himself to mankind.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on October 12, 2013, 10:00:58 PM
Yes, she strictly opposed it.  She makes a statement about it in Atlas Shrugged that most people miss.  It is in the end when James Taggert is trying to kill Galt.  After a while, he says, No. No. No., and then Galt says Yes. and Taggert goes insane.  What Taggert realized was that he was a nihilist and worshipped death.

Since Rand based her philosophy on Aristotle (talk about contradiction), so she said a lot of very Catholic things.

By the way, what do you mean by "man"?  The individual, or the race?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 12, 2013, 10:02:32 PM

Quote from: james03 on October 12, 2013, 09:49:34 PM
QuoteA thing is bad in so far as it does not advance man in his quest for survival.

Are you a communist?  What do you mean by "man"?

Also my question still stands, how can the Church preach humility and magnanimity at the same time?

I guess you answered this in saying we use different definitions.  Another example is the Cardinal Virtue of Prudence.  Prudence today means pragmatic.  That is not the classic definition.  The classic definition (read: Aristotle) is this:  aligning yourself with reality.  Note that the Church places this as the first cardinal virtue.

I am not a Communist, I am a bitter opponent of Communism.  And by man I mean an individual.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on October 12, 2013, 10:07:28 PM
OK.  So where does love come in?  Is it bad for a man to die defending his wife and kids?  Don't we KNOW that when a man dies defending his wife, he is making the greatest declaration of love for his wife and kids?  That contradicts your definition because dying is not surviving.  Your definition calls that evil.  Do you believe that?

How about brotherly love?  A man jumps on a grenade to save his brother soldiers.  We KNOW in our heart that this is the greatest declaration of brotherly love, and yet according to you this would be evil.  Do you believe this?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 12, 2013, 10:08:13 PM

Quote from: james03 on October 12, 2013, 10:00:58 PM
Yes, she strictly opposed it.  She makes a statement about it in Atlas Shrugged that most people miss.  It is in the end when James Taggert is trying to kill Galt.  After a while, he says, No. No. No., and then Galt says Yes. and Taggert goes insane.  What Taggert realized was that he was a nihilist and worshipped death.

Since Rand based her philosophy on Aristotle (talk about contradiction), so she said a lot of very Catholic things.

By the way, what do you mean by "man"?  The individual, or the race?

Galt was Rand's ideal man.  John Galt and Dagny Taggert differed in their opinion of what the solution was.  Galt wanted to abandon society, let it crumble, and then rebuild it.  Dagny wanted to keep fighting the good fight.  Eventually Galt wins out and Dagny goes along with him.  I love that book.  :)
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Gerard on October 12, 2013, 10:11:13 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 12, 2013, 09:45:49 PM

Excellent point.  A thing is bad in so far as it does not advance man in his quest for survival.  Pride is the joy one takes in achieving one's own moral perfection.  Humility is self-abasement, it is to see no value in one's own self.  The humble man says 'I am no good, and I do not intend on improving'.  Clearly y'all are using the term differently.

Well..first, forgive me if I don't come off clear, I've got A LOT of beer swimming through my system right now, (trying to flush out a possible kidney stone) so I'm a little dizzy. 

But essentially, I think you are inverting the terms.  Your concept of the "quest for survival" is essentially the "Pro-life" position (ie. the virtue..since virtues are things that are life affirming and enriching as the root of the word indicates.

Now, as you are describing Humility, the Catholic would see that as Pride.  To see no value in one's own self is to deny the wisdom of God.  Each person has an innate value because they were created by a Superior (the Supreme) being.  The Pride is inverted to be sure, it's an extreme of devaluing and making a judgment  beyond one's capacity and desiring a condemnation that is excessive to the reality. 

What you are referring to as Pride would simply be Joy following Magnaminity to the Catholic.  Magnaminity is the stretching of the mind towards great things.  And that's a relative thing or an absolute thing according to one's capabilities. In either case, it has to be proportionate and reasonable.

The Church has worked out and explained best through St. Thomas an understanding of the Virtues and the Vices.  Do you have a similar vocabulary and understanding?  What are the vices as you know them? 




Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Gerard on October 12, 2013, 10:17:52 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 12, 2013, 09:59:41 PM
Understood.  I am not agnostic because this term means that something can not be known.  I think that if God were to exist, surely he would reveal himself to mankind.

Agnostic is the common term based on the Greek and I don't want to use the Latin term because it has a negative connotation in modern understanding. 

But I'm sure you haven't addressed every argument for the existence of God and refuted each one of them. 

To the point, if God were to exist, exactly how should He reveal Himself to mankind?  My point being that He has revealed Himself, but in His way, not ours as we are today.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on October 12, 2013, 10:21:59 PM
QuoteI love that book.
It is a great book in that Rand uses Aristotle to analyze the flaws of the "shamans of material".  Though my favorite is Francisco, much more than Galt.  Furthermore I like Riordin because he is a creator and producer.  He is a creator because he is made in the image and likeness of God, Who is a creator.  Thus we have joy in creating and producing.

Rand has a serious flaw in her book.  She attributes the error of the "shamans of material" as being Original Sin.  And yet communists reject Original Sin.  David Horowitz, a former communist discusses this as his root error.  He denied Original Sin, and thus accepted communism.  I prefer the opinion of the man who lived the life versus a novelist.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 12, 2013, 10:23:01 PM

Quote from: james03 on October 12, 2013, 10:07:28 PM
OK.  So where does love come in?  Is it bad for a man to die defending his wife and kids?  Don't we KNOW that when a man dies defending his wife, he is making the greatest declaration of love for his wife and kids?  That contradicts your definition because dying is not surviving.  Your definition calls that evil.  Do you believe that?

How about brotherly love?  A man jumps on a grenade to save his brother soldiers.  We KNOW in our heart that this is the greatest declaration of brotherly love, and yet according to you this would be evil.  Do you believe this?

We should keep defining terms.  Love is the spiritual payment given to another in exchange for the selfish pleasure of enjoying another's virtues.  Nota Bene: I use the term 'spiritual' here metaphorically for lack of a better term.

So, a man is not bad for defending his wife and children.  He can even give his life for them, but this in no way is a sacrifice, for he would be exchanging his life for a greater value.  As for the second example.  It is ill advised to put much thought into feelings from the heart.  Man should not live by his whims, but rather by his mind.  Per above, if a man jumps on the grenade he is exchanging his life for the lives of his friends.  It is an exchange, and not a sacrifice.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on October 12, 2013, 10:25:51 PM
But you are the one who said doing something  opposed to the survival of the (individual) man is evil.  You are contradicting yourself.  What higher good is there since after he dies he is gone?

And there is a reason why you can't find a better term than spiritual.  You are in a sense whistling past the graveyard and not addressing something you know to be true.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on October 12, 2013, 10:28:07 PM
QuoteI've got A LOT of beer swimming through my system right now,

Ha ha.  Me too.  I guess alcohol gets the philosophical juices flowing.  That and some fine North Carolina leaf.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 12, 2013, 10:35:54 PM

Quote from: james03 on October 12, 2013, 10:21:59 PM
QuoteI love that book.
It is a great book in that Rand uses Aristotle to analyze the flaws of the "shamans of material".  Though my favorite is Francisco, much more than Galt.  Furthermore I like Riordin because he is a creator and producer.  He is a creator because he is made in the image and likeness of God, Who is a creator.  Thus we have joy in creating and producing.

Rand has a serious flaw in her book.  She attributes the error of the "shamans of material" as being Original Sin.  And yet communists reject Original Sin.  David Horowitz, a former communist discusses this as his root error.  He denied Original Sin, and thus accepted communism.  I prefer the opinion of the man who lived the life versus a novelist.

Rand also denied original sin, as do I.  She called it the root of irrational thinking.  The denial of original sin does not necessarily lead to Communism.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on October 12, 2013, 10:41:29 PM
QuoteI am not a Communist, I am a bitter opponent of Communism.

That is good.  As Catholics are bitter opponents of Communism.  We understand them far more than an atheist can.  The Church opposed them even before Marx.  A Catholic is born and his birth right is the to-the-death struggle against marxists.  Just look at the Spanish Civil War.

And the communists understand that the Church must die for them to win.  And for all intents-and-purposes, they have won.  Communism will triumph because there is no longer anything to stand in their way.

Just look at Gramsci, which launched the Frankfurt School, which launched Saul Alinsky, which led to Obama.  And this was because Gramsci realized that he had to infiltrate and destroy the Catholic Church in order for communism to survive.  And sadly, he won.  For now.

That's it for tonight.  Thanks for having an interesting discussion with us and refraining from trolling.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 12, 2013, 10:42:38 PM

Quote from: james03 on October 12, 2013, 10:25:51 PM
But you are the one who said doing something  opposed to the survival of the (individual) man is evil.  You are contradicting yourself.  What higher good is there since after he dies he is gone?

And there is a reason why you can't find a better term than spiritual.  You are in a sense whistling past the graveyard and not addressing something you know to be true.

I didn't explain myself very well.  A man's actions should benefit himself in some way.  Normally this means enriching his life and continuing his existence.  However, in rare occasions it can mean the continued existence of one's offspring, as this is a man's only hope for immortality, or the continued existence of a loved spouse.  I don't quite understand giving up one's life for a spouse, but then again I have never been in love.

The term spiritual does work quite well.  However, that does not mean that the soul is real.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on October 12, 2013, 10:44:55 PM
QuoteThe denial of original sin does not necessarily lead to Communism.

But a real Communist, a leader of the movement, has come out and stated that he was a communist BECAUSE he denied Original Sin.  He believed a utopia was possible.  He isn't lying.

The other thing is Atlas Shrugged is all about Fallen Men.  Envy, jealousy, greed (in the looters).  Heck, a Catholic could have told her about that.

Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on October 12, 2013, 10:49:07 PM
QuoteA man's actions should benefit himself in some way.  Normally this means enriching his life and continuing his existence.  However, in rare occasions it can mean the continued existence of one's offspring, as this is a man's only hope for immortality, or the continued existence of a loved spouse.  I don't quite understand giving up one's life for a spouse, but then again I have never been in love.

The term spiritual does work quite well.  However, that does not mean that the soul is real.

This is hitch hiking on Catholic thought without accepting the NECESSARY premise.  A dead man who is worm food is not benefiting if you are a true atheist.  You are PRESUMING "good" things and not ESTABLISHING them. 

And I really need to go to bed.  Thanks for the discussion.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 12, 2013, 10:49:59 PM

Quote from: james03 on October 12, 2013, 10:41:29 PM
QuoteI am not a Communist, I am a bitter opponent of Communism.

That is good.  As Catholics are bitter opponents of Communism.  We understand them far more than an atheist can.  The Church opposed them even before Marx.  A Catholic is born and his birth right is the to-the-death struggle against marxists.  Just look at the Spanish Civil War.

And the communists understand that the Church must die for them to win.  And for all intents-and-purposes, they have won.  Communism will triumph because there is no longer anything to stand in their way.

Just look at Gramsci, which launched the Frankfurt School, which launched Saul Alinsky, which led to Obama.  And this was because Gramsci realized that he had to infiltrate and destroy the Catholic Church in order for communism to survive.  And sadly, he won.  For now.

That's it for tonight.  Thanks for having an interesting discussion with us and refraining from trolling.

Your certainly right in that Communism cannot win as long as the Church is alive and well, and neither can the revolution.  But the revolution does not need the Church to die, just to be liberalized.  A liberal Church gives the revolution a chance at victory.

I'm not sure the Church does understand Communism well.  At least the Catholics I have spoken to do not.  Most Catholics equate Communism with materialistic atheists.  That's not a good definition.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 12, 2013, 10:51:37 PM

Quote from: james03 on October 12, 2013, 10:44:55 PM
QuoteThe denial of original sin does not necessarily lead to Communism.

But a real Communist, a leader of the movement, has come out and stated that he was a communist BECAUSE he denied Original Sin.  He believed a utopia was possible.  He isn't lying.

The other thing is Atlas Shrugged is all about Fallen Men.  Envy, jealousy, greed (in the looters).  Heck, a Catholic could have told her about that.

I meant the denial of original sin can lead to many things, Communism is just one of those things.  Good night.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Christknight104 on October 12, 2013, 10:54:51 PM
Interestingly, the contemporary video game Bioshock focuses on Ayn Rand's Objectivist philosophy. The speech here that the main antagonist Andrew Ryan(notice that his name is a play on AYn Rand's name) declares summarizes the Objectivist opposition to altruism:

[yt]qbI7gxxbYpo[/yt]
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 12, 2013, 11:06:03 PM

Quote from: Christknight104 on October 12, 2013, 10:54:51 PM
Interestingly, the contemporary video game Bioshock focuses on Ayn Rand's Objectivist philosophy. The speech here that the main antagonist Andrew Ryan(notice that his name is a play on AYn Rand's name) declares summarizes the Objectivist opposition to altruism:

[yt]qbI7gxxbYpo[/yt]

That's beautiful, thank you.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Maximilian on October 13, 2013, 09:41:13 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 12, 2013, 08:23:04 PM

Humility is anti-humanistic

True. Humanism is the opposite of humility, humility is the opposite of humanism.


Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 12, 2013, 08:23:04 PM

pride is a wonderful virtue that celebrates man qua man.

True. The essence of pride is celebrating man in and for himself.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Maximilian on October 13, 2013, 09:46:39 PM
Quote from: LouisIX on October 12, 2013, 09:18:36 PM

How is humility anti-humanistic?

Humanism celebrates independence, but humility recognizes our dependence.
Humanism celebrates equality, but humility recognizes our inferiority.
Humanism celebrates the achievements of human society, while humility recognizes our nature as creatures who soon will die and whose activities apart from God are only evil.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 13, 2013, 09:50:01 PM

Quote from: Maximilian on October 13, 2013, 09:41:13 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 12, 2013, 08:23:04 PM

Humility is anti-humanistic

True. Humanism is the opposite of humility, humility is the opposite of humanism.


Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 12, 2013, 08:23:04 PM

pride is a wonderful virtue that celebrates man qua man.

True. The essence of pride is celebrating man in and for himself.

Exactly, you nailed it.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: mikemac on October 13, 2013, 10:05:52 PM
"Where pride is, there also shall be reproach: but where humility is, there also is wisdom." Proverbs 11:2

"Let us ask the Lord with tears, that according to his will so he would shew his mercy to us: that as our heart is troubled by their pride, so also we may glorify in our humility." Judith 8:17

"And Mary said: My soul doth magnify the Lord.  And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.  Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid; for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.  Because he that is mighty, hath done great things to me; and holy is his name.  And his mercy is from generation unto generations, to them that fear him. He hath shewed might in his arm: he hath scattered the proud in the conceit of their heart.  He hath put down the mighty from their seat, and hath exalted the humble.  He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away.  He hath received Israel his servant, being mindful of his mercy:  As he spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to his seed for ever." Luke 1:46-55

You should say a 'Glory Be' after this last prayer CF.  ;)
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Maximilian on October 13, 2013, 10:23:34 PM
Quote from: james03 on October 12, 2013, 09:29:41 PM

You have probably heard sermons where we are to view ourselves as nothing but worms.  This really is meant for mystics and those at very high level spiritual life.

No, this is meant for all of us. The more that I recognize the truth of God, and the more that I recognize the truth about myself, then the more I will realize that I am certainly much less than a worm. If I compare the inequality between God and myself, and then I compare the inequality between myself and a worm, the former is infinitely greater than the latter. One doesn't have to be a "mystic at a very high level of spiritual life" to comprehend this obvious truth.

Quote from: james03 on October 12, 2013, 09:29:41 PM
Humility is simply this:  telling the truth about yourself TO yourself and to God, and to others

Yes, this is the essence of humility. But what is this truth about myself and about God? This truth is enormous and incomprehensible. This truth takes a lifetime of effort and study to begin to understand.

Say I imagine the sun. And I realize that in terms of a scale that the human mind can comprehend, it is infinitely larger and greater than I am. Then I realize that there are billions of galaxies each of which contains billions of suns. So just my own sun alone is infinitely greater than I am, but the universe contains billions times billions of suns.

Now if we imagine the universe like a black sheet that is used for the backdrop of a play, and holes are poked into it to represent stars in a night scene, and behind the sheet is a lantern that provides all the light which comes through the many holes poked in the sheet to represent the many stars. God is the creative power, the lantern if you will, and just the reflection of His power which peeps through these holes in the fabric of the universe is infinitely beyond our comprehension.

These billions times billions of immense created objects that make up the universe defy our comprehension and are "infinite" in relation to our ability to comprehend them, but God is truly "infinite" in the most basic sense of the word, since it is the power of His uncreated being which creates and maintains in existence all of the incomprehensible infinitude of splendor in creation.

What kind of relationship can there be between me and this infinite reality?

If we had started with a smaller example of humility, we might have looked at our relationship with the government. On the one side there is me the individual. On the other side are the trillions of dollars worth of power that can annihilate entire nations at the touch of a button. I might talk big about resistance to the government, but the reality is that at any moment the government can crush me like a bug, and with less effort than it takes for me to stamp on a cockroach. Humility is recognizing that truth.

But what is the government of the United States or any other government compared to the power which creates and maintains in existence billions of galaxies? All the nuclear missiles and aircraft carriers in the world could not make even a dent in just our one sun; it would simply laugh at our puny pretensions.

And so it is like the "Powers of 10" video, recognizing a realistic assessment of my own smallness, comparing it to things that are much larger and more powerful than me, even on a local level, and then extending it outwards, except adding a last dimension beyond the end of the video, which includes the uncreated nature which maintains all of this in being.

This thought exercise explores only size and power, but what about the question of time, going backwards to pre-existence and forwards into eternity? And what about the question of ontology -- the difference between someone whose existence is contingent and dependent versus someone whose existence is eternal and uncreated? All of these things point to the reality that I must comprehend if I want to address the Truth of myself and the Truth of God, and the nature of the relationship between us.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Maximilian on October 13, 2013, 10:45:55 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 12, 2013, 09:45:49 PM

A thing is bad in so far as it does not advance man in his quest for survival. 

You define the teleological goal of man's life as being "survival." But we know that we all will die. And so this goal is doomed to failure. There is no chance for survival. Every single one of us will die before long. We can look at a photograph of a busy street in New York taken 100 years ago, and realize that every single person in that photograph is dead now.

That is why for thousands of years, even long before the time of Christ, the wise man thought only of one topic -- Death. And along with Death, the nature of the soul. Because if you want to survive, you have to survive death. That is an inescapable reality. Any so-called "philosopher" who cannot teach you how to survive death is only a charlatan.

In one of the books by Carlos Castaneda, Don Juan says "The warrior lives aware of the fact that Death is always standing one pace behind his left shoulder, ready at any moment to reach out and touch him." He also said, "When you die there is a great being which you can imagine like a giant black eagle 100 feet tall. It's not an eagle, of course, that's just an image. Now imagine that this giant being is trying to consume your soul like a bird eating a worm. Your job is to train yourself now in this life so that when you pass through the gateway of death you are prepared to evade destruction by this creature."

Naturally I don't agree with everything said by Carlos Castaneda, but I give him credit for creating vivid metaphors for the predicament in which we find ourselves.

If your current philosophy does not provide you with a way to survive death, then it is failing your own most basic criterion.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 14, 2013, 06:46:34 AM

Quote from: Maximilian on October 13, 2013, 10:45:55 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 12, 2013, 09:45:49 PM

A thing is bad in so far as it does not advance man in his quest for survival. 

You define the teleological goal of man's life as being "survival." But we know that we all will die. And so this goal is doomed to failure. There is no chance for survival. Every single one of us will die before long. We can look at a photograph of a busy street in New York taken 100 years ago, and realize that every single person in that photograph is dead now.

That is why for thousands of years, even long before the time of Christ, the wise man thought only of one topic -- Death. And along with Death, the nature of the soul. Because if you want to survive, you have to survive death. That is an inescapable reality. Any so-called "philosopher" who cannot teach you how to survive death is only a charlatan.

In one of the books by Carlos Castaneda, Don Juan says "The warrior lives aware of the fact that Death is always standing one pace behind his left shoulder, ready at any moment to reach out and touch him." He also said, "When you die there is a great being which you can imagine like a giant black eagle 100 feet tall. It's not an eagle, of course, that's just an image. Now imagine that this giant being is trying to consume your soul like a bird eating a worm. Your job is to train yourself now in this life so that when you pass through the gateway of death you are prepared to evade destruction by this creature."

Naturally I don't agree with everything said by Carlos Castaneda, but I give him credit for creating vivid metaphors for the predicament in which we find ourselves.

If your current philosophy does not provide you with a way to survive death, then it is failing your own most basic criterion.

Reality does not provide me with a way to survive death.  A man survives as long as he can, then he dies.  It's that simple.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Maximilian on October 14, 2013, 08:08:16 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 14, 2013, 06:46:34 AM

Reality does not provide me with a way to survive death.  A man survives as long as he can, then he dies.  It's that simple.

Is it that simple? It's funny that you call yourself a humanist but you ignore and discard the thoughts of all the greatest minds of all times in history and all places around the world.

According to your own understanding, you are destined to failure -- you have never loved, and then you will die. You seem to have missed the point all the way around. A rather futile, meaningless existence.

Stupidity such as this is possible only through pride. It is humility which allows us to learn from the genius of others. Humility is truth. Pride is self-deception.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 14, 2013, 08:16:39 AM

Quote from: Maximilian on October 14, 2013, 08:08:16 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 14, 2013, 06:46:34 AM

Reality does not provide me with a way to survive death.  A man survives as long as he can, then he dies.  It's that simple.

Is it that simple? It's funny that you call yourself a humanist but you ignore and discard the thoughts of all the greatest minds of all times in history and all places around the world.

According to your own understanding, you are destined to failure -- you have never loved, and then you will die. You seem to have missed the point all the way around. A rather futile, meaningless existence.

Stupidity such as this is possible only through pride. It is humility which allows us to learn from the genius of others. Humility is truth. Pride is self-deception.

I have ignored nothing.  I have thought about these matters, but have simply come to a different conclusion.  I simply cannot see a way for the existence of a soul to be real.  You cannot see it, you cannot hold it, you cannot smell it, you cannot hear it, ergo it does not exist.  That which is without matter or extension in space is that which is without existence.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Gerard on October 14, 2013, 08:20:01 AM
Quote from: Maximilian on October 13, 2013, 10:23:34 PM
Quote from: james03 on October 12, 2013, 09:29:41 PM

You have probably heard sermons where we are to view ourselves as nothing but worms.  This really is meant for mystics and those at very high level spiritual life.

No, this is meant for all of us. The more that I recognize the truth of God, and the more that I recognize the truth about myself, then the more I will realize that I am certainly much less than a worm. If I compare the inequality between God and myself, and then I compare the inequality between myself and a worm, the former is infinitely greater than the latter. One doesn't have to be a "mystic at a very high level of spiritual life" to comprehend this obvious truth.

An added dimension to consider is the inequality of God's love for us compared to our capacity for love.  What value do we place on worms as lives?  Would we condescend if we had the ability to become a worm? Would we build a world around and for the worms? Our own value is only determined by the value God gives it in His relation to us.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Gerard on October 14, 2013, 08:21:09 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 14, 2013, 08:16:39 AM

I have ignored nothing.  I have thought about these matters, but have simply come to a different conclusion.  I simply cannot see a way for the existence of a soul to be real.  You cannot see it, you cannot hold it, you cannot smell it, you cannot hear it, ergo it does not exist.  That which is without matter or extension in space is that which is without existence.

Do you believe in gravity? If so, what exactly is it?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 14, 2013, 08:28:05 AM

Quote from: Gerard on October 14, 2013, 08:21:09 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 14, 2013, 08:16:39 AM

I have ignored nothing.  I have thought about these matters, but have simply come to a different conclusion.  I simply cannot see a way for the existence of a soul to be real.  You cannot see it, you cannot hold it, you cannot smell it, you cannot hear it, ergo it does not exist.  That which is without matter or extension in space is that which is without existence.

Do you believe in gravity? If so, what exactly is it?

Gravity is a real force which can be measured.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Maximilian on October 14, 2013, 08:35:28 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 14, 2013, 08:28:05 AM

Gravity is a real force which can be measured.

You're moving the goal posts. That wasn't your criteria. Here was your definition: "You cannot see it, you cannot hold it, you cannot smell it, you cannot hear it, ergo it does not exist.  That which is without matter or extension in space is that which is without existence."

How does gravity qualify?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Maximilian on October 14, 2013, 08:51:04 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 14, 2013, 08:16:39 AM

I have ignored nothing. 

That is pride speaking, the pride that prevents you from learning about truth and reality. I don't get the impression that you have read even the modern philosophers like Heidegger. You have an existentialist philosophy but you haven't read the existentialists.

Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 14, 2013, 08:16:39 AM
I have thought about these matters, but have simply come to a different conclusion. 

"Thinking about these matters" is pointless. The "thinking about the meaning of life" approach is doomed to failure because

1. I'm simply not smart enough. The smartest men who ever lived like Plato and Aristotle never really succeeded with that method. I'm not Plato or Aristotle.

2. I don't live long enough. The lifespan of a human is not sufficiently long to successfully conclude this undertaking. It's like a mayfly trying to figure out the meaning of its life. It's dead long before it will ever have succeeded.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 14, 2013, 09:18:37 AM

Quote from: Maximilian on October 14, 2013, 08:35:28 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 14, 2013, 08:28:05 AM

Gravity is a real force which can be measured.

You're moving the goal posts. That wasn't your criteria. Here was your definition: "You cannot see it, you cannot hold it, you cannot smell it, you cannot hear it, ergo it does not exist.  That which is without matter or extension in space is that which is without existence."

How does gravity qualify?

I'll grant you that, my definition was inadequate.  Reality can be measured, in one way or another.  If you cannot measure a thing, how do you know it's there?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 14, 2013, 09:19:16 AM

Quote from: Maximilian on October 14, 2013, 08:51:04 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 14, 2013, 08:16:39 AM

I have ignored nothing. 

That is pride speaking, the pride that prevents you from learning about truth and reality. I don't get the impression that you have read even the modern philosophers like Heidegger. You have an existentialist philosophy but you haven't read the existentialists.

Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 14, 2013, 08:16:39 AM
I have thought about these matters, but have simply come to a different conclusion. 

"Thinking about these matters" is pointless. The "thinking about the meaning of life" approach is doomed to failure because

1. I'm simply not smart enough. The smartest men who ever lived like Plato and Aristotle never really succeeded with that method. I'm not Plato or Aristotle.

2. I don't live long enough. The lifespan of a human is not sufficiently long to successfully conclude this undertaking. It's like a mayfly trying to figure out the meaning of its life. It's dead long before it will ever have succeeded.

What would be a better method?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Maximilian on October 14, 2013, 09:22:46 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 14, 2013, 09:18:37 AM

Reality can be measured, in one way or another.  If you cannot measure a thing, how do you know it's there?

Consciousness is reality. How do you measure consciousness? How much does a dream weigh? How far does it extend in space?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Basilios on October 14, 2013, 09:31:04 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 14, 2013, 09:18:37 AM

Quote from: Maximilian on October 14, 2013, 08:35:28 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 14, 2013, 08:28:05 AM

Gravity is a real force which can be measured.

You're moving the goal posts. That wasn't your criteria. Here was your definition: "You cannot see it, you cannot hold it, you cannot smell it, you cannot hear it, ergo it does not exist.  That which is without matter or extension in space is that which is without existence."

How does gravity qualify?

I'll grant you that, my definition was inadequate.  Reality can be measured, in one way or another.  If you cannot measure a thing, how do you know it's there?

This is called begging the question. You are stating as brute facts something that supports your worldview and then concluding based odd of that. Who says reality can be measured? And we've yet to discuss what counts as reality anyway.

You're a hardline materialist. Edward Feser is a great Catholic philosopher who deals with this topic a lot and has done so recently. His books are excellent too.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 14, 2013, 09:36:50 AM

Quote from: Basilios on October 14, 2013, 09:31:04 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 14, 2013, 09:18:37 AM

Quote from: Maximilian on October 14, 2013, 08:35:28 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 14, 2013, 08:28:05 AM

Gravity is a real force which can be measured.

You're moving the goal posts. That wasn't your criteria. Here was your definition: "You cannot see it, you cannot hold it, you cannot smell it, you cannot hear it, ergo it does not exist.  That which is without matter or extension in space is that which is without existence."

How does gravity qualify?

I'll grant you that, my definition was inadequate.  Reality can be measured, in one way or another.  If you cannot measure a thing, how do you know it's there?

This is called begging the question. You are stating as brute facts something that supports your worldview and then concluding based odd of that. Who says reality can be measured? And we've yet to discuss what counts as reality anyway.

You're a hardline materialist. Edward Feser is a great Catholic philosopher who deals with this topic a lot and has done so recently. His books are excellent too.

Thanks, I'll read him.  Have you ever played out the Descartes thought experiment in your head?  So much of what a man believes is based on where he is born, who is parents were, and the atmosphere in which he lives.  Well, what if you took everything off the table and asked yourself what do you really know?  What could you prove beyond a doubt?  The scary thing is that it isn't much.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 14, 2013, 09:37:38 AM

Quote from: Maximilian on October 14, 2013, 09:22:46 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 14, 2013, 09:18:37 AM

Reality can be measured, in one way or another.  If you cannot measure a thing, how do you know it's there?

Consciousness is reality. How do you measure consciousness? How much does a dream weigh? How far does it extend in space?

Well I know that I have consciousness, I don't know that I have a soul.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Maximilian on October 14, 2013, 09:39:37 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 14, 2013, 09:19:16 AM

What would be a better method?

Prayer. There is a being who is infinitely beyond our comprehension, who is, moreover, our creator. We are like those figures who spin around and hammer the bells on those old clocks in European town squares, and God is the clockmaker. If He doesn't tell us what to do, then we have no way of knowing.

Prayer is speaking to God. The amazing thing, beyond all our hopes or dreams or expectations is that God is willing to communicate with us. When He created us and provided us with all of our various faculties like our organs and our intellect and our memory, He also provided us with the most important faculty of all, the ability to pray. We have the ability to communicate with our Creator.

We are like one of those black megaliths in "2001: A Space Oddysey" which has been launched into the universe, but built into it is a transmitter so that it can communicate across the reaches of space with its Creator. And one day you trigger it and make contact. Jody Foster is trying to make "Contact" with aliens, but I can make contact right this minute with the Creator of those aliens, assuming they exist.

The 2 realities that prevent me from succeeding at figuring out the meaning of my life do not apply to God. He has infinite wisdom and infinite time. He is willing to be a parent to me if I am willing to be a child to Him and accept His authority (as we discussed on the other thread). If I do, then He will educate me and draw me out of my ignorance and misery, but if I refuse, then I kill time in my pointless existence until I die.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 14, 2013, 09:44:46 AM

Quote from: Maximilian on October 14, 2013, 09:39:37 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 14, 2013, 09:19:16 AM

What would be a better method?

Prayer. There is a being who is infinitely beyond our comprehension, who is, moreover, our creator. We are like those figures who spin around and hammer the bells on those old clocks in European town squares, and God is the clockmaker. If He doesn't tell us what to do, then we have no way of knowing.

Prayer is speaking to God. The amazing thing, beyond all our hopes or dreams or expectations is that God is willing to communicate with us. When He created us and provided us with all of our various faculties like our organs and our intellect and our memory, He also provided us with the most important faculty of all, the ability to pray. We have the ability to communicate with our Creator.

We are like one of those black megaliths in "2001: A Space Oddysey" which has been launched into the universe, but built into it is a transmitter so that it can communicate across the reaches of space with its Creator. And one day you trigger it and make contact. Jody Foster is trying to make "Contact" with aliens, but I can make contact right this minute with the Creator of those aliens, assuming they exist.

The 2 realities that prevent me from succeeding at figuring out the meaning of my life do not apply to God. He has infinite wisdom and infinite time. He is willing to be a parent to me if I am willing to be a child to Him and accept His authority (as we discussed on the other thread). If I do, then He will educate me and draw me out of my ignorance and misery, but if I refuse, then I kill time in my pointless existence until I die.

I have tried prayer, with a lot of effort, all I heard was my own inner thought.  Since you talk about knowing, how can I know there is a God at all?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Maximilian on October 14, 2013, 09:47:40 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 14, 2013, 09:37:38 AM

Well I know that I have consciousness

Right, which is immaterial. So that was the point under discussion. Does the immaterial world exist? You acknowledge the existence of consciousness. Therefore we have concluded that the immaterial world is real.

Hundreds of years before Christ, Plato addressed the issue, "Between the material world and the immaterial world, which one is prior and independent and which one is subsequent and contingent?"
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 14, 2013, 09:58:25 AM

Quote from: Maximilian on October 14, 2013, 09:47:40 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 14, 2013, 09:37:38 AM

Well I know that I have consciousness

Right, which is immaterial. So that was the point under discussion. Does the immaterial world exist? You acknowledge the existence of consciousness. Therefore we have concluded that the immaterial world is real.

Hundreds of years before Christ, Plato addressed the issue, "Between the material world and the immaterial world, which one is prior and independent and which one is subsequent and contingent?"

I don't think consciousness is immaterial.  Imagine if an unscrupulous doctor did brain surgery on a man.  The more of this man's brain he removed, the less consciousness he would have.  Should the doctor remove all of the man's brain he would die.  Without the brain, there is no consciousness, ergo consciousness is material.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: LouisIX on October 14, 2013, 10:08:50 AM
Quote from: Maximilian on October 13, 2013, 09:46:39 PM
Quote from: LouisIX on October 12, 2013, 09:18:36 PM

How is humility anti-humanistic?

Humanism celebrates independence, but humility recognizes our dependence.
Humanism celebrates equality, but humility recognizes our inferiority.
Humanism celebrates the achievements of human society, while humility recognizes our nature as creatures who soon will die and whose activities apart from God are only evil.

It is anti-Humanism, but not anti-human, which was my point.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Maximilian on October 14, 2013, 10:12:42 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 14, 2013, 09:44:46 AM

Since you talk about knowing, how can I know there is a God at all?

Because we see existence. Existence is the most surprising thing of all. Not just our own existence, but the existence of anything at all. Modern 20th-century philosophers and scientists agree that existence is fundamentally a paradox for which they cannot account. Existence is the proof of God.

If I show you a coin, and you see one side of the coin, you know there must be another side to the coin. The human intellect cannot conceive a one-sided coin. It's the same way with existence. We see one side of the universe, the material created side. There must be another side. The fact that there is one side means there must be the other side of the coin.


Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 14, 2013, 09:44:46 AM
I have tried prayer, with a lot of effort, all I heard was my own inner thought. 

That is too bad. I would say keep trying. If scientists are willing to persist for decades with their "SETI" experiments, then we should have the same kind of persistence with our own efforts. Also the scientists will continually alter the conditions of the experiment, like changing the wavelengths to which they are listening, in order to try every possible way to have a successful result. We too have to keep trying every possible way to create the right condition for successful prayer.

In my own experience, which perhaps is not typical, but I believe is possible for every person, every time that I do my part to pray, God does His part by responding. Returning to the opening topic of this thread, and comparing it to the SETI example, humility is a necessary pre-condition for successful prayer. A proud person trying to prayer is like a SETI scientist listening for sound waves from outer space. Sound waves don't travel through outer space, they only echo within our own small, confined atmosphere. Such are the thoughts of the proud. The grace of God, on the other hand, is not bound by time or space, but it is perceived only by the humble who are tuned to the frequencies of the other world and not to the glorification of themselves.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Basilios on October 14, 2013, 10:15:52 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 14, 2013, 09:36:50 AM

Quote from: Basilios on October 14, 2013, 09:31:04 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 14, 2013, 09:18:37 AM

Quote from: Maximilian on October 14, 2013, 08:35:28 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 14, 2013, 08:28:05 AM

Gravity is a real force which can be measured.

You're moving the goal posts. That wasn't your criteria. Here was your definition: "You cannot see it, you cannot hold it, you cannot smell it, you cannot hear it, ergo it does not exist.  That which is without matter or extension in space is that which is without existence."

How does gravity qualify?

I'll grant you that, my definition was inadequate.  Reality can be measured, in one way or another.  If you cannot measure a thing, how do you know it's there?

This is called begging the question. You are stating as brute facts something that supports your worldview and then concluding based odd of that. Who says reality can be measured? And we've yet to discuss what counts as reality anyway.

You're a hardline materialist. Edward Feser is a great Catholic philosopher who deals with this topic a lot and has done so recently. His books are excellent too.

Thanks, I'll read him.  Have you ever played out the Descartes thought experiment in your head?  So much of what a man believes is based on where he is born, who is parents were, and the atmosphere in which he lives.  Well, what if you took everything off the table and asked yourself what do you really know?  What could you prove beyond a doubt?  The scary thing is that it isn't much.

I've got an 4 year degree in Philosophy; one of the 6 month courses I did was on Descartes Meditations of First Philosophy, and I have briefly taught this at University level to First Year students as a tutor. So to answer... yes! I've read it, and more. You must realize that Descartes actually did establish more than just what people assume (they stopped at Book II when they read the famous "cogito"). But you must also realize that nobody has really followed his path; neither the Scholastics of today (Thomists who are mostly Catholic) nor the materialists (the Atheists of today) and those in-between. The Cartesian Dualism philosophy is a dead end.

Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 14, 2013, 10:19:56 AM

Quote from: Maximilian on October 14, 2013, 10:12:42 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 14, 2013, 09:44:46 AM

Since you talk about knowing, how can I know there is a God at all?

Because we see existence. Existence is the most surprising thing of all. Not just our own existence, but the existence of anything at all. Modern 20th-century philosophers and scientists agree that existence is fundamentally a paradox for which they cannot account. Existence is the proof of God.

If I show you a coin, and you see one side of the coin, you know there must be another side to the coin. The human intellect cannot conceive a one-sided coin. It's the same way with existence. We see one side of the universe, the material created side. There must be another side. The fact that there is one side means there must be the other side of the coin.


Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 14, 2013, 09:44:46 AM
I have tried prayer, with a lot of effort, all I heard was my own inner thought. 

That is too bad. I would say keep trying. If scientists are willing to persist for decades with their "SETI" experiments, then we should have the same kind of persistence with our own efforts. Also the scientists will continually alter the conditions of the experiment, like changing the wavelengths to which they are listening, in order to try every possible way to have a successful result. We too have to keep trying every possible way to create the right condition for successful prayer.

In my own experience, which perhaps is not typical, but I believe is possible for every person, every time that I do my part to pray, God does His part by responding. Returning to the opening topic of this thread, and comparing it to the SETI example, humility is a necessary pre-condition for successful prayer. A proud person trying to prayer is like a SETI scientist listening for sound waves from outer space. Sound waves don't travel through outer space, they only echo within our own small, confined atmosphere. Such are the thoughts of the proud. The grace of God, on the other hand, is not bound by time or space, but it is perceived only by the humble who are tuned to the frequencies of the other world and not to the glorification of themselves.

I understand the coin is a metaphor, however, I can turn the coin over to see another material side.  I can neither perceive nor detect the other spiritual side.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 14, 2013, 10:21:51 AM

Quote from: Basilios on October 14, 2013, 10:15:52 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 14, 2013, 09:36:50 AM

Quote from: Basilios on October 14, 2013, 09:31:04 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 14, 2013, 09:18:37 AM

Quote from: Maximilian on October 14, 2013, 08:35:28 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 14, 2013, 08:28:05 AM

Gravity is a real force which can be measured.

You're moving the goal posts. That wasn't your criteria. Here was your definition: "You cannot see it, you cannot hold it, you cannot smell it, you cannot hear it, ergo it does not exist.  That which is without matter or extension in space is that which is without existence."

How does gravity qualify?

I'll grant you that, my definition was inadequate.  Reality can be measured, in one way or another.  If you cannot measure a thing, how do you know it's there?

This is called begging the question. You are stating as brute facts something that supports your worldview and then concluding based odd of that. Who says reality can be measured? And we've yet to discuss what counts as reality anyway.

You're a hardline materialist. Edward Feser is a great Catholic philosopher who deals with this topic a lot and has done so recently. His books are excellent too.

Thanks, I'll read him.  Have you ever played out the Descartes thought experiment in your head?  So much of what a man believes is based on where he is born, who is parents were, and the atmosphere in which he lives.  Well, what if you took everything off the table and asked yourself what do you really know?  What could you prove beyond a doubt?  The scary thing is that it isn't much.

I've got an 4 year degree in Philosophy; one of the 6 month courses I did was on Descartes Meditations of First Philosophy, and I have briefly taught this at University level to First Year students as a tutor. So to answer... yes! I've read it, and more. You must realize that Descartes actually did establish more than just what people assume (they stopped at Book II when they read the famous "cogito"). But you must also realize that nobody has really followed his path; neither the Scholastics of today (Thomists who are mostly Catholic) nor the materialists (the Atheists of today) and those in-between. The Cartesian Dualism philosophy is a dead end.

I impressed with your credentials, but I was not asking if you have read Descartes, but rather have you tried taking everything off of your mental table that you cannot prove and then attempt to discover what you can really know.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on October 14, 2013, 10:23:08 AM
QuoteOur own value is only determined by the value God gives it in His relation to us.

That is correct.  And since He bled and died for His elect, we are certainly not worms.

Yes, compared to God, we are nothing.  Just look through the Hubble telescope and see what He created will convince you of that.  Meditating on the Form of the Good will also convince you of that from the philosphical side.  But calling us worms, who are made in the image and likeness of God, reborn through baptism, bought and purchased via the Passion of Jesus, seems very jansenistic. 

In fact, Josef Pieper had a real concern with this line on humility.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Maximilian on October 14, 2013, 10:24:52 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 14, 2013, 09:58:25 AM

I don't think consciousness is immaterial.  Imagine if an unscrupulous doctor did brain surgery on a man.  The more of this man's brain he removed, the less consciousness he would have.  Should the doctor remove all of the man's brain he would die.  Without the brain, there is no consciousness, ergo consciousness is material.

That doesn't follow. Compare the brain to a radio transmitter. The transmitter has mass, but the radio waves do not. If the transmitter is disabled, then the radio waves stop. But the one thing is not the same as the other. The brain is material, but consciousness is not. I wasn't being simply rhetorical when I asked, "How much does a dream weigh?" Dreams are real. So are thoughts.

The above answer assumes for the sake of argument that the brain is the source of thoughts. That may or may not be true, in any case. Here is an interesting article:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12301-man-with-tiny-brain-shocks-doctors.html#.UlwY9lB22m4

"Man with tiny brain shocks doctors

A man with an unusually tiny brain manages to live an entirely normal life despite his condition, which was caused by a fluid build-up in his skull.

Scans of the 44-year-old man's brain showed that a huge fluid-filled chamber called a ventricle took up most of the room in his skull, leaving little more than a thin sheet of actual brain tissue (see image, right).

"It is hard for me [to say] exactly the percentage of reduction of the brain, since we did not use software to measure its volume. But visually, it is more than a 50% to 75% reduction," says Lionel Feuillet, a neurologist at the Mediterranean University in Marseille, France.

Feuillet and his colleagues describe the case of this patient in The Lancet. He is a married father of two children, and works as a civil servant.

Not retarded

The man went to a hospital after he had mild weakness in his left leg. When Feuillet's staff took his medical history, they learned that, as an infant, he had had a shunt inserted into his head to drain away hydrocephalus - water on the brain.

The shunt was removed when he was 14. But the researchers decided to check the condition of his brain using computed tomography (CT) scanning technology and another type of scan called magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). They were astonished to see "massive enlargement" of the lateral ventricles - usually tiny chambers that hold the cerebrospinal fluid that cushions the brain.

Intelligence tests showed the man had an IQ of 75, below the average score of 100 but not considered mentally retarded or disabled.

"The whole brain was reduced - frontal, parietal, temporal and occipital lobes - on both left and right sides. These regions control motion, sensibility, language, vision, audition, and emotional and cognitive functions," Feuillet told New Scientist.


(https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newscientist.com%2Fdata%2Fimages%2Fns%2Fcms%2Fdn12301%2Fdn12301-1_250.jpg&hash=771634b15de3e4edecba1fe4951834c7ebb62aef)
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Basilios on October 14, 2013, 10:31:36 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 14, 2013, 10:21:51 AM
I impressed with your credentials, but I was not asking if you have read Descartes, but rather have you tried taking everything off of your mental table that you cannot prove and then attempt to discover what you can really know.

Well you asked if I tried Descartes thought experiments; so I was showing you that I have, yes. And many more besides in the realm of the philosophy of mind and the metaphysics of reality.

The problem is this, for all these navel gazing type experiments: what could be more stupid than throwing out ones rationality and reason in order to question? By this I mean, it takes a special kind of mental exercise to resist the fact that, say, there is a table in front of you or that you have the ability to make judgments and that your mind displays a kind of directedness. You see, these things are self evident; and I put it to you that to deny that takes more effort than to confirm it. And for all that these experiments do, they yet do nothing; because the very act of question the reality of things around you requires them to be 'real'; for your mind must have some object to conform to in order to have a thought (directedness/the 'about' part of your thought). It is self-defeating, and when it comes down to it it's nihilistic. If I take everything off my mental table I am left with nothing; no reason, no rationality, nothing. That's not human; nor is it particularly intelligent or deep.

This is why Scholasticism makes so much more sense; because it takes the common sense of Aristotle and applies it to the world around us. It makes metaphysics easier and sensical; and it makes the philosophy of mind way easier too. It's also a lot less spiritually taxing. What naturalism/materialism/scientism does is to take the common sense too far and reverse it to suggest that only what is real is the table in front of you. The happy middle is the Scholastic; who realizes the truth that the table is as real as the soul. Working from a priori first principles, it is far easier and sensical to believe that there are things that exist and change (hinting here towards Aristotelian metaphysical arguments) than it is to believe that everything is illusory (which can't make sense given your day to day interactions).

I really think you should stop and pick up Edward Fesers books Aquinas and The Last Superstition and go and trawl through his blog. I say this because for the moment there is a great philosophical divide between us; which is difficult enough, but there is also a language divide (the jargon stuff).
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Maximilian on October 14, 2013, 10:32:38 AM
Quote from: james03 on October 14, 2013, 10:23:08 AM
But calling us worms, who are made in the image and likeness of God, reborn through baptism, bought and purchased via the Passion of Jesus, seems very jansenistic. 

"Jansenistic" -- the handy yet meaningless pejorative which is useful for every occasion.

Quote from: james03 on October 14, 2013, 10:23:08 AM
In fact, Josef Pieper had a real concern with this line on humility.

Perhaps that is why the 20th-century Church produced neo-scholastic academics instead of saints.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 14, 2013, 10:34:46 AM

Quote from: Maximilian on October 14, 2013, 10:24:52 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 14, 2013, 09:58:25 AM

I don't think consciousness is immaterial.  Imagine if an unscrupulous doctor did brain surgery on a man.  The more of this man's brain he removed, the less consciousness he would have.  Should the doctor remove all of the man's brain he would die.  Without the brain, there is no consciousness, ergo consciousness is material.

That doesn't follow. Compare the brain to a radio transmitter. The transmitter has mass, but the radio waves do not. If the transmitter is disabled, then the radio waves stop. But the one thing is not the same as the other. The brain is material, but consciousness is not. I wasn't being simply rhetorical when I asked, "How much does a dream weigh?" Dreams are real. So are thoughts.

The above answer assumes for the sake of argument that the brain is the source of thoughts. That may or may not be true, in any case. Here is an interesting article:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12301-man-with-tiny-brain-shocks-doctors.html#.UlwY9lB22m4

"Man with tiny brain shocks doctors

A man with an unusually tiny brain manages to live an entirely normal life despite his condition, which was caused by a fluid build-up in his skull.

Scans of the 44-year-old man's brain showed that a huge fluid-filled chamber called a ventricle took up most of the room in his skull, leaving little more than a thin sheet of actual brain tissue (see image, right).

"It is hard for me [to say] exactly the percentage of reduction of the brain, since we did not use software to measure its volume. But visually, it is more than a 50% to 75% reduction," says Lionel Feuillet, a neurologist at the Mediterranean University in Marseille, France.

Feuillet and his colleagues describe the case of this patient in The Lancet. He is a married father of two children, and works as a civil servant.

Not retarded

The man went to a hospital after he had mild weakness in his left leg. When Feuillet's staff took his medical history, they learned that, as an infant, he had had a shunt inserted into his head to drain away hydrocephalus - water on the brain.

The shunt was removed when he was 14. But the researchers decided to check the condition of his brain using computed tomography (CT) scanning technology and another type of scan called magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). They were astonished to see "massive enlargement" of the lateral ventricles - usually tiny chambers that hold the cerebrospinal fluid that cushions the brain.

Intelligence tests showed the man had an IQ of 75, below the average score of 100 but not considered mentally retarded or disabled.

"The whole brain was reduced - frontal, parietal, temporal and occipital lobes - on both left and right sides. These regions control motion, sensibility, language, vision, audition, and emotional and cognitive functions," Feuillet told New Scientist.


(https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newscientist.com%2Fdata%2Fimages%2Fns%2Fcms%2Fdn12301%2Fdn12301-1_250.jpg&hash=771634b15de3e4edecba1fe4951834c7ebb62aef)

The radio waves are still dependent on the transmitter, and without the transmitter there are no radio waves.  I think this is an apt metaphor for the brain and consciousness.  The brain projects consciousness in the same way a movie projector projects a movie.  The projection is a separate thing from the projector, yet is dependent upon the projector and will cease to exist without the projector.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on October 14, 2013, 10:36:24 AM
QuoteRand also denied original sin, as do I.  She called it the root of irrational thinking.  The denial of original sin does not necessarily lead to Communism........ Most Catholics equate Communism with materialistic atheists.  That's not a good definition.
Communism is certainly something beyond material atheism and a denial of Original Sin, but Communists MUST deny Original Sin, as David Horowitz explains in his autobiography.  Since he lived that life, then left it, I give him far more credence than Rand.  And that is my point.  Rand erred in a big way when she says that a belief in Original Sin leads to the Shamans of Material.  No it doesn't.  A belief in Original Sin leads to seeing the necessity of competition and liberty.  Look at Lord Acton, who was Catholic.

While you somewhat condeded this point: " denial of original sin does not necessarily lead to Communism", thus it CAN lead to communism, Rand based the underlying theme of her entire novel on the contrary premise, that belief in Original Sin leads to communism.  She completely blew it.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on October 14, 2013, 10:42:33 AM
QuoteJansenistic" -- the handy yet meaningless pejorative which is useful for every occasion.
Uh...what are you talking about?  Seeing yourself as a worm is most certainly Jansenist.  But I did not just throw out a term, as if supposedly I'm resorting to ad hominems, I put out a sound argument, e.g. bought by the blood of Christ, reborn through baptism, etc..., which you fail to address.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 14, 2013, 10:45:36 AM

Quote from: james03 on October 14, 2013, 10:36:24 AM
QuoteRand also denied original sin, as do I.  She called it the root of irrational thinking.  The denial of original sin does not necessarily lead to Communism........ Most Catholics equate Communism with materialistic atheists.  That's not a good definition.
Communism is certainly something beyond material atheism and a denial of Original Sin, but Communists MUST deny Original Sin, as David Horowitz explains in his autobiography.  Since he lived that life, then left it, I give him far more credence than Rand.  And that is my point.  Rand erred in a big way when she says that a belief in Original Sin leads to the Shamans of Material.  No it doesn't.  A belief in Original Sin leads to seeing the necessity of competition and liberty.  Look at Lord Acton, who was Catholic.

While you somewhat condeded this point: " denial of original sin does not necessarily lead to Communism", thus it CAN lead to communism, Rand based the underlying theme of her entire novel on the contrary premise, that belief in Original Sin leads to communism.  She completely blew it.

We are in some agreement here.  The only way one gets to Communism is by means of a denial of original sin, I agree.  However, the denial of original sin can lead to other things as well, such as other philosophies.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on October 14, 2013, 11:00:38 AM
QuoteWe are in some agreement here.  The only way one gets to Communism is by means of a denial of original sin, I agree.
Well, that is not what Rand believed.  In fact that is contrary to the underlying theme of her entire novel, that BELIEF in Original Sin leads to "Shamans of Material".

Now her genius was in showing that the conclusions of communists are a nest of contradictions and used Aristotle to show this.  This is why I prefer Francisco over Galt.  Francisco pointed out the contradictions, Galt was used to state the premise, which was erroneous.

Another example: Catholic Anarcho Capitalists believe that Original Sin is so destructive that giving any coercive power to people over you is dangerous and destructive.  While I disagree with them, I respect their opinion as it rests on a sound premise.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on October 14, 2013, 02:11:03 PM
So let's look at some of the problems with atheism.  As you recall, you have had to modify your definition on "good", and in fact I'm still not satisfied with it, as I said anything that involves giving up your life means turning yourself into worm food forever.  You agree that if you deny Original Sin you CAN become a communist.  And you are not able to give me a MATERIAL definition of what you yourself call "spiritual" and I believe you even used the term "higher good".

So let us look at something "spiritual", and that is free market economics.  If you are a Libertarian, then something you will hold dear is the requirement that in an economic trade both sides MUST exchange value for value.  And that using coercion   -- "the point of the gun" to obtain things is immoral.  To put it in Catholic terms, you are very devoted to pure justice.  And the Church agrees with you, even stating that the care of the poor does not concern justice, but charity, i.e. a free movement of the will without compulsion. 
Quote"it becomes a duty to give to the indigent out of what remains over. "Of that which remaineth, give alms."(14) It is a duty, not of justice (save in extreme cases), but of Christian charity - a duty not enforced by human law."

Now here's the problem you face.  I can explain why insisting on the exchange of value for value is the only moral economic system based on the cardinal virtue of justice, you can not.  All you can say is that exchanging value for value is required for a righteous life, but you can't say why.  You stop there.  It is possible to abstract it slightly further by saying that each of us has the ability to be owed, but after that, you come to a complete stop.  Because there is absolutely zero atheistic-materialist explanation of how we can be owed.  In fact, I believe to even admit this is to contradict materialism.  And yet deep down we know that this immaterial fact exists.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 14, 2013, 02:17:53 PM

Quote from: james03 on October 14, 2013, 11:00:38 AM
QuoteWe are in some agreement here.  The only way one gets to Communism is by means of a denial of original sin, I agree.
Well, that is not what Rand believed.  In fact that is contrary to the underlying theme of her entire novel, that BELIEF in Original Sin leads to "Shamans of Material".

Now her genius was in showing that the conclusions of communists are a nest of contradictions and used Aristotle to show this.  This is why I prefer Francisco over Galt.  Francisco pointed out the contradictions, Galt was used to state the premise, which was erroneous.

Another example: Catholic Anarcho Capitalists believe that Original Sin is so destructive that giving any coercive power to people over you is dangerous and destructive.  While I disagree with them, I respect their opinion as it rests on a sound premise.

I'm afraid my knowledge of Rand is insufficient here.  I have been reading her for about four years now, but haven't come upon the term 'shamans of material' yet.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 14, 2013, 02:38:12 PM

Quote from: james03 on October 14, 2013, 02:11:03 PM
So let's look at some of the problems with atheism.  As you recall, you have had to modify your definition on "good", and in fact I'm still not satisfied with it, as I said anything that involves giving up your life means turning yourself into worm food forever.  You agree that if you deny Original Sin you CAN become a communist.  And you are not able to give me a MATERIAL definition of what you yourself call "spiritual" and I believe you even used the term "higher good".

So let us look at something "spiritual", and that is free market economics.  If you are a Libertarian, then something you will hold dear is the requirement that in an economic trade both sides MUST exchange value for value.  And that using coercion   -- "the point of the gun" to obtain things is immoral.  To put it in Catholic terms, you are very devoted to pure justice.  And the Church agrees with you, even stating that the care of the poor does not concern justice, but charity, i.e. a free movement of the will without compulsion. 
Quote"it becomes a duty to give to the indigent out of what remains over. "Of that which remaineth, give alms."(14) It is a duty, not of justice (save in extreme cases), but of Christian charity - a duty not enforced by human law."

Now here's the problem you face.  I can explain why insisting on the exchange of value for value is the only moral economic system based on the cardinal virtue of justice, you can not.  All you can say is that exchanging value for value is required for a righteous life, but you can't say why.  You stop there.  It is possible to abstract it slightly further by saying that each of us has the ability to be owed, but after that, you come to a complete stop.  Because there is absolutely zero atheistic-materialist explanation of how we can be owed.  In fact, I believe to even admit this is to contradict materialism.  And yet deep down we know that this immaterial fact exists.

I was explaining Rand earlier with reference to a man giving his life for his wife.  That is one area in which I disagree with her.  It doesn't seem to follow logically.  I may see benefit in my spouse surviving, but I would see more benefit to myself surviving.  If she dies, I lose a tremendous relationship which I enjoyed selfishly. If I die, I still lose that relationship, but I also lose all other relationships, as well as everything else.  So, with this in mind, I define good as anything that helps me live my life as a human being.  That is, it helps me survive, as long as I can, and it makes my life more pleasurable.  Do you find that sufficient?

With regard to Christian charity the Church is spot on.  If we treated charity as justice, the recipient of such charity would have no reason to say thank you.  I do believe in exchanging value for value, because we are all equal.  We were born equal with a tabula rasa.  If I want something from you, I must be willing to exchange something of value to you.  Otherwise, you would have no reason to part with your object of value.  And the same goes for me.

I believe in the non-aggression principle, which is similar to the golden rule.  No one may use force upon another, except to protect one's life or the life of a loved one.  To take another's life, would be to take another's liberty.  It is a violation of one's rights.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: LouisIX on October 14, 2013, 03:16:54 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 14, 2013, 02:38:12 PM
I was explaining Rand earlier with reference to a man giving his life for his wife.  That is one area in which I disagree with her.  It doesn't seem to follow logically.  I may see benefit in my spouse surviving, but I would see more benefit to myself surviving.  If she dies, I lose a tremendous relationship which I enjoyed selfishly. If I die, I still lose that relationship, but I also lose all other relationships, as well as everything else.  So, with this in mind, I define good as anything that helps me live my life as a human being.  That is, it helps me survive, as long as I can, and it makes my life more pleasurable.

I hope you do not take offense to this, but I would be amiss if I did not mention how ghastly this is.  This is a philosophical poison and equivalent to the ethic of the First Rebel.

In the end, it's a form of moral solipsism.  You have deified yourself and have neutered your own ability to love anything but yourself.  It contributes nothing, but instead is all consuming.  It sucks the bone dry, leaving nothing but desolation. 

I appreciate your civility on the forum thus far, and criticize your ideas and not you as a man.  But out of love for both you and truth itself, you must come to understand how insidious this is.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 14, 2013, 03:28:55 PM

Quote from: LouisIX on October 14, 2013, 03:16:54 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 14, 2013, 02:38:12 PM
I was explaining Rand earlier with reference to a man giving his life for his wife.  That is one area in which I disagree with her.  It doesn't seem to follow logically.  I may see benefit in my spouse surviving, but I would see more benefit to myself surviving.  If she dies, I lose a tremendous relationship which I enjoyed selfishly. If I die, I still lose that relationship, but I also lose all other relationships, as well as everything else.  So, with this in mind, I define good as anything that helps me live my life as a human being.  That is, it helps me survive, as long as I can, and it makes my life more pleasurable.

I hope you do not take offense to this, but I would be amiss if I did not mention how ghastly this is.  This is a philosophical poison and equivalent to the ethic of the First Rebel.

In the end, it's a form of moral solipsism.  You have deified yourself and have neutered your own ability to love anything but yourself.  It contributes nothing, but instead is all consuming.  It sucks the bone dry, leaving nothing but desolation. 

I appreciate your civility on the forum thus far, and criticize your ideas and not you as a man.  But out of love for both you and truth itself, you must come to understand how insidious this is.

I take no offense.  I am a rebel at heart, funny enough, my high school was nicknamed the Rebels.  I can certainly see how this would seem insidious to you, but I see things differently.  To not exchange value for value in a relationship is to have one partner sacrifice to the other.  But partners should be equal, and not expect anything from the other unless value is given in return.  That is true equality.  And from there it logically follows that one should not sacrifice one's live to save the other.  Rand was brilliant, but I think she stopped short here.  Maybe it was because she was in love and this tore her from the obvious conclusion.  Maybe it's because I have never been in love.  I don't know, but the logic is certainly there.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: LouisIX on October 14, 2013, 03:35:02 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 14, 2013, 03:28:55 PM

Quote from: LouisIX on October 14, 2013, 03:16:54 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 14, 2013, 02:38:12 PM
I was explaining Rand earlier with reference to a man giving his life for his wife.  That is one area in which I disagree with her.  It doesn't seem to follow logically.  I may see benefit in my spouse surviving, but I would see more benefit to myself surviving.  If she dies, I lose a tremendous relationship which I enjoyed selfishly. If I die, I still lose that relationship, but I also lose all other relationships, as well as everything else.  So, with this in mind, I define good as anything that helps me live my life as a human being.  That is, it helps me survive, as long as I can, and it makes my life more pleasurable.

I hope you do not take offense to this, but I would be amiss if I did not mention how ghastly this is.  This is a philosophical poison and equivalent to the ethic of the First Rebel.

In the end, it's a form of moral solipsism.  You have deified yourself and have neutered your own ability to love anything but yourself.  It contributes nothing, but instead is all consuming.  It sucks the bone dry, leaving nothing but desolation. 

I appreciate your civility on the forum thus far, and criticize your ideas and not you as a man.  But out of love for both you and truth itself, you must come to understand how insidious this is.

I take no offense.  I am a rebel at heart, funny enough, my high school was nicknamed the Rebels.  I can certainly see how this would seem insidious to you, but I see things differently.  To not exchange value for value in a relationship is to have one partner sacrifice to the other.  But partners should be equal, and not expect anything from the other unless value is given in return.  That is true equality.  And from there it logically follows that one should not sacrifice one's live to save the other.  Rand was brilliant, but I think she stopped short here.  Maybe it was because she was in love and this tore her from the obvious conclusion.  Maybe it's because I have never been in love.  I don't know, but the logic is certainly there.


So you are essentially a nihilist?  There is no transcendent meaning to anything.  Basically, it's about the maximization of pleasure and then nothingness.

Let me ask, does this attitude apply to one's children?  Is it better to let your 2 year old daughter die a gruesome death than for you to die? 
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 14, 2013, 03:41:46 PM

Quote from: LouisIX on October 14, 2013, 03:35:02 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 14, 2013, 03:28:55 PM

Quote from: LouisIX on October 14, 2013, 03:16:54 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 14, 2013, 02:38:12 PM
I was explaining Rand earlier with reference to a man giving his life for his wife.  That is one area in which I disagree with her.  It doesn't seem to follow logically.  I may see benefit in my spouse surviving, but I would see more benefit to myself surviving.  If she dies, I lose a tremendous relationship which I enjoyed selfishly. If I die, I still lose that relationship, but I also lose all other relationships, as well as everything else.  So, with this in mind, I define good as anything that helps me live my life as a human being.  That is, it helps me survive, as long as I can, and it makes my life more pleasurable.

I hope you do not take offense to this, but I would be amiss if I did not mention how ghastly this is.  This is a philosophical poison and equivalent to the ethic of the First Rebel.

In the end, it's a form of moral solipsism.  You have deified yourself and have neutered your own ability to love anything but yourself.  It contributes nothing, but instead is all consuming.  It sucks the bone dry, leaving nothing but desolation. 

I appreciate your civility on the forum thus far, and criticize your ideas and not you as a man.  But out of love for both you and truth itself, you must come to understand how insidious this is.

I take no offense.  I am a rebel at heart, funny enough, my high school was nicknamed the Rebels.  I can certainly see how this would seem insidious to you, but I see things differently.  To not exchange value for value in a relationship is to have one partner sacrifice to the other.  But partners should be equal, and not expect anything from the other unless value is given in return.  That is true equality.  And from there it logically follows that one should not sacrifice one's live to save the other.  Rand was brilliant, but I think she stopped short here.  Maybe it was because she was in love and this tore her from the obvious conclusion.  Maybe it's because I have never been in love.  I don't know, but the logic is certainly there.


So you are essentially a nihilist?  There is no transcendent meaning to anything.  Basically, it's about the maximization of pleasure and then nothingness.

Let me ask, does this attitude apply to one's children?  Is it better to let your 2 year old daughter die a gruesome death than for you to die?

No, I am not a nihilist.  I disagree with the nihilists very much so, and I think they are rather silly.  I wouldn't say that life is about the maximization of pleasure alone.  A man should live a life that allows him to reach his own moral perfection.  There is no objective purpose to life, only a subjective purpose, which is whatever you choose for yourself with reason guiding you.  I would rather my hypothetical two year old daughter live rather than me, for the selfish reason of passing on my genes, which is the only chance I will get at immortality.  It is in our nature to seek immortality through the succeeding generation.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: LouisIX on October 14, 2013, 03:44:04 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 14, 2013, 03:41:46 PM

Quote from: LouisIX on October 14, 2013, 03:35:02 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 14, 2013, 03:28:55 PM

Quote from: LouisIX on October 14, 2013, 03:16:54 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 14, 2013, 02:38:12 PM
I was explaining Rand earlier with reference to a man giving his life for his wife.  That is one area in which I disagree with her.  It doesn't seem to follow logically.  I may see benefit in my spouse surviving, but I would see more benefit to myself surviving.  If she dies, I lose a tremendous relationship which I enjoyed selfishly. If I die, I still lose that relationship, but I also lose all other relationships, as well as everything else.  So, with this in mind, I define good as anything that helps me live my life as a human being.  That is, it helps me survive, as long as I can, and it makes my life more pleasurable.

I hope you do not take offense to this, but I would be amiss if I did not mention how ghastly this is.  This is a philosophical poison and equivalent to the ethic of the First Rebel.

In the end, it's a form of moral solipsism.  You have deified yourself and have neutered your own ability to love anything but yourself.  It contributes nothing, but instead is all consuming.  It sucks the bone dry, leaving nothing but desolation. 

I appreciate your civility on the forum thus far, and criticize your ideas and not you as a man.  But out of love for both you and truth itself, you must come to understand how insidious this is.

I take no offense.  I am a rebel at heart, funny enough, my high school was nicknamed the Rebels.  I can certainly see how this would seem insidious to you, but I see things differently.  To not exchange value for value in a relationship is to have one partner sacrifice to the other.  But partners should be equal, and not expect anything from the other unless value is given in return.  That is true equality.  And from there it logically follows that one should not sacrifice one's live to save the other.  Rand was brilliant, but I think she stopped short here.  Maybe it was because she was in love and this tore her from the obvious conclusion.  Maybe it's because I have never been in love.  I don't know, but the logic is certainly there.


So you are essentially a nihilist?  There is no transcendent meaning to anything.  Basically, it's about the maximization of pleasure and then nothingness.

Let me ask, does this attitude apply to one's children?  Is it better to let your 2 year old daughter die a gruesome death than for you to die?

No, I am not a nihilist.  I disagree with the nihilists very much so, and I think they are rather silly.  I wouldn't say that life is about the maximization of pleasure alone.  A man should live a life that allows him to reach his own moral perfection.  There is no objective purpose to life, only a subjective purpose, which is whatever you choose for yourself with reason guiding you.  I would rather my hypothetical two year old daughter live rather than me, for the selfish reason of passing on my genes, which is the only chance I will get at immortality.  It is in our nature to seek immortality through the succeeding generation.

What if your daughter had a disease which you already knew would render her sterile, but would otherwise allow her to live a long, healthy, and happy life?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 14, 2013, 03:48:38 PM
I don't follow.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: LouisIX on October 14, 2013, 03:51:10 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 14, 2013, 03:48:38 PM
I don't follow.

You said that you would not give your life for your wife and would only give your life for your daughter because she could grant you some measure of immortality by passing on your genes.

What if your daughter had a condition which, even at birth, indicated that she would be sterile?  She's otherwise healthy and will live a long, normal life, but she cannot pass on your genes, so they will die out whether she lives or not.  Since she cannot pass on your genes, do you still sacrifice yourself for her or no?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 14, 2013, 04:13:46 PM
Quote from: LouisIX on October 14, 2013, 03:51:10 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 14, 2013, 03:48:38 PM
I don't follow.

You said that you would not give your life for your wife and would only give your life for your daughter because she could grant you some measure of immortality by passing on your genes.

What if your daughter had a condition which, even at birth, indicated that she would be sterile?  She's otherwise healthy and will live a long, normal life, but she cannot pass on your genes, so they will die out whether she lives or not.  Since she cannot pass on your genes, do you still sacrifice yourself for her or no?

Hmmm, that's tough.  We are in a land of theory here, and it is only in theory I could see giving up my life for my hypothetical daughter at all.  This is one place where Rand struggled mightily, so I suppose it makes sense I should struggle as well.  Maybe if I were actually married or had a daughter it would be easier, maybe not.  But, in reality I can't see sacrificing myself for anyone or anything.  To some that sounds terrible, but try meditating on it.  The question is more difficult than most seem to understand.  And the issue comes up very rarely in real life.  It's a tough question.  Randy's philosophy appears to break down here, and I don't have a very good answer for you, sorry.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on October 14, 2013, 04:32:49 PM
Note to other posters:  If you are just joining this thread, and don't feel like wading through the pages, understand that CF is a sincere poster.  Though he is an atheist, he has been having a respectful conversation, so please resist any kind of defensive rhetoric.  Instead, imagine that he has been given an actual grace to come ask some questions.  That will put you in the right frame of mind.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on October 14, 2013, 04:35:57 PM
QuoteI'm afraid my knowledge of Rand is insufficient here.  I have been reading her for about four years now, but haven't come upon the term 'shamans of material' yet.
Basically her term for socialist/communist.  They believe in an almost supernatural cause for production, that if you want it, it happens.  They don't address the source of production, which is the human mind.  It appears in John Galt's speech.  She also has the shamans of the spirit, which basically is me, though no where in the novel do you meet any. 
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on October 14, 2013, 04:44:21 PM
QuoteSo, with this in mind, I define good as anything that helps me live my life as a human being.  That is, it helps me survive, as long as I can, and it makes my life more pleasurable.  Do you find that sufficient?

No, I don't find it sufficient, but I do find it consistent with atheism.  It is not sufficient because it contradicts your belief in non-agression and trading value-for-value.  For according to you it would be "good" to use the government and the gun to rob from me and allow you a nice lifestyle with minimal effort.  In fact, that would be your ultimate good, basically trading your vote for a free ride.  Zero cost to you, and a lot of benefit. 

But you say you oppose this, and insist on justice.  So it is a contradiction.  You also have not established how justice can even exist, or why people have the ability "to be owed".  I as a Catholic can explain this easily.  You as an atheist can not.  In fact justice should be a faerie tale to you as an atheist.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: LouisIX on October 14, 2013, 04:53:43 PM
Quote from: james03 on October 14, 2013, 04:32:49 PM
Note to other posters:  If you are just joining this thread, and don't feel like wading through the pages, understand that CF is a sincere poster.  Though he is an atheist, he has been having a respectful conversation, so please resist any kind of defensive rhetoric.  Instead, imagine that he has been given an actual grace to come ask some questions.  That will put you in the right frame of mind.

Good post.  Thank you, James.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: rbjmartin on October 14, 2013, 05:07:26 PM
Quote from: james03 on October 14, 2013, 04:44:21 PM
You also have not established how justice can even exist, or why people have the ability "to be owed".  I as a Catholic can explain this easily.  You as an atheist can not.  In fact justice should be a faerie tale to you as an atheist.

This is a good point that I had not considered. If you are a pure materialist, how can you even conceive of a notion such as justice? Justice is concisely defined as "rendering to each his due." But how do you determine what one is "due" without a formal, abstract notion of "due-ness"?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on October 14, 2013, 05:41:02 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 12, 2013, 09:37:46 PM

Quote from: james03 on October 12, 2013, 09:31:13 PM
So you are really an atheist?  Good to have you here and I hope you are here to learn the opposing argument and not to troll.  I enjoy conversations with SINCERE atheists who really want to know the truth.

I am.  All I care about is the truth, and I respect the Church very much.
What is truth without a God? a fantasy?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 14, 2013, 06:28:33 PM

Quote from: james03 on October 14, 2013, 04:44:21 PM
QuoteSo, with this in mind, I define good as anything that helps me live my life as a human being.  That is, it helps me survive, as long as I can, and it makes my life more pleasurable.  Do you find that sufficient?

No, I don't find it sufficient, but I do find it consistent with atheism.  It is not sufficient because it contradicts your belief in non-agression and trading value-for-value.  For according to you it would be "good" to use the government and the gun to rob from me and allow you a nice lifestyle with minimal effort.  In fact, that would be your ultimate good, basically trading your vote for a free ride.  Zero cost to you, and a lot of benefit. 

But you say you oppose this, and insist on justice.  So it is a contradiction.  You also have not established how justice can even exist, or why people have the ability "to be owed".  I as a Catholic can explain this easily.  You as an atheist can not.  In fact justice should be a faerie tale to you as an atheist.

Thanks for the kind words James.  I find it abhorrent for someone to use the government to further their own ends.  The government has no value to exchange, it is simply a leach upon the producers of society.  I seek no free ride either, I wish to trade with other producers.  What you describe would not be a true exchange, it would be thievery.

I demand justice, and fully expect it too.  I agree with your definition of justice, it is giving due one his/her due.  If I sell you a car for $10,000, I am then owed $10,000 upon arrival of the car.  And you are owed the car once you give me $10,000.  I am only owed what I earn, and I only desire what I earn.  Why would I need God in order to have justice?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 14, 2013, 06:32:29 PM

Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 14, 2013, 05:41:02 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 12, 2013, 09:37:46 PM

Quote from: james03 on October 12, 2013, 09:31:13 PM
So you are really an atheist?  Good to have you here and I hope you are here to learn the opposing argument and not to troll.  I enjoy conversations with SINCERE atheists who really want to know the truth.

I am.  All I care about is the truth, and I respect the Church very much.
What is truth without a God? a fantasy?

Truth is that which we experience in the world with our senses and intellect.  The universe exists objectively, and still would even if none of us were here to experience it.  Our job as humans is to come to an understanding of what the universe is.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: GUDC on October 14, 2013, 07:38:07 PM
Crimson Flyboy,

You posed the question, based on Cartesian epistemology, how much we can really know or prove with certainty, without any doubt.  The Catholic Church has always taught that the existence of God is one truth that can be known with certainty by the use of human reason (i.e., no faith is needed to know that God exists).

This may be slightly off the Rand/economics/communist side-topic that the thread seems to be traversing, but I would like to summarize below one of the proofs for God's existence to show that the Thomistic arguments are based on foundations of certitude, like the principle of non-contradiction, which does not admit of (reasonable) doubt or denial:


1a. If contingent entities exist, then a necessary Being exists.

2a. Contingent entities do exist.

1b. Therefore a necessary Being exists.

2b. But the necessary Being must have all the attributes of God.

C: Therefore God exists.


Proof of 2a: "Contingent" simply means "not necessary, what need not be, what could be otherwise."  For example, the capital of the state of Texas is Austin, but this is contingent, since the founders might have chosen Dallas or Houston or San Antonio instead.  So to say that something is contingent in its being--a contingent entity--is to say that its existence could have been otherwise, or that it need not have been.  And there couldn't be any serious doubt that this holds of at least some beings in the world around us.  For instance, all human beings now living on the Earth did not exist 200 years ago.  Therefore their existence is contingent: they need not have existed, because there was a time when in fact they didn't exist, whereas something whose existence is necessary or not contingent by definition can never fail to exist.  Therefore 2a is proven.

Proof of 1a
: A contingent being by definition is not self-existent or necessary.  If it was self-existent, its existence would be owed to itself and it would not need to wait around for anything other than itself to begin existing, which means it would always exist, and thus not be contingent.  So a contingent being by definition is not self-existent, which means that it must be "other-existent," i.e., dependent on something other than itself for its existence.  But to depend on another for your existence is to say that you are caused in your existence.  So every contingent being, by definition, has a cause of its existence.  Now that cause which imparts existence must likewise be either contingent or not contingent--there's no other option.  If that cause is contingent, then it, too, must have a cause, and its cause if contingent must have another cause again, and so on.  It is impossible for this process of deferring causal explanation to proceed on forever, because every contingent being is receiving existence from something else.  But as some Catholic philosophers have noted, if everything were receiving existence, without anything ultimately giving it, then nothing would ever receive it.  Therefore it is necessary that there be a being who does not receive existence from something else, like all the others, but only gives existence without receiving it.  If everything is receiving existence but nothing is giving it, then no one truly receives it, which means nothing would exist at all.

Therefore there must be a Being Who is not a contingent receiver of existence like all the others, but Who only gives existence.  Since this Being is not contingent, He must be necessary (i.e., not contingent) and self-existent.   1a is proved.

Proof of 1b: 1b is also proved (it is the conclusion of 1a and 2a).

Proof of 2b: The necessary Being has already been shown to be self-existent.  He must also be eternal; that is, He always existed, because as already mentioned, if there was ever a time when He failed to exist, then He wouldn't be the necessary Being at all.  Since He is eternal, or existing outside of time, He is changeless and unchangeable, as time is the measure of change, but being eternal (i.e., outside of time) He is not subject to time.  Since He is self-existent and accounts for the existence of everything else, and since He is also changeless, He must be perfect and indeed infinitely perfect.  He does not get existence from anything else, but everything else gets it from Him, which means He can't get perfection from anything else, as perfection is just some specific way of having existence.  Further, He is unchangeable, which means He cannot acquire any new quality which He doesn't already have.  Since He is infinitely perfect that means He must also be all-wise, all-powerful, all-knowing, all-just, and all-merciful, since mercy, justice, power, wisdom, and the rest are all various perfections, and He, being infinitely perfect, has all perfections.  Finally there can only be one Being like this and not many.  St. Thomas Aquinas says that it is impossible to have two beings both infinitely perfect, since in order to have two you must have a way to tell them apart: one must lack something that the other one has.  But if one of them lacks something then he isn't really all-perfect.

So there exists a necessary and eternal Being, only one, Who is all-wise, all-knowing, all-just, all-powerful, and infinite in every perfection.  But as St. Thomas says, "this Being all men speak of as God."

Therefore God exists.  You'll notice that the argument is a logically valid one; once admit the premises and the conclusion follows necessarily.  And since the premises are either based on the principle of non-contradiction (a priori) or based on undeniable facts about the world (e.g., the existence of beings which are dependent in their entity), the premises cannot be avoided either.

So whatever one might answer to your claim that "There isn't much we can know with complete certainty," there are some things we can know with certainty, and the existence of God is one of them.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 14, 2013, 07:58:52 PM
GUDC

As mentioned earlier, I have studied the five ways of Aquinas and I find them insufficient.  I find the contingency argument to be the weakest.  Just because a thing is contingent does not necessarily mean that something created it.  A contingent being could very well have come about by chance.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on October 14, 2013, 08:08:05 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 14, 2013, 07:58:52 PM
GUDC

As mentioned earlier, I have studied the five ways of Aquinas and I find them insufficient.  I find the contingency argument to be the weakest.  Just because a thing is contingent does not necessarily mean that something created it.  A contingent being could very well have come about by chance.
You dont really belive this? Lol
Chance? Wth dose chance mean? Is that a natural process? Is it a planet? Is it a temporal disorder in time and space?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 14, 2013, 08:13:42 PM
I'll explain further.  A contingent thing didn't have to exist, it isn't necessary.  But to equate contingency with a need for a creator seems to be assuming that there is some purpose to existence and that existence is objectively better than non-existence.  I don't think that's the case.  Existence is subjectively better from our point of view only.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: GUDC on October 14, 2013, 08:17:12 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 14, 2013, 07:58:52 PM
Just because a thing is contingent does not necessarily mean that something created it.

This is somewhat like saying, "Just because something is a triangle doesn't mean that it has 3 sides."

The very definition of "contingent" is "something that does not exist of itself, but depends for its existence on something else."  That's just what the word means.  But if you are dependent in your existence, that means there are only 2 options:

1. You could depend on another thing for your existence, and this is the (philosophical) definition of "caused."  Or

2. You can depend on yourself for your existence, which is impossible, because nothing can be "self-caused."  To be the cause of yourself you would have to exist (to cause) and not exist (to be caused) at one and the same time, which violates the principle of non-contradiction.

Creation is defined as the "production of the entire substance of a thing ex nihilo."  A contingent thing by definition requires something to remove it from nothingness, towards which it naturally tends barring the causal agency which gives it being.  As Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange put it, a contingent being is "of itself non-existent," because if it were of itself existent, it would be self-existent and therefore necessary (i.e., not contingent). 

So to be contingent and to be created are two sides of the same coin.  These are a priori truths based on the principle of non-contradiction.  If this is not "sufficient," no philosophical argument is or could be, including those used to justify atheism.

QuoteA contingent being could very well have come about by chance.
The preceding proof shows why this is not possible.  First of all chance is defined as "the accidental cause of something that happens as though it were willed."  The classic example from Aristotle is to have a gravedigger go out to dig a grave and by chance dig up a buried treasure.  But all chance, which is an accidental cause, presupposes a deliberate and per se cause.  In the case noted, the chance event only happened because of two events which were not chance events, but which were deliberate: someone deliberately burying a treasure, and someone deliberately digging a grave.

Chance can never be an ultimate or independent cause, just as nothing accidental can exist without the essential on which it depends.

Although perhaps a contingent being might arise by "chance" relative to secondary causality (the activity of finite agents), this could not come about in the absolute sense, that of primary causality, because every contingent being by definition is dependent in its existence.

It is not possible, by chance or any other mechanism, that something be by nature dependent in its existence and yet have nothing at all on which to depend.

If this is the only or primary objection which you have to the contingency argument, it is not a good reason to dismiss it as "insufficient," particularly when the alternative entails a denial of the principle of non-contradiction.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 14, 2013, 08:17:16 PM

Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 14, 2013, 08:13:42 PM
I'll explain further.  A contingent thing didn't have to exist, it isn't necessary.  But to equate contingency with a need for a creator seems to be assuming that there is some purpose to existence and that existence is objectively better than non-existence.  I don't think that's the case.  Existence is subjectively better from our point of view only.

Yes, I can and do believe this.  It's no different really than rolling the dice.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: GUDC on October 14, 2013, 08:26:31 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 14, 2013, 08:13:42 PM
But to equate contingency with a need for a creator seems to be assuming that there is some purpose to existence and that existence is objectively better than non-existence.  Existence is subjectively better from our point of view only.
I don't necessarily see where and how purpose has entered this argument, although it is self-evidently true, even for the atheist, that activity must have a purpose behind it (this is the basis of St. Thomas's fifth proof from finality).  This is another self-evident principle which cannot be denied without self-refutation: you wouldn't argue against it unless you saw a purpose for doing so.  Whitehead spoke of those "who set out with the tenacious purpose of denying the existence of purpose."

But it is also wrong to say that existence is better than non-existence only "subjectively," because, as St. Thomas notes, what is good or "better" is actually a synonym for existence.

He says that goodness and existence are one and the same thing under different aspects.  Anything which is good is good because it is in some way desirable, it is desirable because it has some perfection which calls forth desire, and it has perfection because it really exists (ST I, q. 5).  None of this is dependent on subjectivity; even if some suicidal nihilist believed that by committing suicide he would annihilate himself, and believed hypothetical annihilation to be superior to continued existence, it would still be true that possessing real existence, and thus being the subject of desirable perfection, puts someone in an objectively superior condition to someone who loses all perfection by an act of annihilation. 
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 14, 2013, 08:28:52 PM

Quote from: GUDC on October 14, 2013, 08:17:12 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 14, 2013, 07:58:52 PM
Just because a thing is contingent does not necessarily mean that something created it.

This is somewhat like saying, "Just because something is a triangle doesn't mean that it has 3 sides."

The very definition of "contingent" is "something that does not exist of itself, but depends for its existence on something else."  That's just what the word means.  But if you are dependent in your existence, that means there are only 2 options:

1. You could depend on another thing for your existence, and this is the (philosophical) definition of "caused."  Or

2. You can depend on yourself for your existence, which is impossible, because nothing can be "self-caused."  To be the cause of yourself you would have to exist (to cause) and not exist (to be caused) at one and the same time, which violates the principle of non-contradiction.

Creation is defined as the "production of the entire substance of a thing ex nihilo."  A contingent thing by definition requires something to remove it from nothingness, towards which it naturally tends barring the causal agency which gives it being.  As Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange put it, a contingent being is "of itself non-existent," because if it were of itself existent, it would be self-existent and therefore necessary (i.e., not contingent). 

So to be contingent and to be created are two sides of the same coin.  These are a priori truths based on the principle of non-contradiction.  If this is not "sufficient," no philosophical argument is or could be, including those used to justify atheism.

QuoteA contingent being could very well have come about by chance.
The preceding proof shows why this is not possible.  First of all chance is defined as "the accidental cause of something that happens as though it were willed."  The classic example from Aristotle is to have a gravedigger go out to dig a grave and by chance dig up a buried treasure.  But all chance, which is an accidental cause, presupposes a deliberate and per se cause.  In the case noted, the chance event only happened because of two events which were not chance events, but which were deliberate: someone deliberately burying a treasure, and someone deliberately digging a grave.

Chance can never be an ultimate or independent cause, just as nothing accidental can exist without the essential on which it depends.

Although perhaps a contingent being might arise by "chance" relative to secondary causality (the activity of finite agents), this could not come about in the absolute sense, that of primary causality, because every contingent being by definition is dependent in its existence.

It is not possible, by chance or any other mechanism, that something be by nature dependent in its existence and yet have nothing at all on which to depend.

If this is the only or primary objection which you have to the contingency argument, it is not a good reason to dismiss it as "insufficient," particularly when the alternative entails a denial of the principle of non-contradiction.

You are using different definitions are 'contingent.'

Contingent:
1
:  likely but not certain to happen :  possible
2
:  not logically necessary; especially :  empirical
3
a :  happening by chance or unforeseen causes
b :  subject to chance or unseen effects :  unpredictable
c :  intended for use in circumstances not completely foreseen
4
:  dependent on or conditioned by something else <payment is contingent on fulfillment of certain conditions>
5
:  not necessitated :  determined by free choice

You started by using definition 2, then switched to definition 4.  I was using definition 2.  You are also confusing the causes.  One cause would be to bring a thing into existence, this is an efficient cause.  Then there is the supposed cause which keeps a thing in existence.  I am kept in existence by consuming calories and using them as energy, nothing else.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 14, 2013, 08:42:13 PM

Quote from: GUDC on October 14, 2013, 08:26:31 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 14, 2013, 08:13:42 PM
But to equate contingency with a need for a creator seems to be assuming that there is some purpose to existence and that existence is objectively better than non-existence.  Existence is subjectively better from our point of view only.
I don't necessarily see where and how purpose has entered this argument, although it is self-evidently true, even for the atheist, that activity must have a purpose behind it (this is the basis of St. Thomas's fifth proof from finality).  This is another self-evident principle which cannot be denied without self-refutation: you wouldn't argue against it unless you saw a purpose for doing so.  Whitehead spoke of those "who set out with the tenacious purpose of denying the existence of purpose."

But it is also wrong to say that existence is better than non-existence only "subjectively," because, as St. Thomas notes, what is good or "better" is actually a synonym for existence.

He says that goodness and existence are one and the same thing under different aspects.  Anything which is good is good because it is in some way desirable, it is desirable because it has some perfection which calls forth desire, and it has perfection because it really exists (ST I, q. 5).  None of this is dependent on subjectivity; even if some suicidal nihilist believed that by committing suicide he would annihilate himself, and believed hypothetical annihilation to be superior to continued existence, it would still be true that possessing real existence, and thus being the subject of desirable perfection, puts someone in an objectively superior condition to someone who loses all perfection by an act of annihilation.

The universe is contingent in that it did not have to exist.  So, it could have existed or not existed.  There was some probability of each happening.  Existence happened, which is good for us.  If existence did not happen, there would be no people to complain about non-existence.  Things are either good or bad only from our point of view as humans.  Were the universe to be void of humans, nothing would be either good or bad, as for as value judgements go.  If two planets which are devoid of life slammed into each, it wouldn't matter.

P.S. There are currently scientists who claim that the universe is not contingent, and actually had to come into being.  That's very interesting.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: GUDC on October 14, 2013, 08:45:24 PM
I defined contingent as something which is depedent in its existence on something else.  This is a metaphysical rather than a logical definition, which is the one I used throughout the proof. 

QuoteYou are also confusing the causes.  One cause would be to bring a thing into existence, this is an efficient cause.
There are two types of efficient cause: the cause in fieri, which brings into existence but does not necessarily continue its causal agency after that, and the cause in esse, which sustains a thing in existence.  For example, someone who fires a gun is the cause in fieri of the bullet's being ejected from the chamber; the flame of a candle is the cause in esse of the light illuminating an otherwise pitch black room.  The shooter is needed to get the bullet's flight started, but the shooter himself could be killed immediately after firing while the bullet can continue its flight.  But extinguish the candle's flame for even a moment and the room instantly returns to total darkness.  The flame is needed to sustain the light at every moment of its existence, not only at its beginning. 

The proof from contingency deals with this second and more fundamental type of efficient cause.  It does not deal with what causes a contingent thing to start existing, but what keeps it existing, since a contingent being requires being sustained in existence at every moment just as surely as it needed something to bring it into existence.  A contingent being's relationship to existence is the same at all times: it has no necessary hold on being, and needs something to keep it in a state which is not "essentially natural" to it.  This is why, to repeat, chance isn't and couldn't be an adequate explanation.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 14, 2013, 08:53:23 PM

Quote from: GUDC on October 14, 2013, 08:45:24 PM
I defined contingent as something which is depedent in its existence on something else.  This is a metaphysical rather than a logical definition, which is the one I used throughout the proof. 

QuoteYou are also confusing the causes.  One cause would be to bring a thing into existence, this is an efficient cause.
There are two types of efficient cause: the cause in fieri, which brings into existence but does not necessarily continue its causal agency after that, and the cause in esse, which sustains a thing in existence.  For example, someone who fires a gun is the cause in fieri of the bullet's being ejected from the chamber; the flame of a candle is the cause in esse of the light illuminating an otherwise pitch black room.  The shooter is needed to get the bullet's flight started, but the shooter himself could be killed immediately after firing while the bullet can continue its flight.  But extinguish the candle's flame for even a moment and the room instantly returns to total darkness.  The flame is needed to sustain the light at every moment of its existence, not only at its beginning. 

The proof from contingency deals with this second and more fundamental type of efficient cause.  It does not deal with what causes a contingent thing to start existing, but what keeps it existing, since a contingent being requires being sustained in existence at every moment just as surely as it needed something to bring it into existence.  A contingent being's relationship to existence is the same at all times: it has no necessary hold on being, and needs something to keep it in a state which is not "essentially natural" to it.  This is why, to repeat, chance isn't and couldn't be an adequate explanation.

Okay, I see now.  In that case I don't see how beings are contingent.  My existence would end if my life functions stopped.  I am kept in existence by the energy my body uses.  So, I am not a contingent being.  How will this argument change if scientists prove that the universe had to come into being?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: GUDC on October 14, 2013, 08:56:59 PM

QuoteThe universe is contingent in that it did not have to exist.  So, it could have existed or not existed.  There was some probability of each happening.
Probability is based on some real potential existing in a situation which can arise given the right circumstances.  But since there aren't any circumstances in which an intrinsically non-existent being could start to exist all by itself, with nothing non-contingent to remove it from non-being, therefore there wasn't any "probability" of that happening.  Once you admit that a being is contingent, it follows of necessity that it received existence ultimately from something which is not a receiver of existence, i.e., from something which is not contingent.  The last stop on that train is theism.

QuoteThings are either good or bad only from our point of view as humans.  Were the universe to be void of humans, nothing would be either good or bad, as for as value judgements go.
You're begging the question with both of these statements.  You are redefining goodness broadly as goodness considered as a subjective value judgment, whereas I noted that goodness broadly defined simply means to be co-extensive with existent perfection.  Your statement simply makes a bald assertion that no goodness other than subjective value-judgment-goodness exists, but as already noted, objectively speaking something which has real perfection and existence is superior to what does not exist at all and is the subject of no perfection, even were the world exclusively populated by suicidal nihilists who hated their own existence and subjectively judged existence to be an evil.   

QuoteThere are currently scientists who claim that the universe is not contingent, and actually had to come into being.  That's very interesting.
Scientists are not reliable guides on questions of philosophy and therefore have no authority at all related to their scientific credentials to make any statements about the universe's contingency or necessity.  Outside of their limited range of expertise, they have no special competence to hold forth on these topics.  A philosophically uneducated scientist holding forth on questions of God's existence or the contingency of the universe should have his opinions on these topics given the same respect as his opinions on 15th century Portuguese literature or interior decorating.  He may have some hobbyist's knowledge of these things, but it certainly isn't a function of his scientific training.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Pheo on October 14, 2013, 08:59:20 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 14, 2013, 08:42:13 PMThe universe is contingent in that it did not have to exist.  So, it could have existed or not existed.  There was some probability of each happening.  Existence happened, which is good for us.

"Give us one big miracle and we'll explain the rest!"

I find atheistic arguments which presuppose the reliability of the senses to be interesting too.  It's much more of a dogmatic belief system than it makes itself out to be.  But I don't mean to derail things - this has been an interesting conversation so far.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: GUDC on October 14, 2013, 09:02:11 PM
QuoteIn that case I don't see how beings are contingent.  My existence would end if my life functions stopped.  I am kept in existence by the energy my body uses.  So, I am not a contingent being.
I don't follow this.  There was a time at which you didn't exist at all.  Now you do exist.  This means that you cannot be a necessary being, since a necessary being by definition is something which must exist.  Since at one point you didn't exist, therefore it can't be the case that you had to exist: otherwise you would have always existed, whereas we just noted that you didn't.  Since you're not necessary, the only other alternative is that you are contingent (contingent just means "not necessary").  Because you once did not exist and now do exist, something must have removed you from non-being and constituted you as a real entity.  Although there are certain immediate causes which account for your origin and continued existence (your parents, the physical energy which keeps you alive, etc.), none of these causes can be the ultimate sources of your existence, since all of them, like you, are also contingent, also receivers of existence, and therefore also fundamentally dependent on something from which they all received existence.  Since it is impossible for absolutely everything to be a receiver of existence, we must arrive at the end at something which does not receive existence and which is not contingent.  Your objections seem to be focused on secondary causes (chance, probabilitity, physical and finite agents, etc.), whereas I am pointing out that none of these things offers an ultimate explanation for a phenomenon which nevertheless requires one.

QuoteHow will this argument change if scientists prove that the universe had to come into being?
This claim is not a scientific one, and so scientists will never be able to prove it using science (or anything else, for that matter, since it is a (philosophically) false claim as well).
Title: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 14, 2013, 09:05:21 PM
Quote from: GUDC on October 14, 2013, 08:56:59 PM.   

Scientists are not reliable guides on questions of philosophy and therefore have no authority at all related to their scientific credentials to make any statements about the universe's contingency or necessity.  Outside of their limited range of expertise, they have no special competence to hold forth on these topics.  A philosophically uneducated scientist holding forth on questions of God's existence or the contingency of the universe should have his opinions on these topics given the same respect as his opinions on 15th century Portuguese literature or interior decorating.  He may have some hobbyist's knowledge of these things, but it certainly isn't a function of his scientific training.


Philosophy must move aside to the proofs of science, as science can prove things and philosophy cannot.  I have always assumed that the universe did not have to exist, but I will readily change my opinion if it is proven wrong.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 14, 2013, 09:14:25 PM

Quote from: GUDC on October 14, 2013, 09:02:11 PM
QuoteIn that case I don't see how beings are contingent.  My existence would end if my life functions stopped.  I am kept in existence by the energy my body uses.  So, I am not a contingent being.
I don't follow this.  There was a time at which you didn't exist at all.  Now you do exist.  This means that you cannot be a necessary being, since a necessary being by definition is something which must exist.  Since at one point you didn't exist, therefore it can't be the case that you had to exist: otherwise you would have always existed, whereas we just noted that you didn't.  Since you're not necessary, the only other alternative is that you are contingent (contingent just means "not necessary").  Because you once did not exist and now do exist, something must have removed you from non-being and constituted you as a real entity.  Although there are certain immediate causes which account for your origin and continued existence (your parents, the physical energy which keeps you alive, etc.), none of these causes can be the ultimate sources of your existence, since all of them, like you, are also contingent, also receivers of existence, and therefore also fundamentally dependent on something from which they all received existence.  Since it is impossible for absolutely everything to be a receiver of existence, we must arrive at the end at something which does not receive existence and which is not contingent.  Your objections seem to be focused on secondary causes (chance, probabilitity, physical and finite agents, etc.), whereas I am pointing out that none of these things offers an ultimate explanation for a phenomenon which nevertheless requires one.

QuoteHow will this argument change if scientists prove that the universe had to come into being?
This claim is not a scientific one, and so scientists will never be able to prove it using science (or anything else, for that matter, since it is a (philosophically) false claim as well).

I came into existence, but I will also go out of existence.  If I did not exist before my birth, and we know that to be true, then it would make sense that I would not exist forever.  If my existence does not stretch into eternity in one direction, how could it in the other direction?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on October 15, 2013, 05:29:26 AM
because you are sui generis individual human with a soul. The soul is who you are not what you are. There is no one else who is you...that identity is what is eternal. And you need to be like a cat playing with a toy mouse to pretend otherwise. You pretend you are just a mind and body with your left paw...but you batt around concepts of good and evil and dignity justice and truth with the right paw. Its all a pretense on your part. For some reason...some past hurt or atrocity that compels you to deny or obfuscate these ultimate issues. There is something you do not want to know ...so you dont.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Greg on October 15, 2013, 05:33:08 AM
Humility is an excellent quality in salespeople.  The best salespeople and deal-makers in my experience are people whose egos are smaller that their aptitudes.  Those people with an over-inflated ego become very depressed in a sales career.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 15, 2013, 06:16:08 AM
Quote from: Greg on October 15, 2013, 05:33:08 AM
Humility is an excellent quality in salespeople.  The best salespeople and deal-makers in my experience are people whose egos are smaller that their aptitudes.  Those people with an over-inflated ego become very depressed in a sales career.

The most successful, in terms of sales, sales persons I have ever known were incredibly arrogant.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Greg on October 15, 2013, 06:25:30 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 15, 2013, 06:16:08 AM
Quote from: Greg on October 15, 2013, 05:33:08 AM
Humility is an excellent quality in salespeople.  The best salespeople and deal-makers in my experience are people whose egos are smaller that their aptitudes.  Those people with an over-inflated ego become very depressed in a sales career.

The most successful, in terms of sales, sales persons I have ever known were incredibly arrogant.

Then our experiences differ.

How many salespeople do you know and how successful were they?

What were they netting after tax each year?

People buy from and sell to other people.  Therefore, it stands to reason that, if you are generally perceived as "incredibly" arrogant then most people (who don't like arrogant people), will be put off from buying from you.

Some people on the other hand, especially those with a chip on their shoulder, confuse confidence with arrogance.  Economic buyers generally don't have a chip on their shoulders, since they are relatively successful in their own right (or they don't have the decision-making power).
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 15, 2013, 09:07:02 AM
I know a few car sales persons, and even more realtors.  Most of the realtors I know are as dumb as a box of rocks, and they all think they are very special.  I am suspicious of sales persons in general, they always seem to put forth a façade that hides who they really are.  I don't ask people how much money they make.  The ones who drive the most expensive cars are almost always the most arrogant ones.  That isn't the best way of looking at it, so perhaps, I spoke too soon.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 15, 2013, 09:31:32 AM

Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 15, 2013, 05:29:26 AM
because you are sui generis individual human with a soul. The soul is who you are not what you are. There is no one else who is you...that identity is what is eternal. And you need to be like a cat playing with a toy mouse to pretend otherwise. You pretend you are just a mind and body with your left paw...but you batt around concepts of good and evil and dignity justice and truth with the right paw. Its all a pretense on your part. For some reason...some past hurt or atrocity that compels you to deny or obfuscate these ultimate issues. There is something you do not want to know ...so you dont.

How do you equate an eternal soul with dignity, justice, and truth?  We know truth through reason.  We have dignity because we have reason.  And justice is simply giving each man what he is owed, what he has earned.  A man is owed what he has earned.  Positing a soul doesn't seem to solve any problems for me.  What am I missing?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Basilios on October 15, 2013, 09:39:04 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 15, 2013, 09:31:32 AM

Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 15, 2013, 05:29:26 AM
because you are sui generis individual human with a soul. The soul is who you are not what you are. There is no one else who is you...that identity is what is eternal. And you need to be like a cat playing with a toy mouse to pretend otherwise. You pretend you are just a mind and body with your left paw...but you batt around concepts of good and evil and dignity justice and truth with the right paw. Its all a pretense on your part. For some reason...some past hurt or atrocity that compels you to deny or obfuscate these ultimate issues. There is something you do not want to know ...so you dont.

How do you equate an eternal soul with dignity, justice, and truth?  We know truth through reason.  We have dignity because we have reason.  And justice is simply giving each man what he is owed, what he has earned.  A man is owed what he has earned.  Positing a soul doesn't seem to solve any problems for me.  What am I missing?

What is reason? What part of you 'has' reason? If there is no soul, is reason a 1cm square bit in your brain? Does that even make sense? Why should 'having reason' give us inherent dignity? What should justice matter if all we are are particles with some 'reason'? None of these concepts you are using make sense in a purely materialistic world.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on October 15, 2013, 09:45:16 AM
QuoteI am only owed what I earn, and I only desire what I earn.  Why would I need God in order to have justice?

Because without God, you can not be owed.  Unless you want to establish that for me.

Without God, you are perfectly free to get the government to point guns at your victims, loot them, and send you a government check.  In an atheist system, that is preferential, because it takes little effort on your part.  You no longer have to work or produce, instead you can have leisure all day.  About 47% of the populuation has figured this out already, and as an atheist, you have no grounds to condemn them for it.  Your pile of atoms just happened to end up over here, and theirs just happened to end up over there.  They loaf, you work.  You are owed nothing for your work, because saying you can be owed is a myth made by Christians.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 15, 2013, 09:49:03 AM

Quote from: Basilios on October 15, 2013, 09:39:04 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 15, 2013, 09:31:32 AM

Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 15, 2013, 05:29:26 AM
because you are sui generis individual human with a soul. The soul is who you are not what you are. There is no one else who is you...that identity is what is eternal. And you need to be like a cat playing with a toy mouse to pretend otherwise. You pretend you are just a mind and body with your left paw...but you batt around concepts of good and evil and dignity justice and truth with the right paw. Its all a pretense on your part. For some reason...some past hurt or atrocity that compels you to deny or obfuscate these ultimate issues. There is something you do not want to know ...so you dont.

How do you equate an eternal soul with dignity, justice, and truth?  We know truth through reason.  We have dignity because we have reason.  And justice is simply giving each man what he is owed, what he has earned.  A man is owed what he has earned.  Positing a soul doesn't seem to solve any problems for me.  What am I missing?

What is reason? What part of you 'has' reason? If there is no soul, is reason a 1cm square bit in your brain? Does that even make sense? Why should 'having reason' give us inherent dignity? What should justice matter if all we are are particles with some 'reason'? None of these concepts you are using make sense in a purely materialistic world.

Okay, I think I have it now.  What is the real difference between man and beast?  Our intelligence is evolved more than that of the beast.  Our intelligence has evolved to the point where we have reason.  Our reason stems from our intelligence, and our intelligence comes from our brain.  At some point int the past we must have hit a tipping point which caused a paradigm shift, such that we began to have reason.  Before this tipping point we did not.  It seems like that tipping point was about 6,000 years ago, when men began to develop written language.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on October 15, 2013, 09:49:24 AM
QuotePhilosophy must move aside to the proofs of science, as science can prove things and philosophy cannot.

This is completely backwards.  In order to "prove" things, you need to first establish that "causes" exist.  And you have to establish "logic".  So before science can even get started, you need philosophy, even if it is some uneducated man who states: if I light this with a match, and it burns, then this is flammable.  He is using philosophy.

But once you insist on this Greek realism, you now make it necessary for God to exist.  Philosophy allows us to establish that God exists, and it allows us to establish the scientific method.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 15, 2013, 10:05:17 AM

Quote from: james03 on October 15, 2013, 09:49:24 AM
QuotePhilosophy must move aside to the proofs of science, as science can prove things and philosophy cannot.

This is completely backwards.  In order to "prove" things, you need to first establish that "causes" exist.  And you have to establish "logic".  So before science can even get started, you need philosophy, even if it is some uneducated man who states: if I light this with a match, and it burns, then this is flammable.  He is using philosophy.

But once you insist on this Greek realism, you now make it necessary for God to exist.  Philosophy allows us to establish that God exists, and it allows us to establish the scientific method.

Basic experience shows that causes exist, one doesn't need philosophy to sow that.  Science can prove things with facts.  When the scientific community proves something, a man's intellect can't help but to accept this proof.  Science has given us all the things we enjoy today, but it is able to progress.  Science builds up a base of knowledge which grows with each succeeding generation.  Philosophers are still arguing about the same things they have always argued about.  Philosophy never progresses or builds upon the knowledge base of humanity.  Philosophy is great for politics and economics, but not discovering truths about the universe.  Of what is a star composed?  Philosophy has no answer.  How old is the universe?  Philosophy has no answer.  What did the early universe look like?  Philosophy has no answer.  What caused life?  Philosophy has no answer.  Philosophy doesn't have many answers, it only has questions.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on October 15, 2013, 10:21:46 AM
QuoteBasic experience shows that causes exist, one doesn't need philosophy to sow that.
Actually that IS philosophy.  You also need the law of identity and non-contradiction.  But once you insist on a causal system (and that is the rational thing to do), you open up a lot of questions that end with the existence of God.  That is why the consistent philosophy for atheists is nihilism.  Sure, an atheist can be a Greek realist, and insist on causal chains, but he is hitchhiking on Catholic thought and refusing to address the questions that someone like Aristotle investigated after his "basic experience showed that causes exist".
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Basilios on October 15, 2013, 10:22:50 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 15, 2013, 09:49:03 AM
Okay, I think I have it now.  What is the real difference between man and beast?  Our intelligence is evolved more than that of the beast.  Our intelligence has evolved to the point where we have reason.  Our reason stems from our intelligence, and our intelligence comes from our brain.  At some point int the past we must have hit a tipping point which caused a paradigm shift, such that we began to have reason.  Before this tipping point we did not.  It seems like that tipping point was about 6,000 years ago, when men began to develop written language.

How on earth can intelligence evolve? How can an abstract idea evolve? And how can reason and intelligence be separated like that? You're talking in fairy tales; your constructing a building with marshmellows to justify your worldview. Can you not see how strange it sounds to say that "our intellligence evolved to the point where we have reason"? I mean... what does that even mean? It cannot mean anything!

QuoteScience can prove things with facts.

You seem to have the view that philosophical proofs are not facts when they are. Philosophy is not mere navel gazing. Science can only ever advance within a metaphysial and philosophical system that is either implicitely or explicitely well defined. As it stands, we have a system in place now where things like inductive reasoning and the principle of non-contradiction (amongst others) are the primary a priori building blocks of how we are able to generate scientific proofs (which in themselves are meta-analyses of 'science' qua observation of the material world).

The fact is that your own worldivew that you are espousing here is a metaphysical one - scientism and materialism. Science is the only thing that can give us facts. Oh really? And how can you prove such a thing without circular reasoning? You can't. You need some discipline besides science to prove such a thing. You need a philosophical toolkit. You need metaphysics.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on October 15, 2013, 10:23:08 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 15, 2013, 09:49:03 AM

Quote from: Basilios on October 15, 2013, 09:39:04 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 15, 2013, 09:31:32 AM

Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 15, 2013, 05:29:26 AM
because you are sui generis individual human with a soul. The soul is who you are not what you are. There is no one else who is you...that identity is what is eternal. And you need to be like a cat playing with a toy mouse to pretend otherwise. You pretend you are just a mind and body with your left paw...but you batt around concepts of good and evil and dignity justice and truth with the right paw. Its all a pretense on your part. For some reason...some past hurt or atrocity that compels you to deny or obfuscate these ultimate issues. There is something you do not want to know ...so you dont.

How do you equate an eternal soul with dignity, justice, and truth?  We know truth through reason.  We have dignity because we have reason.  And justice is simply giving each man what he is owed, what he has earned.  A man is owed what he has earned.  Positing a soul doesn't seem to solve any problems for me.  What am I missing?

What is reason? What part of you 'has' reason? If there is no soul, is reason a 1cm square bit in your brain? Does that even make sense? Why should 'having reason' give us inherent dignity? What should justice matter if all we are are particles with some 'reason'? None of these concepts you are using make sense in a purely materialistic world.

Okay, I think I have it now.  What is the real difference between man and beast?  Our intelligence is evolved more than that of the beast.  Our intelligence has evolved to the point where we have reason.  Our reason stems from our intelligence, and our intelligence comes from our brain.  At some point int the past we must have hit a tipping point which caused a paradigm shift, such that we began to have reason.  Before this tipping point we did not.  It seems like that tipping point was about 6,000 years ago, when men began to develop written language.
yes but why are you owed anything for this....why does this give humans dignity over a great white shark who by all accounts is an evolotionary masterpiece (if your an evolotionist)
you still keep avoiding the question....just as I said...because you dont really want an answer. You are a cat pretending the toy mouse is alive...by pretending you dont see your other paw moving it around.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: rbjmartin on October 15, 2013, 10:55:03 AM
Quote from: Greg on October 15, 2013, 06:25:30 AM
Then our experiences differ.

How many salespeople do you know and how successful were they?

What were they netting after tax each year?

People buy from and sell to other people.  Therefore, it stands to reason that, if you are generally perceived as "incredibly" arrogant then most people (who don't like arrogant people), will be put off from buying from you.

Some people on the other hand, especially those with a chip on their shoulder, confuse confidence with arrogance.  Economic buyers generally don't have a chip on their shoulders, since they are relatively successful in their own right (or they don't have the decision-making power).

I like your last point here. The best sales people make you, the buyer, feel like a million bucks. They can't do that if they are coming across as arrogant.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: rbjmartin on October 15, 2013, 10:57:39 AM
Quote from: james03 on October 15, 2013, 10:21:46 AM
QuoteBasic experience shows that causes exist, one doesn't need philosophy to sow that.
Actually that IS philosophy.  You also need the law of identity and non-contradiction.  But once you insist on a causal system (and that is the rational thing to do), you open up a lot of questions that end with the existence of God.  That is why the consistent philosophy for atheists is nihilism.  Sure, an atheist can be a Greek realist, and insist on causal chains, but he is hitchhiking on Catholic thought and refusing to address the questions that someone like Aristotle investigated after his "basic experience showed that causes exist".

That's absolutely right. Without first principles (a philosophical concept), there can be no reason, no science, no knowledge, no learning.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on October 15, 2013, 11:20:53 AM
QuoteHumility is an excellent quality in salespeople.

Yep, and another point.  I don't know of any successful man who doesn't understand the importance of sacrifice.  Doing the "irrational" thing, putting off the immediate pleasure so that you can obtain a goal in the future is the touchstone of greatness.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 15, 2013, 11:30:55 AM

Quote from: Basilios on October 15, 2013, 10:22:50 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 15, 2013, 09:49:03 AM
Okay, I think I have it now.  What is the real difference between man and beast?  Our intelligence is evolved more than that of the beast.  Our intelligence has evolved to the point where we have reason.  Our reason stems from our intelligence, and our intelligence comes from our brain.  At some point int the past we must have hit a tipping point which caused a paradigm shift, such that we began to have reason.  Before this tipping point we did not.  It seems like that tipping point was about 6,000 years ago, when men began to develop written language.

How on earth can intelligence evolve? How can an abstract idea evolve? And how can reason and intelligence be separated like that? You're talking in fairy tales; your constructing a building with marshmellows to justify your worldview. Can you not see how strange it sounds to say that "our intellligence evolved to the point where we have reason"? I mean... what does that even mean? It cannot mean anything!

QuoteScience can prove things with facts.

You seem to have the view that philosophical proofs are not facts when they are. Philosophy is not mere navel gazing. Science can only ever advance within a metaphysial and philosophical system that is either implicitely or explicitely well defined. As it stands, we have a system in place now where things like inductive reasoning and the principle of non-contradiction (amongst others) are the primary a priori building blocks of how we are able to generate scientific proofs (which in themselves are meta-analyses of 'science' qua observation of the material world).

The fact is that your own worldivew that you are espousing here is a metaphysical one - scientism and materialism. Science is the only thing that can give us facts. Oh really? And how can you prove such a thing without circular reasoning? You can't. You need some discipline besides science to prove such a thing. You need a philosophical toolkit. You need metaphysics.

Philosophy has its place, which is as the handmaiden of science.  If I want answers, I will look to hard proofs and not to some old man simply thinking about things.  I reject a priori arguments.  One should instead start with observations and move toward explaining those observations.  A true scientist has an open mind and considers all possibilities.  One should not start with a conclusion and look for ways to prove that conclusion, it biases one's view and skews the results.  I'm not quite sure what scientism is, but I readily admit to being a materialist.

I can prove that science proves things by pointing to the proofs of science.  Science has colored our worldview and furthered our knowledge for centuries.  This is why we know the world is round, thanks to the Greeks.  This is how we know the earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around.  This is how we know the universe started with the Big Bang, and that we are a product of evolution.  One could never have made these discoveries with philosophy alone.  Philosophy, I will grant you, creates a launching pad, so to speak, for science; but it is science which advances knowledge.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 15, 2013, 11:33:52 AM

Quote from: james03 on October 15, 2013, 11:20:53 AM
QuoteHumility is an excellent quality in salespeople.

Yep, and another point.  I don't know of any successful man who doesn't understand the importance of sacrifice.  Doing the "irrational" thing, putting off the immediate pleasure so that you can obtain a goal in the future is the touchstone of greatness.

There is nothing irrational about putting off immediate pleasure for a goal in the future, and that is not a sacrifice.  A sacrifice is giving up something for another thing of lesser value.  Giving up one thing for something of equal or greater value is an exchange and not a sacrifice.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on October 15, 2013, 11:39:53 AM
Well this concept of sacrifice is then a straw man, as no Catholic asks for people to do this.  Your definition is useless.  The definition I gave is the one commonly used.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 15, 2013, 11:41:54 AM

Quote from: james03 on October 15, 2013, 11:39:53 AM
Well this concept of sacrifice is then a straw man, as no Catholic asks for people to do this.  Your definition is useless.  The definition I gave is the one commonly used.

To simply give something up, regardless of what one receives in return.  This definition has caused many problems in our age.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on October 15, 2013, 11:42:51 AM
QuotePhilosophy, I will grant you, creates a launching pad, so to speak, for science; but it is science which advances knowledge.
And there is your dilemma.  Because the same launching pad requires the existence of God.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on October 15, 2013, 11:47:11 AM
QuoteTo simply give something up, regardless of what one receives in return.  This definition has caused many problems in our age.

I disagree.  To get the government to loot for you, to have things stolen from you at the point of a gun, and to say that is fine because we voted on it, THAT has caused most problems in our age.  And that is an atheistic system that ignores justice.  Because we are just a bunch of atoms moving about, and it is a matter of chance at who holds the gun.  So to the atheist it would be irrational for the government and those protected by it to actually work for a living.

As far as your conjecture, I am not aware of anyone preaching such masochism of just giving stuff up for no reason.  Well, certain atheistic nihilist obviously believe that, but that's all I can think off.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 15, 2013, 11:53:29 AM

Quote from: james03 on October 15, 2013, 11:47:11 AM
QuoteTo simply give something up, regardless of what one receives in return.  This definition has caused many problems in our age.

I disagree.  To get the government to loot for you, to have things stolen from you at the point of a gun, and to say that is fine because we voted on it, THAT has caused most problems in our age.  And that is an atheistic system that ignores justice.  Because we are just a bunch of atoms moving about, and it is a matter of chance at who holds the gun.  So to the atheist it would be irrational for the government and those protected by it to actually work for a living.

As far as your conjecture, I am not aware of anyone preaching such masochism of just giving stuff up for no reason.  Well, certain atheistic nihilist obviously believe that, but that's all I can think off.

Socialists certainly do when they preach the importance of sacrificing for the collective, as do all altruists.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 15, 2013, 11:53:44 AM

Quote from: james03 on October 15, 2013, 11:42:51 AM
QuotePhilosophy, I will grant you, creates a launching pad, so to speak, for science; but it is science which advances knowledge.
And there is your dilemma.  Because the same launching pad requires the existence of God.

How so?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Basilios on October 15, 2013, 12:03:03 PM
Dear Crimson,

Please read all these articles! NOW!! DO IT!! Particularly the group of articles starting around the article "The New Philistinism". They will answer your questions and all your objections better than any of us can. It'll make for interesting reading too. I know it's less personal but it will be more rewarding I promise.

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/scientism-roundup.html
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 15, 2013, 12:04:36 PM

Quote from: Basilios on October 15, 2013, 12:03:03 PM
Dear Crimson,

Please read all these articles! NOW!! DO IT!! Particularly the group of articles starting around the article "The New Philistinism". They will answer your questions and all your objections better than any of us can. It'll make for interesting reading too. I know it's less personal but it will be more rewarding I promise.

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/scientism-roundup.html

All right, I can dig it.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Pheo on October 15, 2013, 12:38:53 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 15, 2013, 11:30:55 AMOne should instead start with observations and move toward explaining those observations.  A true scientist has an open mind and considers all possibilities.

With science alone you can't prove the the reliability of your reason or senses.  This approach makes all sorts of assumptions in order to fit the atheistic worldview.  There's nothing particularly open-minded about it.

You've seen similar results from repeated experiments - the next obvious question would be...so what?  Science alone offers a very flimsy definition of "proof."
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Pheo on October 15, 2013, 12:45:07 PM
I'm really not sure how atheists can maintain intellectual honesty and gloss over this basic assumption.  Science cannot prove that our senses or reason are reliable - not even in the slightest.  But the first (unwritten) article of the atheistic faith allows people to skip over the nasty side effects of epistemological nihilism.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: rbjmartin on October 15, 2013, 12:48:09 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 15, 2013, 11:53:29 AM

Quote from: james03 on October 15, 2013, 11:47:11 AM
As far as your conjecture, I am not aware of anyone preaching such masochism of just giving stuff up for no reason.  Well, certain atheistic nihilist obviously believe that, but that's all I can think off.

Socialists certainly do when they preach the importance of sacrificing for the collective, as do all altruists.

Socialists preach sacrifice, but in practice, they re-distribute by force. They don't wait for anyone to voluntarily sacrifice on their own. So that is just rhetoric.

Sacrifice is a function of true liberty, even beyond the liberty a materialistic atheist could comprehend. Sacrifice is a demonstration of one's freedom to act outside of the realm of conventional self-interest. If I must always act out of selfishness, then I'm not truly free. I'm nothing but an automaton. But if I freely choose to sacrifice, I have demonstrated my freedom over selfishness and the material goods that manifest my selfishness.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 15, 2013, 12:49:33 PM
Nothing can prove that are senses are reliable.  The brain in a vat theory has shown this.  So, we just accept the premise that are senses are reliable because it works.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: rbjmartin on October 15, 2013, 12:53:24 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 15, 2013, 11:30:55 AM
Philosophy has its place, which is as the handmaiden of science.  If I want answers, I will look to hard proofs and not to some old man simply thinking about things.  I reject a priori arguments.  One should instead start with observations and move toward explaining those observations.  A true scientist has an open mind and considers all possibilities.  One should not start with a conclusion and look for ways to prove that conclusion, it biases one's view and skews the results.  I'm not quite sure what scientism is, but I readily admit to being a materialist.

I can prove that science proves things by pointing to the proofs of science.  Science has colored our worldview and furthered our knowledge for centuries.  This is why we know the world is round, thanks to the Greeks.  This is how we know the earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around.  This is how we know the universe started with the Big Bang, and that we are a product of evolution.  One could never have made these discoveries with philosophy alone.  Philosophy, I will grant you, creates a launching pad, so to speak, for science; but it is science which advances knowledge.

You've got it all backwards. There is NO rational thinking without first principles.

If you don't accept the law of non-contradiction, for example, then science is impossible for you. There is no point in stating that the atomic number of carbon is 6 if at the same time I assert that the atomic number of carbon is NOT 6.

So philosophy precedes science, because scientific thought is not possible without the disciplines of philosophy being in place and accepted as first principles.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 15, 2013, 12:57:50 PM

Quote from: Basilios on October 15, 2013, 12:03:03 PM
Dear Crimson,

Please read all these articles! NOW!! DO IT!! Particularly the group of articles starting around the article "The New Philistinism". They will answer your questions and all your objections better than any of us can. It'll make for interesting reading too. I know it's less personal but it will be more rewarding I promise.

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/scientism-roundup.html

Feser's article "blinded by scientism" is very interesting.  I especially like this part:

"Objective" reality, revealed by science and described in the language of mathematics, was held to comprise a world of colorless, soundless, meaningless particles in motion.  Or rather, if color, temperature, sound and the like are to be regarded as existing in objective reality, they must be redefined – heat and cold reconceived in terms of molecular motion, color in terms of the reflecting of photons at certain wavelengths, sound in terms of compression waves, and so forth.  What common sense means by "heat," "cold," "red," "green," "loud," etc. – the way things feel, look, sound, and so forth in conscious experience – drops out as a mere projection of the mind.


I can only understand things by making them quantifiable.  Maybe you have a point.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Pheo on October 15, 2013, 01:11:54 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 15, 2013, 12:49:33 PM
Nothing can prove that are senses are reliable.  The brain in a vat theory has shown this.  So, we just accept the premise that are senses are reliable because it works.

No, materialsm can't.  And the brain in a vat theory is hardly enough here - it assumes that the mind and human reason are the brain when we would argue that these are attributes of the soul.

Hence my calling this an article of atheistic faith.  It's funny...people who try their hardest to throw off dogma just end up replacing the old laws with new ones of their own.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: rbjmartin on October 15, 2013, 01:13:23 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 15, 2013, 12:49:33 PM
Nothing can prove that are senses are reliable.  The brain in a vat theory has shown this.  So, we just accept the premise that are senses are reliable because it works.

Cartesianism hasn't proven anything, because without sense data, you can't even make the initial observation that things such as brains and vats exist.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on October 15, 2013, 01:24:04 PM
QuoteSocialists certainly do when they preach the importance of sacrificing for the collective, as do all altruists.

C'mon, did you give this much thought?  Let's look at some real world examples:
1.  Obamacare.  Do you think people supported Obamacare because they were sold on the idea it was an altruistic sacrifice needed by the collective, or do you think they were promised free loot, that they would receive far more medical service than they would have to pay for, and that someone else would pay for it?  What's your honest answer?

2.  Wisconsin:  Rick Scott actually passes an adult budget that does require "sacrifice" (though a better term is "justice"), in that the public union employees would actually have to pay for some of their benefits.  Moreover, it was obvious that to avoid a Detroit scenario, this was required.  How did the socialists respond?  Did they rally around him proclaiming the need for sacrifice?  Or did they send in savages who literally pounded on bongo drums in the middle of the state capital building in an effort to block passage?  What's your honest answer?

3.  The 99% / 1% agitprop.  Are we not told that the cause of all of our problems is that someone else, the mythical 1%, are not "paying their fair share"?  Is not the socialist answer to get this 1% to "pay its fair share" in order to keep the loot flowing?  (Quick aside, the country is actually divided between "takers", at roughly 55%, and "makers" at roughly 45%).

4.  Greece.  Is the socialist party pointing out to the looters that they need to seriously cut back on what they loot if the country is to survive?

So like I said, put some thought into what you write.  Socialists calling for sacrifice?  Heck no, socialists calling for open looting, because for the most part they are atheists and "justice" is a faerie tale to them.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Basilios on October 15, 2013, 01:35:33 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 15, 2013, 12:57:50 PM

Quote from: Basilios on October 15, 2013, 12:03:03 PM
Dear Crimson,

Please read all these articles! NOW!! DO IT!! Particularly the group of articles starting around the article "The New Philistinism". They will answer your questions and all your objections better than any of us can. It'll make for interesting reading too. I know it's less personal but it will be more rewarding I promise.

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/scientism-roundup.html

Feser's article "blinded by scientism" is very interesting.  I especially like this part:

"Objective" reality, revealed by science and described in the language of mathematics, was held to comprise a world of colorless, soundless, meaningless particles in motion.  Or rather, if color, temperature, sound and the like are to be regarded as existing in objective reality, they must be redefined – heat and cold reconceived in terms of molecular motion, color in terms of the reflecting of photons at certain wavelengths, sound in terms of compression waves, and so forth.  What common sense means by "heat," "cold," "red," "green," "loud," etc. – the way things feel, look, sound, and so forth in conscious experience – drops out as a mere projection of the mind.


I can only understand things by making them quantifiable.  Maybe you have a point.

I'm glad you are finding things interesting and reading! Thank you! Read on for more fun and enlightenment!  :D
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 15, 2013, 02:38:13 PM

Quote from: james03 on October 15, 2013, 01:24:04 PM
QuoteSocialists certainly do when they preach the importance of sacrificing for the collective, as do all altruists.

C'mon, did you give this much thought?  Let's look at some real world examples:
1.  Obamacare.  Do you think people supported Obamacare because they were sold on the idea it was an altruistic sacrifice needed by the collective, or do you think they were promised free loot, that they would receive far more medical service than they would have to pay for, and that someone else would pay for it?  What's your honest answer?

2.  Wisconsin:  Rick Scott actually passes an adult budget that does require "sacrifice" (though a better term is "justice"), in that the public union employees would actually have to pay for some of their benefits.  Moreover, it was obvious that to avoid a Detroit scenario, this was required.  How did the socialists respond?  Did they rally around him proclaiming the need for sacrifice?  Or did they send in savages who literally pounded on bongo drums in the middle of the state capital building in an effort to block passage?  What's your honest answer?

3.  The 99% / 1% agitprop.  Are we not told that the cause of all of our problems is that someone else, the mythical 1%, are not "paying their fair share"?  Is not the socialist answer to get this 1% to "pay its fair share" in order to keep the loot flowing?  (Quick aside, the country is actually divided between "takers", at roughly 55%, and "makers" at roughly 45%).

4.  Greece.  Is the socialist party pointing out to the looters that they need to seriously cut back on what they loot if the country is to survive?

So like I said, put some thought into what you write.  Socialists calling for sacrifice?  Heck no, socialists calling for open looting, because for the most part they are atheists and "justice" is a faerie tale to them.

1.  People wanted free loot, and politicians wanted votes.

2.  The bongo drums sound like a liberal strategy.

3.  The 99% vs 1%!thing is a total myth.  Liberals just want to soak the rich.

4.  No, they are not.  They too want to soak the rich by just taking their money.

Socialists have this fairy tale utopia in mind, but don't think people will go along unless you force them.  They don't trust their fellow man at all.  They demand citizens sacrifice their own needs and desires for those of the collective.  However, socialists always require sacrifice of others and never themselves.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 15, 2013, 02:39:29 PM

Quote from: Basilios on October 15, 2013, 01:35:33 PM


I'm glad you are finding things interesting and reading! Thank you! Read on for more fun and enlightenment!  :D


Thanks for the info.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on October 15, 2013, 03:11:16 PM
Quote
1.  People wanted free loot, and politicians wanted votes.

2.  The bongo drums sound like a liberal strategy.

3.  The 99% vs 1%!thing is a total myth.  Liberals just want to soak the rich.

4.  No, they are not.  They too want to soak the rich by just taking their money.

Socialists have this fairy tale utopia in mind, but don't think people will go along unless you force them.  They don't trust their fellow man at all.  They demand citizens sacrifice their own needs and desires for those of the collective.  However, socialists always require sacrifice of others and never themselves.
You are agreeing with me.  You have a habit of doing that.  YES, people WANT FREE LOOT.  How that is a call for sacrifice, I have no idea.  It is a call to loot at the point of the government gun.  Obamacare is called the "Affordable Care Act", as in FREE medical services paid for with stolen money.

It is an offense against justice, which I can explain, but you as an atheist can not.  EVEN THOUGH YOU AGREE WITH ME.  That is why I accuse atheists of being hitch-hikers on Catholic thought.

Also, are you going to read my book?  I think you will appreciate it.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: ts aquinas on October 15, 2013, 03:13:32 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 15, 2013, 11:30:55 AM
Philosophy has its place, which is as the handmaiden of science.  If I want answers, I will look to hard proofs and not to some old man simply thinking about things.  I reject a priori arguments.  One should instead start with observations and move toward explaining those observations.  A true scientist has an open mind and considers all possibilities.  One should not start with a conclusion and look for ways to prove that conclusion, it biases one's view and skews the results.  I'm not quite sure what scientism is, but I readily admit to being a materialist.

I can prove that science proves things by pointing to the proofs of science.  Science has colored our worldview and furthered our knowledge for centuries.  This is why we know the world is round, thanks to the Greeks.  This is how we know the earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around.  This is how we know the universe started with the Big Bang, and that we are a product of evolution.  One could never have made these discoveries with philosophy alone.  Philosophy, I will grant you, creates a launching pad, so to speak, for science; but it is science which advances knowledge.

Interesting, you reject a priori arguments yet grant philosophy as a "launching pad." But you're closer to Aristotelianism than you think. The bases of Aristotelian approach is appearances, refinement through facts, reach conclusion that is free from contravailing evidence. Also, the Thomistic approach is a posteriori, if you read Fr. Lagrange's Reality chapter 7.

Careful labelling yourself a materialist though, such is a metaphysical approach in rejecting metaphysics. A contradiction I'm sure you'd like to avoid.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 15, 2013, 04:15:58 PM

Quote from: james03 on October 15, 2013, 03:11:16 PM
Quote
1.  People wanted free loot, and politicians wanted votes.

2.  The bongo drums sound like a liberal strategy.

3.  The 99% vs 1%!thing is a total myth.  Liberals just want to soak the rich.

4.  No, they are not.  They too want to soak the rich by just taking their money.

Socialists have this fairy tale utopia in mind, but don't think people will go along unless you force them.  They don't trust their fellow man at all.  They demand citizens sacrifice their own needs and desires for those of the collective.  However, socialists always require sacrifice of others and never themselves.
You are agreeing with me.  You have a habit of doing that.  YES, people WANT FREE LOOT.  How that is a call for sacrifice, I have no idea.  It is a call to loot at the point of the government gun.  Obamacare is called the "Affordable Care Act", as in FREE medical services paid for with stolen money.

It is an offense against justice, which I can explain, but you as an atheist can not.  EVEN THOUGH YOU AGREE WITH ME.  That is why I accuse atheists of being hitch-hikers on Catholic thought.

Also, are you going to read my book?  I think you will appreciate it.

It is not the people who demand sacrifice, it is the socialists in government.  The people are never the socialists, it is always a group of intellectuals living in ivory towers and are completely unaware of reality.  Obamacare is poor legislation and thievery because it steals from some in order to give to others, it also uses police power to force people,to do something they do not want to do, that is to buy health insurance.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 15, 2013, 04:20:51 PM

Quote from: ts aquinas on October 15, 2013, 03:13:32 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 15, 2013, 11:30:55 AM
Philosophy has its place, which is as the handmaiden of science.  If I want answers, I will look to hard proofs and not to some old man simply thinking about things.  I reject a priori arguments.  One should instead start with observations and move toward explaining those observations.  A true scientist has an open mind and considers all possibilities.  One should not start with a conclusion and look for ways to prove that conclusion, it biases one's view and skews the results.  I'm not quite sure what scientism is, but I readily admit to being a materialist.

I can prove that science proves things by pointing to the proofs of science.  Science has colored our worldview and furthered our knowledge for centuries.  This is why we know the world is round, thanks to the Greeks.  This is how we know the earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around.  This is how we know the universe started with the Big Bang, and that we are a product of evolution.  One could never have made these discoveries with philosophy alone.  Philosophy, I will grant you, creates a launching pad, so to speak, for science; but it is science which advances knowledge.

Interesting, you reject a priori arguments yet grant philosophy as a "launching pad." But you're closer to Aristotelianism than you think. The bases of Aristotelian approach is appearances, refinement through facts, reach conclusion that is free from contravailing evidence. Also, the Thomistic approach is a posteriori, if you read Fr. Lagrange's Reality chapter 7.

Careful labelling yourself a materialist though, such is a metaphysical approach in rejecting metaphysics. A contradiction I'm sure you'd like to avoid.

I simply mean that one should not start with a premise and then look to prove that premise.  When one looks for something, one will always find it.  Instead one should test theories in a completely unbiased manner and follow the evidence.  Untested beliefs are not worth a hill of beans, and one should be ready and willing to drop a belief as soon as it is proven wrong.  I said that about my Catholic faith for years, then I tested that faith and I believe strongly that I have disproven it, so I dropped it.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 15, 2013, 04:32:39 PM

Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 15, 2013, 04:15:58 PM

Quote from: james03 on October 15, 2013, 03:11:16 PM
Quote
1.  People wanted free loot, and politicians wanted votes.

2.  The bongo drums sound like a liberal strategy.

3.  The 99% vs 1%!thing is a total myth.  Liberals just want to soak the rich.

4.  No, they are not.  They too want to soak the rich by just taking their money.

Socialists have this fairy tale utopia in mind, but don't think people will go along unless you force them.  They don't trust their fellow man at all.  They demand citizens sacrifice their own needs and desires for those of the collective.  However, socialists always require sacrifice of others and never themselves.
You are agreeing with me.  You have a habit of doing that.  YES, people WANT FREE LOOT.  How that is a call for sacrifice, I have no idea.  It is a call to loot at the point of the government gun.  Obamacare is called the "Affordable Care Act", as in FREE medical services paid for with stolen money.

It is an offense against justice, which I can explain, but you as an atheist can not.  EVEN THOUGH YOU AGREE WITH ME.  That is why I accuse atheists of being hitch-hikers on Catholic thought.

Also, are you going to read my book?  I think you will appreciate it.

It is not the people who demand sacrifice, it is the socialists in government.  The people are never the socialists, it is always a group of intellectuals living in ivory towers and are completely unaware of reality.  Obamacare is poor legislation and thievery because it steals from some in order to give to others, it also uses police power to force people,to do something they do not want to do, that is to buy health insurance.

Edit: I bought the book on kindle and have began reading it, I'll let you know what I think.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: LouisIX on October 15, 2013, 05:36:21 PM
Quote from: rbjmartin on October 15, 2013, 12:53:24 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 15, 2013, 11:30:55 AM
Philosophy has its place, which is as the handmaiden of science.  If I want answers, I will look to hard proofs and not to some old man simply thinking about things.  I reject a priori arguments.  One should instead start with observations and move toward explaining those observations.  A true scientist has an open mind and considers all possibilities.  One should not start with a conclusion and look for ways to prove that conclusion, it biases one's view and skews the results.  I'm not quite sure what scientism is, but I readily admit to being a materialist.

I can prove that science proves things by pointing to the proofs of science.  Science has colored our worldview and furthered our knowledge for centuries.  This is why we know the world is round, thanks to the Greeks.  This is how we know the earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around.  This is how we know the universe started with the Big Bang, and that we are a product of evolution.  One could never have made these discoveries with philosophy alone.  Philosophy, I will grant you, creates a launching pad, so to speak, for science; but it is science which advances knowledge.

You've got it all backwards. There is NO rational thinking without first principles.

If you don't accept the law of non-contradiction, for example, then science is impossible for you. There is no point in stating that the atomic number of carbon is 6 if at the same time I assert that the atomic number of carbon is NOT 6.

So philosophy precedes science, because scientific thought is not possible without the disciplines of philosophy being in place and accepted as first principles.

Good post.  Also, metaphysics precedes even philosophy, if you want to demarcate the two.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on October 15, 2013, 06:22:31 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 15, 2013, 04:20:51 PM

Quote from: ts aquinas on October 15, 2013, 03:13:32 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 15, 2013, 11:30:55 AM
Philosophy has its place, which is as the handmaiden of science.  If I want answers, I will look to hard proofs and not to some old man simply thinking about things.  I reject a priori arguments.  One should instead start with observations and move toward explaining those observations.  A true scientist has an open mind and considers all possibilities.  One should not start with a conclusion and look for ways to prove that conclusion, it biases one's view and skews the results.  I'm not quite sure what scientism is, but I readily admit to being a materialist.

I can prove that science proves things by pointing to the proofs of science.  Science has colored our worldview and furthered our knowledge for centuries.  This is why we know the world is round, thanks to the Greeks.  This is how we know the earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around.  This is how we know the universe started with the Big Bang, and that we are a product of evolution.  One could never have made these discoveries with philosophy alone.  Philosophy, I will grant you, creates a launching pad, so to speak, for science; but it is science which advances knowledge.

Interesting, you reject a priori arguments yet grant philosophy as a "launching pad." But you're closer to Aristotelianism than you think. The bases of Aristotelian approach is appearances, refinement through facts, reach conclusion that is free from contravailing evidence. Also, the Thomistic approach is a posteriori, if you read Fr. Lagrange's Reality chapter 7.

Careful labelling yourself a materialist though, such is a metaphysical approach in rejecting metaphysics. A contradiction I'm sure you'd like to avoid.

I simply mean that one should not start with a premise and then look to prove that premise.  When one looks for something, one will always find it.  Instead one should test theories in a completely unbiased manner and follow the evidence.  Untested beliefs are not worth a hill of beans, and one should be ready and willing to drop a belief as soon as it is proven wrong.  I said that about my Catholic faith for years, then I tested that faith and I believe strongly that I have disproven it, so I dropped it.
exactly how does one TEST the Catholic Faith and find it wanting. Please specify....
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 15, 2013, 06:33:08 PM
That would require more space than I have here.  But it started with seeing discrepancies in the gospels.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: LouisIX on October 15, 2013, 06:34:39 PM
I'd be interested to hear them.
Title: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 15, 2013, 06:38:28 PM
Okay.  The two genealogies from Matthew and Luke was the first problem I noticed.  They are way off, and not even close to each other.  Who is Joseph's father?  Matthew tells us he is Jacob, Luke tells us he is Heli.  Really?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: LouisIX on October 15, 2013, 06:48:42 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 15, 2013, 06:38:28 PM
Okay.  The two genealogies from Matthew and Luke was the first problem I noticed.  They are way off, and not even close to each other.  Who is Joseph's father?  Matthew tells us he is Jacob, Luke tells us he is Heli.  Really?

The genealogies are not intended to be the same.  They're attempting to show geneaology in two different ways.  These are both synoptic gospels, and they are very related.  This wouldn't be an "oops" moment as the writer of one most likely had access to the information of the other.  Keep in mind that each evangelist is intending to portray a different aspect of Christ.  If you'll notice, Matthew's Gospel is most concerned with Christ as a man, the Suffering Servant of Psalm 22, who comes to fulfill the Old Testament prophecies of the Messiah.  The selection of whom to name in Christ's lineage reflects Matthew's concerns and what he hopes for his largely Jewish audience to notice about Jesus.

I will explain more later.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on October 15, 2013, 06:59:02 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 15, 2013, 06:33:08 PM
That would require more space than I have here.  But it started with seeing discrepancies in the gospels.
Cop out. You say you tested the Catholic Faith and found it wanting...but now you have no time for even a few specific examples? exept some easily answered scripture anomalies? Really? I have one thing Ill bet you tested and found wanting...the need to confess sins to a priest. This is 90% of the time where people jump off the catholic ship...the rest just a smokescreen.
Title: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 15, 2013, 07:20:32 PM
Quote from: LouisIX on October 15, 2013, 06:48:42 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 15, 2013, 06:38:28 PM
Okay.  The two genealogies from Matthew and Luke was the first problem I noticed.  They are way off, and not even close to each other.  Who is Joseph's father?  Matthew tells us he is Jacob, Luke tells us he is Heli.  Really?

The genealogies are not intended to be the same.  They're attempting to show geneaology in two different ways.  These are both synoptic gospels, and they are very related.  This wouldn't be an "oops" moment as the writer of one most likely had access to the information of the other.  Keep in mind that each evangelist is intending to portray a different aspect of Christ.  If you'll notice, Matthew's Gospel is most concerned with Christ as a man, the Suffering Servant of Psalm 22, who comes to fulfill the Old Testament prophecies of the Messiah.  The selection of whom to name in Christ's lineage reflects Matthew's concerns and what he hopes for his largely Jewish audience to notice about Jesus.

I will explain more later.

Later in Matthew he calls Jacob Joseph's father.  Later in Luke he calls Heli Joseph's father.  How can Joseph have two fathers?  And if Jesus is the promised messiah, why is he not capable of claiming the Jewish throne?  The lineage in Matthew is cursed because of Jeconiah.  The lineage in Luke does not contain Solomon.  He had two cracks at it and neither panned out.  If he cannot sit on the throne of David, he is not the messiah.  Further the Jewish messiah was never meant to be God either.  That would be abhorrent to Jewish theology, God simply cannot become a man.  The messiah was supposed to only be a righteous man and not God.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on October 15, 2013, 07:23:15 PM
QuoteIt is not the people who demand sacrifice, it is the socialists in government.  The people are never the socialists, it is always a group of intellectuals living in ivory towers and are completely unaware of reality. 

You are a young lad.  No, they are not completely unaware of reality.  The skim millions of dollars in loot.  Obama walks away with at least $100 million when it is all said and done.  He is currently constructing a huge mansion in Hawaii.  No socialism is about getting something for nothing.  It is an offense against justice, which I as a Catholic can explain.  You as an atheist can not.  Getting a free living SHOULD be the highest goal to reach for as an atheist if you are consistent.  You are not, and that's my point.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on October 15, 2013, 07:25:52 PM
QuoteI bought the book on kindle and have began reading it, I'll let you know what I think.

That book is open source and contains a copy right notice disallowing charging for it.  If they convert it to Kindle format and charge a few bucks for that service, I'm alright with that.  If you don't mind, please PM me with the details of this purchase, as Amazon could be breaking the law.  You are not breaking the law however.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 15, 2013, 07:30:04 PM

Quote from: james03 on October 15, 2013, 07:23:15 PM
QuoteIt is not the people who demand sacrifice, it is the socialists in government.  The people are never the socialists, it is always a group of intellectuals living in ivory towers and are completely unaware of reality. 

You are a young lad.  No, they are not completely unaware of reality.  The skim millions of dollars in loot.  Obama walks away with at least $100 million when it is all said and done.  He is currently constructing a huge mansion in Hawaii.  No socialism is about getting something for nothing.  It is an offense against justice, which I as a Catholic can explain.  You as an atheist can not.  Getting a free living SHOULD be the highest goal to reach for as an atheist if you are consistent.  You are not, and that's my point.

Atheism is not a belief or a philosophical system, it is the lack of belief.  It cannot define someone.  Socialism springs from altruism.  It demands that the individual sacrifice himself for the good of the collective.  The individual is simply a cog in a wheel.  In libertarian thought a man is an individual, society is simply a collection of individuals.  Only individual rights exist and never collective rights.  Remember, the smallest minority is the individual.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on October 15, 2013, 07:54:49 PM
But in atheism, you are nothing but a pile of atoms.  So if you can loot and get away with it, and have the luxury of loafing about, that SHOULD be your highest goal.  Insisting on a libertarian economic view is hitch hiking on the Catholic notion of Justice.  You CAN NOT establish the existence of justice as an atheist.  To attempt it is to contradict your denial of God.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 15, 2013, 08:04:20 PM

Quote from: james03 on October 15, 2013, 07:54:49 PM
But in atheism, you are nothing but a pile of atoms.  So if you can loot and get away with it, and have the luxury of loafing about, that SHOULD be your highest goal.  Insisting on a libertarian economic view is hitch hiking on the Catholic notion of Justice.  You CAN NOT establish the existence of justice as an atheist.  To attempt it is to contradict your denial of God.

This just doesn't follow.  God is not necessary in order to have a concept of justice.  In fact the idea of God adds nothing to the concept of justice, he is superfluous and dead weight.  The argument is the same as I made for laws.  If justice derives from God, where did he get it?  If he created it, then how and why?  Is something just simply because God says it is?  Then justice is meaningless.  Unless God came by this notion of justice through reason.  Then if he did, so can we, and he is unnecessary.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on October 15, 2013, 08:37:18 PM
You say God is not necessary for justice.  Fine, then prove it.  55% of the population are looters.  They sit and collect a check.  They have a happy life playing video games, and living off of free food and a free apartment.  They party at night with booze they buy with their government check.  As an atheist, please explain why you can condemn this.  They are quite happy with the arrangement.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: ts aquinas on October 15, 2013, 08:54:14 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 15, 2013, 04:20:51 PM
I simply mean that one should not start with a premise and then look to prove that premise.  When one looks for something, one will always find it.  Instead one should test theories in a completely unbiased manner and follow the evidence.  Untested beliefs are not worth a hill of beans, and one should be ready and willing to drop a belief as soon as it is proven wrong.  I said that about my Catholic faith for years, then I tested that faith and I believe strongly that I have disproven it, so I dropped it.

Some premises are axiomatic and some require prevenient syllogisms to demonstrate as the case. "A thing cannot be what it is and what it is not" is axiomatic and based upon first principles (or synderesis,) denial of which leads to absurdities. Though it is not provable the premise seems to be the case, it avoids absurdities and is congruent with Ockham's Razor (that is, it is simpler to accept than a more complex absurdity.) "All essentially ordered series recede to an Unmoved Mover" is a premise within a long chain of argumentation but are ultimately reduced to, in the beginning, premises that are axiomatic. You are correct that one should be unbiased and follow the evidence, we start with what is more intelligible to us and move in the end to what is more intelligible by nature. But remember, "philosophy considers truth in a different way than the particular sciences do. Each of the particular sciences considers a particular truth out a definite class of beings; e.g., geometry deals with the continuous quantities of bodies, and arithmetic with numbers; whereas first philosophy considers what is universally true of things. Therefore, it pertains to this science to consider in what respects man is capable of knowing the truth (Aquinas' Commentary on Metaphysics, Book II.)" As the particular sciences only considers themselves, philosophy considers what is more nobler in the pursuit of truth, that is unmediated truth and thus a higher science. You may only consider what is true empirically, but a higher pursuit is investigating why two of the same material things have a varying degree of being in the respect of their nature. This is just but one example.

I don't understand what you mean by testing the faith? Testing the information within the Deposit of Faith or testing the supernatural gift of faith?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 15, 2013, 08:57:43 PM
I mean testing the faith according to reason.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 15, 2013, 08:58:46 PM
Quote from: james03 on October 15, 2013, 08:37:18 PM
You say God is not necessary for justice.  Fine, then prove it.  55% of the population are looters.  They sit and collect a check.  They have a happy life playing video games, and living off of free food and a free apartment.  They party at night with booze they buy with their government check.  As an atheist, please explain why you can condemn this.  They are quite happy with the arrangement.

They violate justice according to reason.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on October 15, 2013, 09:15:43 PM
You are hitch hiking again.  When have you established "justice"?  I asked you how you could condemn a looter who is perfectly happy looting.  Please use "reason" to condemn them and thus prove justice.  In fact, you are demanding of them a SACRIFICE as they would have to give up their enjoyable life of looting and settle for less.  Please show me with "reason" why they should sacrifice for you.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 15, 2013, 09:56:54 PM

Quote from: james03 on October 15, 2013, 09:15:43 PM
You are hitch hiking again.  When have you established "justice"?  I asked you how you could condemn a looter who is perfectly happy looting.  Please use "reason" to condemn them and thus prove justice.  In fact, you are demanding of them a SACRIFICE as they would have to give up their enjoyable life of looting and settle for less.  Please show me with "reason" why they should sacrifice for you.

I want no one to sacrifice for me, and I wouldn't respect anyone that did.  Justice is according to reason.  Humans use reason to come to an understanding of justice.  That is what humans do, we use our reason to understand the world around us.  Reason is giving to one what is owed.  That which is owed is that which has been earned through trade of goods and/or services.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on October 15, 2013, 10:07:16 PM
You are still hitch hiking.  I'm asking you to demonstrate this "reason".  Say I'm a looter.  I have a social contract with some moral degenerate atheists who have guns and armies.  I give them my vote, and I get a nice check and live free.  I have a social contract with the other 55% who are atheist looters and takers, and being atheists, any appeal to religious "virtues" will fall on deaf ears, so all you have is "reason" to convince us.  We are very happy with this arrangement.  Why should I produce or exchange anything for my check above the vote I provide?  Please convince me with "reason" why I should make this sacrifice and give up the good life.
Title: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 15, 2013, 10:24:49 PM
Quote from: james03 on October 15, 2013, 10:07:16 PM
You are still hitch hiking.  I'm asking you to demonstrate this "reason".  Say I'm a looter.  I have a social contract with some moral degenerate atheists who have guns and armies.  I give them my vote, and I get a nice check and live free.  I have a social contract with the other 55% who are atheist looters and takers, and being atheists, any appeal to religious "virtues" will fall on deaf ears, so all you have is "reason" to convince us.  We are very happy with this arrangement.  Why should I produce or exchange anything for my check above the vote I provide?  Please convince me with "reason" why I should make this sacrifice and give up the good life.

What you are describing is a bribe in order to convince a group of men to steal for you.  This is a violation of men's rights, and hence a violation of justice.  Furthermore what you have with these men is not a true contract because it involves some unwilling parties, namely those who are being robbed.  The proposition is also illogical as the robbers and you steal the chance to achieve your own moral perfection, and those who have been robbed are obviously injured as their rights have been violated.  And lastly society as a whole is injured as it cannot work properly if looting is to be allowed.  This is how reason shows us that your proposition is untenable and bad for both society as well as certain individuals.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on October 15, 2013, 10:46:18 PM
QuoteThis is a violation of men's rights, and hence a violation of justice.  Furthermore what you have with these men is not a true contract because it involves some unwilling parties, namely those who are being robbed.  The proposition is also illogical as the robbers and you steal the chance to achieve your own moral perfection, and those who have been robbed are obviously injured as their rights have been violated.  And lastly society as a whole is injured as it cannot work properly if looting is to be allowed.  This is how reason shows us that your proposition is untenable and bad for both society as well as certain individuals.
You are hitch hiking again.

I told you in this example I am an atheist.  I don't believe in "justice" or "rights".  I believe I am a pile of atoms, and I believe I feel pain, but haven't given much thought to how "I" can think about things and feel, otherwise I'd be Catholic.  Anyhow, while this pile of atoms exists, I am enjoying getting that government loot, and giving it up violates my opposition to sacrifice.  So once again, convince me otherwise.  If you want to use the term "justice", then establish it through reason alone, as you say.  You claim you don't need God for this task, and I'm still waiting for you to establish it without the existence of God.  Because I already know you can't.
Title: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 15, 2013, 11:14:18 PM
Quote from: james03 on October 15, 2013, 10:46:18 PM
QuoteThis is a violation of men's rights, and hence a violation of justice.  Furthermore what you have with these men is not a true contract because it involves some unwilling parties, namely those who are being robbed.  The proposition is also illogical as the robbers and you steal the chance to achieve your own moral perfection, and those who have been robbed are obviously injured as their rights have been violated.  And lastly society as a whole is injured as it cannot work properly if looting is to be allowed.  This is how reason shows us that your proposition is untenable and bad for both society as well as certain individuals.
You are hitch hiking again.

I told you in this example I am an atheist.  I don't believe in "justice" or "rights".  I believe I am a pile of atoms, and I believe I feel pain, but haven't given much thought to how "I" can think about things and feel, otherwise I'd be Catholic.  Anyhow, while this pile of atoms exists, I am enjoying getting that government loot, and giving it up violates my opposition to sacrifice.  So once again, convince me otherwise.  If you want to use the term "justice", then establish it through reason alone, as you say.  You claim you don't need God for this task, and I'm still waiting for you to establish it without the existence of God.  Because I already know you can't.

In your example you sound much more like a nihilist than an atheist, and it is important to note the difference.  Atheism is a negative position and asserts nothing.  An atheist can be a nihilist or can hold to any other philosophical school, but he doesn't necessarily have to be a nihilist.  An atheist is just someone who doesn't believe in God or any other gods.  Nihilism is a positive position as it is a philosophical school.  Nihilist's don't believe in any purpose to the universe and are rather dark people as a side note.  A nihilist would indeed deny any concept of justice or rights, but an atheist does not have to.  And as an atheist I do not believe that I am just a pile of atoms, I am a man, which is to say an animal with reason.

It doesn't make any sense to explain ideas like justice and rights by simply saying God did it, that is an insufficient explanation and is utterly wanting.  It dodges the question as well.  The real way to explain these ideas is with reason.  Here we go: All men are born equal, because all men are born with Locke's tabula rasa.  Since no man can lay claim to superiority by birth it stands to reason that no man can lay claim to the right to rule over any other man.  As all men are equal and men need a way of working together in a shared society in which they strengthen each other and achieve what none of them could possibly achieve as individuals, they are going to need a way to associate with each other as a society.  This is where Rousseau's social contract comes in.  These men associate freely with one another through a social contract that establishes the basis by which they create laws to aid in their endeavor to create a society in which they may all flourish as individuals and as a society.  From this social contract and the succeeding laws we get concepts like 'justice' and 'rights'.  I hope this makes sense.

P.S. Your pushing me on this topic has helped me to formulate this idea much better, thanks.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: SouthpawLink on October 15, 2013, 11:52:47 PM
Speaking of Rousseau, I came across this passage in Msgr. Van Noort's text on dogmatic theology:

"People would like to establish virtue on purely rational grounds-but in vain; what basis could they offer for it?  Virtue, they say, is love of order.  But really could such a love of order, in fact should it, take preference in me over the love of my own happiness?  Let them give me a reason for preferring love of order to self-love.  If God does not exist, the wicked man is the only reasonable man; the good man is really a fool" (Rousseau, Emile, or On Education, I, 4).
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: ts aquinas on October 16, 2013, 12:13:01 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 15, 2013, 11:14:18 PM
In your example you sound much more like a nihilist than an atheist, and it is important to note the difference.  Atheism is a negative position and asserts nothing.  An atheist can be a nihilist or can hold to any other philosophical school, but he doesn't necessarily have to be a nihilist.  An atheist is just someone who doesn't believe in God or any other gods.  Nihilism is a positive position as it is a philosophical school.  Nihilist's don't believe in any purpose to the universe and are rather dark people as a side note.  A nihilist would indeed deny any concept of justice or rights, but an atheist does not have to.  And as an atheist I do not believe that I am just a pile of atoms, I am a man, which is to say an animal with reason.

Teleological language from an atheist? Are you sure you're an atheist my friend  :laugh: Well, even the hardliners even admit that they are forced to use teleological language despite their dissent from it.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 16, 2013, 12:55:56 AM

Quote from: ts aquinas on October 16, 2013, 12:13:01 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 15, 2013, 11:14:18 PM
In your example you sound much more like a nihilist than an atheist, and it is important to note the difference.  Atheism is a negative position and asserts nothing.  An atheist can be a nihilist or can hold to any other philosophical school, but he doesn't necessarily have to be a nihilist.  An atheist is just someone who doesn't believe in God or any other gods.  Nihilism is a positive position as it is a philosophical school.  Nihilist's don't believe in any purpose to the universe and are rather dark people as a side note.  A nihilist would indeed deny any concept of justice or rights, but an atheist does not have to.  And as an atheist I do not believe that I am just a pile of atoms, I am a man, which is to say an animal with reason.

Teleological language from an atheist? Are you sure you're an atheist my friend  :laugh: Well, even the hardliners even admit that they are forced to use teleological language despite their dissent from it.

I'm missing the teleological language, unless you mean that atheists can have a purpose in life.  However, that is purpose is only whatever the atheist chooses it to be.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Non Nobis on October 16, 2013, 01:10:00 AM
Thanks to all for such a thought-provoking thread! I'm less than 1/2 way through it, but it's the middle of the night, so I'll have to put the thread and myself to bed.

Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: ts aquinas on October 16, 2013, 03:39:52 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 16, 2013, 12:55:56 AM
I'm missing the teleological language, unless you mean that atheists can have a purpose in life.  However, that is purpose is only whatever the atheist chooses it to be.

And this subjectivism is going to pursued a nihilist from his objective hard determinism?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 16, 2013, 07:09:00 AM

Quote from: ts aquinas on October 16, 2013, 03:39:52 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 16, 2013, 12:55:56 AM
I'm missing the teleological language, unless you mean that atheists can have a purpose in life.  However, that is purpose is only whatever the atheist chooses it to be.

And this subjectivism is going to pursued a nihilist from his objective hard determinism?

I don't understand your question.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Larry on October 16, 2013, 10:23:11 AM
Crimson Flyboy, how do you explain that at least 70,000 people saw the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima, and that the secular, anti-Catholic press reported seeing it as well? How do you explain the Miracles of healing at Lourdes? How do you explain the Holy Shroud of Turin? And on and on...
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: LouisIX on October 16, 2013, 10:27:01 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 15, 2013, 07:20:32 PM
Quote from: LouisIX on October 15, 2013, 06:48:42 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 15, 2013, 06:38:28 PM
Okay.  The two genealogies from Matthew and Luke was the first problem I noticed.  They are way off, and not even close to each other.  Who is Joseph's father?  Matthew tells us he is Jacob, Luke tells us he is Heli.  Really?

The genealogies are not intended to be the same.  They're attempting to show geneaology in two different ways.  These are both synoptic gospels, and they are very related.  This wouldn't be an "oops" moment as the writer of one most likely had access to the information of the other.  Keep in mind that each evangelist is intending to portray a different aspect of Christ.  If you'll notice, Matthew's Gospel is most concerned with Christ as a man, the Suffering Servant of Psalm 22, who comes to fulfill the Old Testament prophecies of the Messiah.  The selection of whom to name in Christ's lineage reflects Matthew's concerns and what he hopes for his largely Jewish audience to notice about Jesus.

I will explain more later.

Later in Matthew he calls Jacob Joseph's father.  Later in Luke he calls Heli Joseph's father.  How can Joseph have two fathers?  And if Jesus is the promised messiah, why is he not capable of claiming the Jewish throne?  The lineage in Matthew is cursed because of Jeconiah.  The lineage in Luke does not contain Solomon.  He had two cracks at it and neither panned out.  If he cannot sit on the throne of David, he is not the messiah.  Further the Jewish messiah was never meant to be God either.  That would be abhorrent to Jewish theology, God simply cannot become a man.  The messiah was supposed to only be a righteous man and not God.

It was abhorrent because the Jews didn't listen to all of the prophecies of the Incarnation.  Seriously, it's all over the Old Testament.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 16, 2013, 10:31:58 AM

Quote from: Larry S. on October 16, 2013, 10:23:11 AM
Crimson Flyboy, how do you explain that at least 70,000 people saw the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima, and that the secular, anti-Catholic press reported seeing it as well? How do you explain the Miracles of healing at Lourdes? How do you explain the Holy Shroud of Turin? And on and on...

I have heard a lot about the miracle of the sun, but don't know about a lot of the details.  The miracles at Lourdes are dubious.  Hundreds of thousands people go to Lourdes every year, yet we only hear of a few supposed miracles.  This could very well be a statistical anomaly.  There isn't much evidence that the shroud of Turin is actually the shroud Jesus of Nazareth was buried with.  Miracles in general are highly dubious as there normally is not much evidence.  And if we are defining miracle as a suspension of natural laws, then the presence of miracles would create problems as it would mean that our natural laws would be thrown into doubt and we couldn't be sure if we knew anything at that point.  It would be a disaster for the scientific community.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Larry on October 16, 2013, 10:38:55 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 16, 2013, 10:31:58 AM

Quote from: Larry S. on October 16, 2013, 10:23:11 AM
Crimson Flyboy, how do you explain that at least 70,000 people saw the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima, and that the secular, anti-Catholic press reported seeing it as well? How do you explain the Miracles of healing at Lourdes? How do you explain the Holy Shroud of Turin? And on and on...

I have heard a lot about the miracle of the sun, but don't know about a lot of the details.  The miracles at Lourdes are dubious.  Hundreds of thousands people go to Lourdes every year, yet we only hear of a few supposed miracles.  This could very well be a statistical anomaly.  There isn't much evidence that the shroud of Turin is actually the shroud Jesus of Nazareth was buried with.  Miracles in general are highly dubious as there normally is not much evidence.  And if we are defining miracle as a suspension of natural laws, then the presence of miracles would create problems as it would mean that our natural laws would be thrown into doubt and we couldn't be sure if we knew anything at that point.  It would be a disaster for the scientific community.

The Miracles of Lourdes are not dubious. The reason we only hear of a few is because they must meet strict requirements to be considered miraculous. The miracles recognized have absolutely no natural explanation.

As for the Shroud, there is no paint on it, and no one knows how the image was formed. I suggest a book called "Report on the Shroud of Turin" by John Heller. Dr. Heller is a non Catholic scientist, and most of the research in his book was supplied by the late Alan Adler, a secular Jew with absolutely no bias towards the Shroud being authentic. Lots of material is also available on the website:
http://www.shroud.com/

That website is run by Barry Schwortz, one of the scientists involved with the investigation of the Shroud. He, too,is Jewish, and believes the Shroud's authenticity because of the preponderance of the evidence supports that fact.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on October 16, 2013, 10:46:07 AM
QuoteP.S. Your pushing me on this topic has helped me to formulate this idea much better, thanks.
Unfortunately after 3 pages you still have given no explanation of justice with reason alone.  You said you can explain it without God, and yet when asked, you could not deliver.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 16, 2013, 10:50:56 AM

Quote from: james03 on October 16, 2013, 10:46:07 AM
QuoteP.S. Your pushing me on this topic has helped me to formulate this idea much better, thanks.
Unfortunately after 3 pages you still have given no explanation of justice with reason alone.  You said you can explain it without God, and yet when asked, you could not deliver.

I did so right here:  It doesn't make any sense to explain ideas like justice and rights by simply saying God did it, that is an insufficient explanation and is utterly wanting.  It dodges the question as well.  The real way to explain these ideas is with reason.  Here we go: All men are born equal, because all men are born with Locke's tabula rasa.  Since no man can lay claim to superiority by birth it stands to reason that no man can lay claim to the right to rule over any other man.  As all men are equal and men need a way of working together in a shared society in which they strengthen each other and achieve what none of them could possibly achieve as individuals, they are going to need a way to associate with each other as a society.  This is where Rousseau's social contract comes in.  These men associate freely with one another through a social contract that establishes the basis by which they create laws to aid in their endeavor to create a society in which they may all flourish as individuals and as a society.  From this social contract and the succeeding laws we get concepts like 'justice' and 'rights'.  I hope this makes sense.

What do you think of this explanation.  It was late last night when I wrote this, but I was still proud of it.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on October 16, 2013, 11:23:35 AM
It fails.  You can not explain the concept of justice, of how it can exist.  Society can work just fine with a 55% looting class and a 45% maker class.  As an atheist, if it works, you can't argue against it.  And if you are in the lucky 55%, it most certainly works for you, whatever "you" is since you are just a pile of atoms.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on October 16, 2013, 11:31:05 AM
Alright, I'll give you another chance.  I'm the socialist looter, and you have given me your argument of why I should sacrifice for you and give up the good life:
QuoteThe real way to explain these ideas is with reason.  Here we go: All men are born equal, because all men are born with Locke's tabula rasa.  Since no man can lay claim to superiority by birth it stands to reason that no man can lay claim to the right to rule over any other man.
We weren't born equal.  I was born to a family of socialists.  Our party is in charge and you Libertarians are out of power.  We have the guns and the exclusive use of deadly force.  That is why you work and I get drunk.  Because we aren't equal.  So no, I'm not going to sacrifice for you and give this up.

Continue your explanation using reason.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: rbjmartin on October 16, 2013, 11:43:13 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 16, 2013, 10:50:56 AM
Here we go: All men are born equal, because all men are born with Locke's tabula rasa.  Since no man can lay claim to superiority by birth it stands to reason that no man can lay claim to the right to rule over any other man.  As all men are equal and men need a way of working together in a shared society in which they strengthen each other and achieve what none of them could possibly achieve as individuals, they are going to need a way to associate with each other as a society.  This is where Rousseau's social contract comes in.  These men associate freely with one another through a social contract that establishes the basis by which they create laws to aid in their endeavor to create a society in which they may all flourish as individuals and as a society.  From this social contract and the succeeding laws we get concepts like 'justice' and 'rights'.  I hope this makes sense.

Your definition of justice rests on a dubious premise. What proof do you have that all men are born equal? The evidence all around me seems to suggest otherwise. The fact that we are each born as a blank slate doesn't necessarily equate to saying we are all born equal. Maybe my slate is bigger than yours, or maybe it is smoother and easier to write on (to carry the analogy further). I think you will be hard-pressed to prove that all men are born equal. If that were the case, one would have to assume that twins who were brought up in the exact same environments with the same influences would be identical people, but we know this is not the case. No, every individual seems to exhibit innate gifts and weaknesses. Some men exhibit physical gifts more than others. Other men exhibit mental gifts more than others. Some men seem more creative. Others seem to be more technical.

If your definition of justice rests on such a dubious premise, I think your definition must fail.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: rbjmartin on October 16, 2013, 11:57:29 AM
If you don't mind, there are a couple of points from earlier in the thread that I would like to take up.

Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 14, 2013, 08:13:42 PM
I'll explain further.  A contingent thing didn't have to exist, it isn't necessary.  But to equate contingency with a need for a creator seems to be assuming that there is some purpose to existence and that existence is objectively better than non-existence.  I don't think that's the case.  Existence is subjectively better from our point of view only.

How can you dispute that existence is better than non-existence? How can you say a tree is not objectively better than _______? If we can't even think of _______ or conceive of any notion of _______, how could it be equal to or better than something that I can think of or perceive or talk about? I can't say that ______ is better than anything because I can't say anything at all about _______, other than it doesn't exist.

While we're at it, what do you mean by "better"? Do you really mean this as a comparative of "good"? This is the language of spiritual valuation.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: rbjmartin on October 16, 2013, 12:02:11 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 14, 2013, 07:58:52 PM
As mentioned earlier, I have studied the five ways of Aquinas and I find them insufficient.  I find the contingency argument to be the weakest.  Just because a thing is contingent does not necessarily mean that something created it.  A contingent being could very well have come about by chance.

I find the use of "chance" as an explanation of a thing's existence to be severely insufficient.  Atheists use it as a sort of deus ex machina argument (how ironic), but it isn't an explanation at all. If anything, it is an admission that "I have no idea how this thing came about," in which case, you must still be open to the possibility of God creating the thing, which would preclude one being positively atheist (unless you are an atheist by faith).
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 16, 2013, 12:08:29 PM

Quote from: rbjmartin on October 16, 2013, 11:57:29 AM
If you don't mind, there are a couple of points from earlier in the thread that I would like to take up.

Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 14, 2013, 08:13:42 PM
I'll explain further.  A contingent thing didn't have to exist, it isn't necessary.  But to equate contingency with a need for a creator seems to be assuming that there is some purpose to existence and that existence is objectively better than non-existence.  I don't think that's the case.  Existence is subjectively better from our point of view only.

How can you dispute that existence is better than non-existence? How can you say a tree is not objectively better than _______? If we can't even think of _______ or conceive of any notion of _______, how could it be equal to or better than something that I can think of or perceive or talk about? I can't say that ______ is better than anything because I can't say anything at all about _______, other than it doesn't exist.

While we're at it, what do you mean by "better"? Do you really mean this as a comparative of "good"? This is the language of spiritual valuation.

One simply cannot use terms like good or bad in any objective way.  The terms are meaningless outside of a human context.  Allow me to propose a thought experiment.  Consider a situation somewhat similar to that of 'It's A Wonderful Life', but inverted.  Instead of one man being taken out of existence, lets say all men are taken out of existence.  Now, in this human less universe, could there really be such a notion as good or bad?  If two planets slam into each other, would it make a hill of beans?  There is no meaning outside of human experience.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: rbjmartin on October 16, 2013, 12:39:27 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 16, 2013, 12:08:29 PM

Quote from: rbjmartin on October 16, 2013, 11:57:29 AM
If you don't mind, there are a couple of points from earlier in the thread that I would like to take up.

Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 14, 2013, 08:13:42 PM
I'll explain further.  A contingent thing didn't have to exist, it isn't necessary.  But to equate contingency with a need for a creator seems to be assuming that there is some purpose to existence and that existence is objectively better than non-existence.  I don't think that's the case.  Existence is subjectively better from our point of view only.

How can you dispute that existence is better than non-existence? How can you say a tree is not objectively better than _______? If we can't even think of _______ or conceive of any notion of _______, how could it be equal to or better than something that I can think of or perceive or talk about? I can't say that ______ is better than anything because I can't say anything at all about _______, other than it doesn't exist.

While we're at it, what do you mean by "better"? Do you really mean this as a comparative of "good"? This is the language of spiritual valuation.

One simply cannot use terms like good or bad in any objective way.  The terms are meaningless outside of a human context.  Allow me to propose a thought experiment.  Consider a situation somewhat similar to that of 'It's A Wonderful Life', but inverted.  Instead of one man being taken out of existence, lets say all men are taken out of existence.  Now, in this human less universe, could there really be such a notion as good or bad?  If two planets slam into each other, would it make a hill of beans?  There is no meaning outside of human experience.

Wait a minute. You started this thread and named it "Humilty: Good or Bad?" Why would you pose such a question if you don't believe in objective "good" and "bad"?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on October 16, 2013, 01:01:36 PM
CF,
Please tackle the question on justice.  You claim that you can prove it with reason alone.  In the example, you made your opening remark and the atheist socialist has responded.  He doesn't believe he is born equal.  He pointed out he was born into socialism, has all the guns, and it quite happy with the system.  He refuses to sacrifice for you.  Your turn to respond, with "reason" only.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: LouisIX on October 16, 2013, 02:22:17 PM
There are a lot of presuppositions of meaning in your premises, Crimson.  This meaning and value is defeating to your overall worldview.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 16, 2013, 04:29:26 PM

Quote from: james03 on October 16, 2013, 01:01:36 PM
CF,
Please tackle the question on justice.  You claim that you can prove it with reason alone.  In the example, you made your opening remark and the atheist socialist has responded.  He doesn't believe he is born equal.  He pointed out he was born into socialism, has all the guns, and it quite happy with the system.  He refuses to sacrifice for you.  Your turn to respond, with "reason" only.

You seem to act as if the concept of God is an objective immutable rock from which the concept of justice may be built, and human reason is unreliable.  The concept of God just complicates the matter, however.  As mentioned before, if God created justice, then justice is a whim and meaningless.  If Justice is according to reason, and God is merely informing us of what justice is, then he in an unnecessary component of the equation.  The concept of God seems to be a cop out and a way to avoid asking what justice is.  We cannot avoid this, we are going to have to role up our sleeves and do the work in order to understand these concepts by using our reason.  It is tough work, but rewarding.  And it is unavoidable, as reason is all we have.  Reason allows a man to live as a man.

Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 16, 2013, 04:40:13 PM

Quote from: LouisIX on October 16, 2013, 10:27:01 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 15, 2013, 07:20:32 PM
Quote from: LouisIX on October 15, 2013, 06:48:42 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 15, 2013, 06:38:28 PM
Okay.  The two genealogies from Matthew and Luke was the first problem I noticed.  They are way off, and not even close to each other.  Who is Joseph's father?  Matthew tells us he is Jacob, Luke tells us he is Heli.  Really?

The genealogies are not intended to be the same.  They're attempting to show geneaology in two different ways.  These are both synoptic gospels, and they are very related.  This wouldn't be an "oops" moment as the writer of one most likely had access to the information of the other.  Keep in mind that each evangelist is intending to portray a different aspect of Christ.  If you'll notice, Matthew's Gospel is most concerned with Christ as a man, the Suffering Servant of Psalm 22, who comes to fulfill the Old Testament prophecies of the Messiah.  The selection of whom to name in Christ's lineage reflects Matthew's concerns and what he hopes for his largely Jewish audience to notice about Jesus.

I will explain more later.

Later in Matthew he calls Jacob Joseph's father.  Later in Luke he calls Heli Joseph's father.  How can Joseph have two fathers?  And if Jesus is the promised messiah, why is he not capable of claiming the Jewish throne?  The lineage in Matthew is cursed because of Jeconiah.  The lineage in Luke does not contain Solomon.  He had two cracks at it and neither panned out.  If he cannot sit on the throne of David, he is not the messiah.  Further the Jewish messiah was never meant to be God either.  That would be abhorrent to Jewish theology, God simply cannot become a man.  The messiah was supposed to only be a righteous man and not God.

It was abhorrent because the Jews didn't listen to all of the prophecies of the Incarnation.  Seriously, it's all over the Old Testament.

There is no mention anywhere in the Old Testament of the messiah being God.  Further, there was never supposed to be one messiah.  The Hebrew word we have anglicized into 'messiah' just meant anointed.  All of the kings and priests of Israel and Judah were messiahs.  The OT prophets had just prophesied that another messiah would come along to restore the kingdom.  Then there are all of the prophecies Jesus did not fulfill, such as: the in gathering of the exiles, the building of the third temple, world peace, the resurrection of the dead, etc.  And all of this is without mentioning that there is no actual evidence that Jesus of Nazareth actually existed at all.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on October 16, 2013, 05:25:00 PM
QuoteYou seem to act as if the concept of God is an objective immutable rock from which the concept of justice may be built, and human reason is unreliable.  The concept of God just complicates the matter, however.  As mentioned before, if God created justice, then justice is a whim and meaningless.  If Justice is according to reason, and God is merely informing us of what justice is, then he in an unnecessary component of the equation.  The concept of God seems to be a cop out and a way to avoid asking what justice is.  We cannot avoid this, we are going to have to role up our sleeves and do the work in order to understand these concepts by using our reason.  It is tough work, but rewarding.  And it is unavoidable, as reason is all we have.  Reason allows a man to live as a man.
Where have I mentioned God in this example?  I took the part of an atheist socialist.  You said you could establish the existence of justice with reason only.  Admit you can't or do it.

As far as reason, it comes from Truth, and is a great thing.  Aquinas is held very high in the Church after all, and even Rand respected him.  And of course all of Greek Realism is held in high esteem.  Even Liebniz, who I believe was Lutheran and was a great contributor to math and logic, is generally respected by Catholics.

Anyhow, please continue with the example I created.  An atheist socialist needs to be convinced to sacrifice for you by giving up his loot.  Obviously the argument against his lifestyle is justice.  So here's the perfect opportunity for you to establish the existence of justice with reason only.  Go to it.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 16, 2013, 05:42:57 PM
Well here is the definition of justice from the dictionary:

jus•tice (?d??s t?s)

n.
1. the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness.
2. rightfulness or lawfulness, as of a claim: to complain with justice.
3. justness of ground or reason.
4. the quality of being true or correct.
5. the moral principle determining just conduct.
6. conformity to this principle, as manifested in conduct; just dealing or treatment: to seek justice.
7. the administering of deserved punishment or reward.
8. the maintenance or administration of what is just according to law: a court of justice.
9. judgment of individuals or causes by judicial process: to administer justice.
10. a judicial officer; a judge or magistrate.
Idioms:
1. bring to justice, to cause to come before a court for trial or to receive punishment for one's misdeeds.
2. do justice to,
a. to act fairly toward.
b. to appreciate properly.
c. to reflect or express the worth of properly.
[1150–1200; Middle English < Old French < Latin j?stitia=j?st(us) just1 + -itia -ice]

I don't know if that helps any.  The impasse seems to stem from different views of how man comes to know truth.  I say it's by reason alone.  I assume you say by faith and reason.  Am I correct?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 16, 2013, 05:52:16 PM

Quote from: rbjmartin on October 16, 2013, 11:43:13 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 16, 2013, 10:50:56 AM
Here we go: All men are born equal, because all men are born with Locke's tabula rasa.  Since no man can lay claim to superiority by birth it stands to reason that no man can lay claim to the right to rule over any other man.  As all men are equal and men need a way of working together in a shared society in which they strengthen each other and achieve what none of them could possibly achieve as individuals, they are going to need a way to associate with each other as a society.  This is where Rousseau's social contract comes in.  These men associate freely with one another through a social contract that establishes the basis by which they create laws to aid in their endeavor to create a society in which they may all flourish as individuals and as a society.  From this social contract and the succeeding laws we get concepts like 'justice' and 'rights'.  I hope this makes sense.

Your definition of justice rests on a dubious premise. What proof do you have that all men are born equal? The evidence all around me seems to suggest otherwise. The fact that we are each born as a blank slate doesn't necessarily equate to saying we are all born equal. Maybe my slate is bigger than yours, or maybe it is smoother and easier to write on (to carry the analogy further). I think you will be hard-pressed to prove that all men are born equal. If that were the case, one would have to assume that twins who were brought up in the exact same environments with the same influences would be identical people, but we know this is not the case. No, every individual seems to exhibit innate gifts and weaknesses. Some men exhibit physical gifts more than others. Other men exhibit mental gifts more than others. Some men seem more creative. Others seem to be more technical.

If your definition of justice rests on such a dubious premise, I think your definition must fail.

All men are born free with regard to rights.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on October 16, 2013, 06:02:31 PM
QuoteI don't know if that helps any.

Your dictionary sucks.  It uses the word in the definition, a pretty obvious error.  I don't need the definition, I know what it is, and the 3 types, and I know it absolutely requires God to exist.

Anyhow, no, this does not help your case.  You stated you can establish that justice, a moral principle, exists, without the need to reference God.  I concocted a great example, i.e. the atheist socialist, for you to prove your boast.

You gave it a shot, saying all men are equal.  The socialist has responded, he is not equal to the makers because he has the guns.  Here's a great opportunity for you to make good on your claim, since the obvious argument against this socialist is the argument from justice.  So establish the existence of justice as a moral principle.  OR, face the fact that atheism is only consistent with nihilism.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 16, 2013, 06:11:33 PM

Quote from: james03 on October 16, 2013, 06:02:31 PM
QuoteI don't know if that helps any.

Your dictionary sucks.  It uses the word in the definition, a pretty obvious error.  I don't need the definition, I know what it is, and the 3 types, and I know it absolutely requires God to exist.

Anyhow, no, this does not help your case.  You stated you can establish that justice, a moral principle, exists, without the need to reference God.  I concocted a great example, i.e. the atheist socialist, for you to prove your boast.

You gave it a shot, saying all men are equal.  The socialist has responded, he is not equal to the makers because he has the guns.  Here's a great opportunity for you to make good on your claim, since the obvious argument against this socialist is the argument from justice.  So establish the existence of justice as a moral principle.  OR, face the fact that atheism is only consistent with nihilism.

All men are born equal with regard to rights, having a gun does not equate to having more rights.  Might does not make right.  As far as I can tell the theory of justice is a man made construct.  It has been created to aid men in their quest for a better society.  And by a better society I mean one which is more beneficial to men and their needs.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on October 16, 2013, 06:18:12 PM
Rights?  Does a rock have rights, whatever they are?  Why should one pile of atoms have "rights" and yet another pile of atoms doesn't?  What are these rights?  In fact, we've narrowed it down to a simple example, justice.  You say it is "man made"?  Is a triangle "man made" or was it discovered?  If it is a man-made construct, then what is it based on?

Again, in my example, the takers who have the guns are perfectly happy.  They reject "justice" since as atheists they consider themselves just a pile of atoms.  For them, guns make it right, as in if you don't deliver the loot, you die.  Which keeps everyone in line, and gives them a really nice life.  Admit it, you have no basis to condemn them.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 16, 2013, 06:29:20 PM

Quote from: james03 on October 16, 2013, 06:18:12 PM
Rights?  Does a rock have rights, whatever they are?  Why should one pile of atoms have "rights" and yet another pile of atoms doesn't?  What are these rights?  In fact, we've narrowed it down to a simple example, justice.  You say it is "man made"?  Is a triangle "man made" or was it discovered?  If it is a man-made construct, then what is it based on?

Again, in my example, the takers who have the guns are perfectly happy.  They reject "justice" since as atheists they consider themselves just a pile of atoms.  For them, guns make it right, as in if you don't deliver the loot, you die.  Which keeps everyone in line, and gives them a really nice life.  Admit it, you have no basis to condemn them.

I certainly won't say they are supernatural because I reject the supernatural for lack of evidence.  Of course men created these concepts, who else could have?  Socialism is a poor form of government because it leads to bad results, which we have seen before.  We have hard evidence that this is true from actual results.  The more freedom men have, the more prosperous they are.  I can't give you some objective immutable answer, because that simply doesn't exist.  The battle between libertarians and socialists must be fought in the free marketplace of ideas, like all intellectual battles.  This is how matters are decided in a liberal world.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on October 16, 2013, 06:37:08 PM
So  you can't establish that justice exists.  Thank you for admitting that.

You say socialism sucks?  Think about a whole lot of people, who have not worked at all, partied, ate fine to the point they are obese, drank, smoked, slept til 2 p.m., and partied some more.  Then they died.  They'll disagree with you that socialism sucks.  And they outnumber you.

No, justice was not "invented", it was discovered, the same as a triangle was discovered, not invented.  And everyone knows that justice exists because of the deep seated knowledge/feeling we get when we encounter injustice.  We reserve some powerful words for injustice.  People who are injust are called traitors, teachorous, back stabbers, two faced, rotten theives, etc...  But that makes no sense to an atheist, since we are just a pile of atoms.  And yet it exists.  Justice exists, and it was discovered, not invented.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 16, 2013, 06:47:21 PM
I'll give a quote from Frederic Bastiat, one of my favorite philosophers, with regard to socialism:  "Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society.  As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by the government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all."

Also, the things men make are indeed real.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on October 16, 2013, 07:06:15 PM
Of course things men make are real.  And beyond that, things men make, and things that he produces are Good, in that we are made in the image and likeness of God, who is THE Creator.  And so we come full circle to the beginning where I pointed out the Church's virtue called magnanimity, which requires humility to be virtuous.

However justice was not made by man, anymore than a triangle was invented by man.  Both were discovered.  You can not "invent" justice through reason.  You can analyze it, but it existed and was discovered.

Nice quote by Bastiat.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: rbjmartin on October 16, 2013, 09:38:51 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 16, 2013, 05:52:16 PM

Quote from: rbjmartin on October 16, 2013, 11:43:13 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 16, 2013, 10:50:56 AM
Here we go: All men are born equal, because all men are born with Locke's tabula rasa.  Since no man can lay claim to superiority by birth it stands to reason that no man can lay claim to the right to rule over any other man.  As all men are equal and men need a way of working together in a shared society in which they strengthen each other and achieve what none of them could possibly achieve as individuals, they are going to need a way to associate with each other as a society.  This is where Rousseau's social contract comes in.  These men associate freely with one another through a social contract that establishes the basis by which they create laws to aid in their endeavor to create a society in which they may all flourish as individuals and as a society.  From this social contract and the succeeding laws we get concepts like 'justice' and 'rights'.  I hope this makes sense.

Your definition of justice rests on a dubious premise. What proof do you have that all men are born equal? The evidence all around me seems to suggest otherwise. The fact that we are each born as a blank slate doesn't necessarily equate to saying we are all born equal. Maybe my slate is bigger than yours, or maybe it is smoother and easier to write on (to carry the analogy further). I think you will be hard-pressed to prove that all men are born equal. If that were the case, one would have to assume that twins who were brought up in the exact same environments with the same influences would be identical people, but we know this is not the case. No, every individual seems to exhibit innate gifts and weaknesses. Some men exhibit physical gifts more than others. Other men exhibit mental gifts more than others. Some men seem more creative. Others seem to be more technical.

If your definition of justice rests on such a dubious premise, I think your definition must fail.

All men are born free with regard to rights.

You may assert this all you want, but you haven't proven it. That isn't rational.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 16, 2013, 09:44:20 PM
"The source of man's rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A—and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man's nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational." (Atlas Shrugged). Ayn Rand
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Greg on October 17, 2013, 12:07:28 AM
The according to Rand mentally handicapped people are pretty screwed then as well as the underclass  many of whom who are essentially stupid and screw their lives up with poor decisions like borrowing from payday lenders.  Then you have the entire populations of countries who are not free at all for generation after generation.

My 10 year old daughter passed an exam yesterday called the 11+. It is a big deal in some parts of the UK since it defines the high school you go to.  Other counties ditched it years ago in the 1970s.  You cannot retake the exam or skip a year if you screw it up.  One girl in her class was so nervous that she cried in the exam and probably, as a consequence, failed.  She's pretty cocky and confident and strikes me as a clever girl, but clearly her parents were too stupid to coach her.  Many parents spend 1000 to 2000 dollars on tutors.  I didn't bother, I just gave my daughter exercise books and supervised her doing 1 or 2 tests per week for 1 year, ( about 1 hour of work ).  Not only is your own intelligence being tested but the wisdom of your parents, your aptitude for reading, ( not many children under 10 naturally love reading books with all the other distractions there are ).

If you fail you end up going to a much worse school where most of the elite students have been siphoned off.  The grammar schools, who accept the best students, get better academic results than 95% of private schools! Even ones that cost 35,000 a year in fees.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Bonaventure on October 17, 2013, 12:13:15 AM
You've talked about this before, but today in the US, it was "National Testing Day."

What if a kid is sick on the test day? Are they screwed?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Greg on October 17, 2013, 12:27:24 AM
If they take the exam and fail they are screwed.

They need to get a doctors letter and sit it a few days later.  They have another test for this purpose I imagine.

http://www.elevenplusexams.co.uk/advice/day-of-the-test
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Irishcyclist on October 17, 2013, 08:27:16 AM
The old saying "pride comes before the fall" or from Proverbs "Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall"

I expect that the pride referred to in the saying is arrogance/egotism?

The opposite of arrogance/egotism based pride is humility/humbleness.

I guess a question of degree applies.
Does one go about ones business for selfish/egotistical reasons?
Do we do what we do to garner the acclaim rather than doing what we do for more benevolent reasons?
To some degree we all are sinners in that regard.

Beatitudes tells us that "Blessed are the meek (humble) for they shall inherit the Earth"
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on October 17, 2013, 08:40:28 AM
QuoteDoes one go about ones business for selfish/egotistical reasons?
I work because I have the selfish reason of wanting to eat.  There is no problem for me doing that.

QuoteDo we do what we do to garner the acclaim rather than doing what we do for more benevolent reasons?
To some degree we all are sinners in that regard.
You have to be careful with your definition of the sin of pride and the virtue of humilty.  If you do something because it is a great thing to do, then you are being virtuous.  Has nothing to do with benevolence, and is virtue, not a sin.  Of course that's magnanimity. 
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Irishcyclist on October 17, 2013, 08:47:23 AM
Quote from: james03 on October 17, 2013, 08:40:28 AM
QuoteDoes one go about ones business for selfish/egotistical reasons?
I work because I have the selfish reason of wanting to eat.  There is no problem for me doing that.

QuoteDo we do what we do to garner the acclaim rather than doing what we do for more benevolent reasons?
To some degree we all are sinners in that regard.
You have to be careful with your definition of the sin of pride and the virtue of humilty.  If you do something because it is a great thing to do, then you are being virtuous.  Has nothing to do with benevolence, and is virtue, not a sin.  Of course that's magnanimity.

Working in order eat and to live isn't what I was referring to.

"If you do something because it is a great thing to do, then you're being virtuous" A great thing to do for whom exactly?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on October 17, 2013, 08:51:09 AM
So obviously you became an atheist without giving it much thought because you are not posting anything original nor answering my simple questions.  But we'll go through it anyway, though this is quickly becoming boring since it doesn't come from you.

Quote"The source of man's rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A—and Man is Man.
False.  This is a tautology.  Man has rights so if a man exists, he has rights.  Furthermore, she is using Aristotle, which is hitch hiking.  If she is going to claim his law of identity, then she has to claim everything that goes with it.  Such as the Prime mover, first cause, and form of the good.
QuoteRights are conditions of existence required by man's nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work.
False.  No where are rights defined. 
QuoteIf life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational." 
Unproven.

Answer:  Rights come from the God established virtue of Justice, which simply means that you must receive what you are owed.  This was established by God and can not be derived with logic, though it is logical.  So a man has a right to property because God created the inviolable right to property.  It is his and can not be taken.  We have a right to fair treatment under the law, this is legal justice.  We have a right to receiving benefits from the government equal to the taxes we pay, this is distributive justice.  And we have a right to be paid what we agreed to in a contract, this is commutative justice.  ALL of these rights originate from God, and there is no way to deduce them without combining reason with Faith.  As you have proved after being unable to answer me for all of these long pages.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on October 17, 2013, 08:53:38 AM
Quote"If you do something because it is a great thing to do, then you're being virtuous" A great thing to do for whom exactly?

Doesn't matter.  If it is great, then doing it is virtuous.  Certainly not sinful.  Now of course if the "thing" itself is sinful, then it is not great.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on October 17, 2013, 08:54:47 AM
QuoteWorking in order eat and to live isn't what I was referring to.

Working so you can eat is not selfish?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Larry on October 17, 2013, 08:56:53 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 16, 2013, 04:40:13 PM

Quote from: LouisIX on October 16, 2013, 10:27:01 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 15, 2013, 07:20:32 PM
Quote from: LouisIX on October 15, 2013, 06:48:42 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 15, 2013, 06:38:28 PM
Okay.  The two genealogies from Matthew and Luke was the first problem I noticed.  They are way off, and not even close to each other.  Who is Joseph's father?  Matthew tells us he is Jacob, Luke tells us he is Heli.  Really?

The genealogies are not intended to be the same.  They're attempting to show geneaology in two different ways.  These are both synoptic gospels, and they are very related.  This wouldn't be an "oops" moment as the writer of one most likely had access to the information of the other.  Keep in mind that each evangelist is intending to portray a different aspect of Christ.  If you'll notice, Matthew's Gospel is most concerned with Christ as a man, the Suffering Servant of Psalm 22, who comes to fulfill the Old Testament prophecies of the Messiah.  The selection of whom to name in Christ's lineage reflects Matthew's concerns and what he hopes for his largely Jewish audience to notice about Jesus.

I will explain more later.

Later in Matthew he calls Jacob Joseph's father.  Later in Luke he calls Heli Joseph's father.  How can Joseph have two fathers?  And if Jesus is the promised messiah, why is he not capable of claiming the Jewish throne?  The lineage in Matthew is cursed because of Jeconiah.  The lineage in Luke does not contain Solomon.  He had two cracks at it and neither panned out.  If he cannot sit on the throne of David, he is not the messiah.  Further the Jewish messiah was never meant to be God either.  That would be abhorrent to Jewish theology, God simply cannot become a man.  The messiah was supposed to only be a righteous man and not God.

It was abhorrent because the Jews didn't listen to all of the prophecies of the Incarnation.  Seriously, it's all over the Old Testament.

There is no mention anywhere in the Old Testament of the messiah being God.

"For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace"-Isaiah 9:6

"But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Too little to be among the clans of Judah, From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity."-Micah 5:2


Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Irishcyclist on October 17, 2013, 08:57:19 AM
Quote from: james03 on October 17, 2013, 08:54:47 AM
QuoteWorking in order eat and to live isn't what I was referring to.

Working so you can eat is not selfish?

Working so that you can eat isn't selfish.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Irishcyclist on October 17, 2013, 09:01:12 AM
Quote from: james03 on October 17, 2013, 08:53:38 AM
Quote"If you do something because it is a great thing to do, then you're being virtuous" A great thing to do for whom exactly?

Doesn't matter.  If it is great, then doing it is virtuous.  Certainly not sinful.  Now of course if the "thing" itself is sinful, then it is not great.

I disagree. It does matter as it goes to the heart of the issue of what is "a great thing to do"
"it is a great thing to do" for whom exactly?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 17, 2013, 09:03:20 AM

Quote from: james03 on October 17, 2013, 08:51:09 AM
So obviously you became an atheist without giving it much thought because you are not posting anything original nor answering my simple questions.  But we'll go through it anyway, though this is quickly becoming boring since it doesn't come from you.

Quote"The source of man's rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A—and Man is Man.
False.  This is a tautology.  Man has rights so if a man exists, he has rights.  Furthermore, she is using Aristotle, which is hitch hiking.  If she is going to claim his law of identity, then she has to claim everything that goes with it.  Such as the Prime mover, first cause, and form of the good.
QuoteRights are conditions of existence required by man's nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work.
False.  No where are rights defined. 
QuoteIf life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational." 
Unproven.

Answer:  Rights come from the God established virtue of Justice, which simply means that you must receive what you are owed.  This was established by God and can not be derived with logic, though it is logical.  So a man has a right to property because God created the inviolable right to property.  It is his and can not be taken.  We have a right to fair treatment under the law, this is legal justice.  We have a right to receiving benefits from the government equal to the taxes we pay, this is distributive justice.  And we have a right to be paid what we agreed to in a contract, this is commutative justice.  ALL of these rights originate from God, and there is no way to deduce them without combining reason with Faith.  As you have proved after being unable to answer me for all of these long pages.

There is nothing new under the sun (I have indeed read the bible) and no ideas are completely new, but always builds upon previous ideas.  And that is okay.  Philosophical systems are not something whereby you must take the whole system or leave the whole system.  I can pick and choose the parts I like and don't like.  This is how knowledge advances over the centuries.  We take the good and dump the bad.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on October 17, 2013, 09:18:30 AM
Quick aside.  Working because you want to eat is a very selfish act.  And it is good.

QuoteI disagree. It does matter as it goes to the heart of the issue of what is "a great thing to do"
"it is a great thing to do" for whom exactly?

Alright, I'll give you an example.  You are building a hay barn for yourself.  When you build it, you build it to top quality condition because of the greatness of the precision.  You have concrete instead of dirt.  The lighting is done with precision.  You have seamless gutters instead of a drip edge.  And when you look at what you have created, you say: "This is good".  That is a virtue.

Or you can be working a project for a client.  You must get it built in 6 months.  Instead you work with a great team and deliver it in 6 weeks.  You look at what you accomplish and declare: "This is good".  That is magnanimity.

And only a humble man can truly be magnanimous. 
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on October 17, 2013, 09:21:44 AM
QuotePhilosophical systems are not something whereby you must take the whole system or leave the whole system.  I can pick and choose the parts I like and don't like.  This is how knowledge advances over the centuries.  We take the good and dump the bad.

So contradictions are fine by you.  Like I said, you are a nihilist if your are an atheist.  You just don't want to face it.

What you just wrote is pure rubbish.  Either you know it, and are a nihilist, or you are completely ignorant, in which case there is little that can be done to help you except start with the basics.  Someone here might have the patience for this.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 17, 2013, 09:32:40 AM

Quote from: james03 on October 17, 2013, 09:21:44 AM
QuotePhilosophical systems are not something whereby you must take the whole system or leave the whole system.  I can pick and choose the parts I like and don't like.  This is how knowledge advances over the centuries.  We take the good and dump the bad.

So contradictions are fine by you.  Like I said, you are a nihilist if your are an atheist.  You just don't want to face it.

What you just wrote is pure rubbish.  Either you know it, and are a nihilist, or you are completely ignorant, in which case there is little that can be done to help you except start with the basics.  Someone here might have the patience for this.

Atheism and nihilism are not the same thing, and philosophy is not the same as religion.  Just because I accept one thing Aristotle said does not mean I have to accept everything he ever said.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on October 17, 2013, 09:35:25 AM
OK, so let's go back to my question.  Rights exist because of the virtue of Justice.  So you want to grab that from Aristtotle, Aquinas, etc...  Fine.  Now explain how it can exist, LIKE YOU CLAIMED YOU COULD DO, without invoking God.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 17, 2013, 09:38:00 AM
I believe Mrs. Rand did a far better job than I could do.  The quote I posted from her is pretty self explanatory.  And remember that it is not an explanation to simply say that God did it.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Irishcyclist on October 17, 2013, 09:59:14 AM
Quote from: james03 on October 17, 2013, 09:18:30 AM
Quick aside.  Working because you want to eat is a very selfish act.  And it is good.

QuoteI disagree. It does matter as it goes to the heart of the issue of what is "a great thing to do"
"it is a great thing to do" for whom exactly?

Alright, I'll give you an example.  You are building a hay barn for yourself.  When you build it, you build it to top quality condition because of the greatness of the precision.  You have concrete instead of dirt.  The lighting is done with precision.  You have seamless gutters instead of a drip edge.  And when you look at what you have created, you say: "This is good".  That is a virtue.

Or you can be working a project for a client.  You must get it built in 6 months.  Instead you work with a great team and deliver it in 6 weeks.  You look at what you accomplish and declare: "This is good".  That is magnanimity.

And only a humble man can truly be magnanimous.

That's better.

You've given your earlier statement a context. And in the context that you set (underlined above), I agree with your earlier statement given this context.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: LouisIX on October 17, 2013, 10:30:43 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 16, 2013, 04:29:26 PM

Quote from: james03 on October 16, 2013, 01:01:36 PM
CF,
Please tackle the question on justice.  You claim that you can prove it with reason alone.  In the example, you made your opening remark and the atheist socialist has responded.  He doesn't believe he is born equal.  He pointed out he was born into socialism, has all the guns, and it quite happy with the system.  He refuses to sacrifice for you.  Your turn to respond, with "reason" only.

You seem to act as if the concept of God is an objective immutable rock from which the concept of justice may be built, and human reason is unreliable.  The concept of God just complicates the matter, however.  As mentioned before, if God created justice, then justice is a whim and meaningless.  If Justice is according to reason, and God is merely informing us of what justice is, then he in an unnecessary component of the equation.  The concept of God seems to be a cop out and a way to avoid asking what justice is.  We cannot avoid this, we are going to have to role up our sleeves and do the work in order to understand these concepts by using our reason.  It is tough work, but rewarding.  And it is unavoidable, as reason is all we have.  Reason allows a man to live as a man.

God does not create justice (this is voluntarism; the Muslims are voluntarists but we are not).  Nor is justice something which arises out of human reason.  Human reason may apprehend justice, but it is not the source of it.

The source of justice is in the immutable nature of God.  The things which are just are just because they are in accord with how God is.  You see then that God is absolutely necessary and yet that justice is anything but arbitrary.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 17, 2013, 11:16:23 AM

Quote from: LouisIX on October 17, 2013, 10:30:43 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 16, 2013, 04:29:26 PM

Quote from: james03 on October 16, 2013, 01:01:36 PM
CF,
Please tackle the question on justice.  You claim that you can prove it with reason alone.  In the example, you made your opening remark and the atheist socialist has responded.  He doesn't believe he is born equal.  He pointed out he was born into socialism, has all the guns, and it quite happy with the system.  He refuses to sacrifice for you.  Your turn to respond, with "reason" only.

You seem to act as if the concept of God is an objective immutable rock from which the concept of justice may be built, and human reason is unreliable.  The concept of God just complicates the matter, however.  As mentioned before, if God created justice, then justice is a whim and meaningless.  If Justice is according to reason, and God is merely informing us of what justice is, then he in an unnecessary component of the equation.  The concept of God seems to be a cop out and a way to avoid asking what justice is.  We cannot avoid this, we are going to have to role up our sleeves and do the work in order to understand these concepts by using our reason.  It is tough work, but rewarding.  And it is unavoidable, as reason is all we have.  Reason allows a man to live as a man.

God does not create justice (this is voluntarism; the Muslims are voluntarists but we are not).  Nor is justice something which arises out of human reason.  Human reason may apprehend justice, but it is not the source of it.

The source of justice is in the immutable nature of God.  The things which are just are just because they are in accord with how God is.  You see then that God is absolutely necessary and yet that justice is anything but arbitrary.

According to your definition, then yes I would agree that God is necessary.  However, that still doesn't solve the problem.  First, one has to know that there is a God.  Then one has to know God.  Then one has to know the nature of God.  Then finally one can say what justice is after all of those steps.  But, how can a man actually prove that God exists?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on October 17, 2013, 11:25:04 AM
Slow down, CF, you are making progress.  You can already see that justice comes from God.  As I said, we did not create it, we discovered it.

So it boils down to the question of whether you believe in justice.  If you believe in justice, that is, humans can be owed, and there is a duty incumbent on man to pay the one who is owed, then you have proven God.

This is why I say a true atheist must be a nihilist, because a true atheist can not accept these spiritual (discovered) truths and be consistent.

Note also that we are using reason based on a premise.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: LouisIX on October 17, 2013, 11:29:30 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 17, 2013, 11:16:23 AM

Quote from: LouisIX on October 17, 2013, 10:30:43 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 16, 2013, 04:29:26 PM

Quote from: james03 on October 16, 2013, 01:01:36 PM
CF,
Please tackle the question on justice.  You claim that you can prove it with reason alone.  In the example, you made your opening remark and the atheist socialist has responded.  He doesn't believe he is born equal.  He pointed out he was born into socialism, has all the guns, and it quite happy with the system.  He refuses to sacrifice for you.  Your turn to respond, with "reason" only.

You seem to act as if the concept of God is an objective immutable rock from which the concept of justice may be built, and human reason is unreliable.  The concept of God just complicates the matter, however.  As mentioned before, if God created justice, then justice is a whim and meaningless.  If Justice is according to reason, and God is merely informing us of what justice is, then he in an unnecessary component of the equation.  The concept of God seems to be a cop out and a way to avoid asking what justice is.  We cannot avoid this, we are going to have to role up our sleeves and do the work in order to understand these concepts by using our reason.  It is tough work, but rewarding.  And it is unavoidable, as reason is all we have.  Reason allows a man to live as a man.

God does not create justice (this is voluntarism; the Muslims are voluntarists but we are not).  Nor is justice something which arises out of human reason.  Human reason may apprehend justice, but it is not the source of it.

The source of justice is in the immutable nature of God.  The things which are just are just because they are in accord with how God is.  You see then that God is absolutely necessary and yet that justice is anything but arbitrary.

According to your definition, then yes I would agree that God is necessary.  However, that still doesn't solve the problem.  First, one has to know that there is a God.  Then one has to know God.  Then one has to know the nature of God.  Then finally one can say what justice is after all of those steps.  But, how can a man actually prove that God exists?

It is not absolutely necessary for one to understand the source of a thing in order to apprehend that thing.  We may bathe in a river without knowing its source.  So the Church teaches that the human intellect can apprehend justice (via the natural law) without explicitly knowing that there is a God or that He exists in such and such a way.

However, the Church does teach that the existence of One God is intelligible to the unaided human reason.  This is proclaimed in the praeambula fidei and the canons of VI, though it had been affirmed throughout Church history. 
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 17, 2013, 12:01:19 PM
Quote from: james03 on October 17, 2013, 11:25:04 AM
Slow down, CF, you are making progress.  You can already see that justice comes from God.  As I said, we did not create it, we discovered it.

So it boils down to the question of whether you believe in justice.  If you believe in justice, that is, humans can be owed, and there is a duty incumbent on man to pay the one who is owed, then you have proven God.

This is why I say a true atheist must be a nihilist, because a true atheist can not accept these spiritual (discovered) truths and be consistent.

Note also that we are using reason based on a premise.

According to your definition justice comes from God, not according to my definition.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on October 17, 2013, 12:05:36 PM
But you admitted that you are just robbing the concept.
QuoteI can pick and choose the parts I like and don't like.  This is how knowledge advances over the centuries.  We take the good and dump the bad.
So which one is it?  Do you just grab this concept derived from theistic philosophies, or can you derive it with reason ALONE?

Ironically, you are an existentialist, something that a Greek Realist like Rand abhorred.

Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 17, 2013, 12:18:45 PM

Quote from: james03 on October 17, 2013, 12:05:36 PM
But you admitted that you are just robbing the concept.
QuoteI can pick and choose the parts I like and don't like.  This is how knowledge advances over the centuries.  We take the good and dump the bad.
So which one is it?  Do you just grab this concept derived from theistic philosophies, or can you derive it with reason ALONE?

Ironically, you are an existentialist, something that a Greek Realist like Rand abhorred.

Philosophy is not some basket of goodies whereby one has to take the whole basket if one wants one thing inside the basket.  How was Aristotle's philosophy theistic?  He was a pagan after all.

ex·is·ten·tial·ism
?egzi?stenCH??liz?m/
noun
1.
a philosophical theory or approach that emphasizes the existence of the individual person as a free and responsible agent determining their own development through acts of the will.

I don't think Rand would have any problem with this.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: LouisIX on October 17, 2013, 12:23:31 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 17, 2013, 12:18:45 PM

Quote from: james03 on October 17, 2013, 12:05:36 PM
But you admitted that you are just robbing the concept.
QuoteI can pick and choose the parts I like and don't like.  This is how knowledge advances over the centuries.  We take the good and dump the bad.
So which one is it?  Do you just grab this concept derived from theistic philosophies, or can you derive it with reason ALONE?

Ironically, you are an existentialist, something that a Greek Realist like Rand abhorred.

Philosophy is not some basket of goodies whereby one has to take the whole basket if one wants one thing inside the basket.  How was Aristotle's philosophy theistic?  He was a pagan after all.

ex·is·ten·tial·ism
?egzi?stenCH??liz?m/
noun
1.
a philosophical theory or approach that emphasizes the existence of the individual person as a free and responsible agent determining their own development through acts of the will.

I don't think Rand would have any problem with this.

First of all, a dictionary definition of a school of philosophy does not give you the entire framework.  Rand might have agreed on some level with the existentialists, but might have vehemently rejected certain conclusions or even the mode by which they arrived at those conclusions.

Secondly, Aristotle believed in a transcendent Unmoved Mover, the source of all change and motion in the universe, something which was infinitely higher than those things below, and something which contemplated only itself.

Just because Aristotle was a pagan doesn't mean that he wasn't a monotheist, or something closely akin to it.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on October 17, 2013, 12:39:42 PM

Quote from: LouisIX on October 17, 2013, 12:23:31 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 17, 2013, 12:18:45 PM

Quote from: james03 on October 17, 2013, 12:05:36 PM
But you admitted that you are just robbing the concept.
QuoteI can pick and choose the parts I like and don't like.  This is how knowledge advances over the centuries.  We take the good and dump the bad.
So which one is it?  Do you just grab this concept derived from theistic philosophies, or can you derive it with reason ALONE?

Ironically, you are an existentialist, something that a Greek Realist like Rand abhorred.

Philosophy is not some basket of goodies whereby one has to take the whole basket if one wants one thing inside the basket.  How was Aristotle's philosophy theistic?  He was a pagan after all.

ex·is·ten·tial·ism
?egzi?stenCH??liz?m/
noun
1.
a philosophical theory or approach that emphasizes the existence of the individual person as a free and responsible agent determining their own development through acts of the will.

I don't think Rand would have any problem with this.

First of all, a dictionary definition of a school of philosophy does not give you the entire framework.  Rand might have agreed on some level with the existentialists, but might have vehemently rejected certain conclusions or even the mode by which they arrived at those conclusions.

Secondly, Aristotle believed in a transcendent Unmoved Mover, the source of all change and motion in the universe, something which was infinitely higher than those things below, and something which contemplated only itself.

Just because Aristotle was a pagan doesn't mean that he wasn't a monotheist, or something closely akin to it.

I'll grant that a dictionary definition isn't adequate.  I don't quite understand what existentialism is.  Could you help me out a bit?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on October 17, 2013, 01:06:50 PM
That's a rather complex question.  Since I brought it up, I'll explain what I mean by it.  You are swinging all over the place with regards to justice claiming you could establish it with reason ALONE, and finally ended up stating that you can accept justice because it is true to you, without establishing the fact.  That is something an existentialist would say.

Rand was a Greek realist and would reject that statement, though her definition on rights fails.  She basically turns the Law of Identity into a tautology.  Man has rights.  Therefore men have rights because they are men.  True, but completely useless.

And that is it for my time.  I'll probably be back in a week or so.  The others are doing a good job with your questions.  Please remain sincere.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on November 08, 2013, 09:17:11 AM
Quote from: james03 on October 17, 2013, 01:06:50 PM
That's a rather complex question.  Since I brought it up, I'll explain what I mean by it.  You are swinging all over the place with regards to justice claiming you could establish it with reason ALONE, and finally ended up stating that you can accept justice because it is true to you, without establishing the fact.  That is something an existentialist would say.

Rand was a Greek realist and would reject that statement, though her definition on rights fails.  She basically turns the Law of Identity into a tautology.  Man has rights.  Therefore men have rights because they are men.  True, but completely useless.

And that is it for my time.  I'll probably be back in a week or so.  The others are doing a good job with your questions.  Please remain sincere.

How would you describe the law of identity differently than Miss Rand?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Landless Laborer on November 08, 2013, 10:01:44 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 17, 2013, 11:16:23 AM
According to your definition, then yes I would agree that God is necessary.  However, that still doesn't solve the problem.  First, one has to know that there is a God.  Then one has to know God.  Then one has to know the nature of God.  Then finally one can say what justice is after all of those steps.  But, how can a man actually prove that God exists?
Actually, it IS now possible to prove God's existence, with advancements in physics...well let's just say, they are so close now, you would have to be a charlatan (Stephan Hawkins) to deny it.  Entropy, space-time geometry proofs, and string theory, all point with virtual certainty to a "beginning".  That is what the fight is about.  Once a beginning is proven, atheists lose.   See Fr Robert Spitzer's website Magis Center for Faith and Reason for a summery of where things are in this long-standing battle, and why science is a believer's best friend, and an atheist's worst nightmare.  Click on the Encyclopedias tab and go to No. 1. 
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on November 08, 2013, 10:51:25 PM

Quote from: Landless Laborer on November 08, 2013, 10:01:44 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 17, 2013, 11:16:23 AM
According to your definition, then yes I would agree that God is necessary.  However, that still doesn't solve the problem.  First, one has to know that there is a God.  Then one has to know God.  Then one has to know the nature of God.  Then finally one can say what justice is after all of those steps.  But, how can a man actually prove that God exists?
Actually, it IS now possible to prove God's existence, with advancements in physics...well let's just say, they are so close now, you would have to be a charlatan (Stephan Hawkins) to deny it.  Entropy, space-time geometry proofs, and string theory, all point with virtual certainty to a "beginning".  That is what the fight is about.  Once a beginning is proven, atheists lose.   See Fr Robert Spitzer's website Magis Center for Faith and Reason for a summery of where things are in this long-standing battle, and why science is a believer's best friend, and an atheist's worst nightmare.  Click on the Encyclopedias tab and go to No. 1.

How does string theory prove the existence of God?  What do you think of the theory published by Lawrence Krauss?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Landless Laborer on November 10, 2013, 11:14:07 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on November 08, 2013, 10:51:25 PM

Quote from: Landless Laborer on November 08, 2013, 10:01:44 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 17, 2013, 11:16:23 AM
According to your definition, then yes I would agree that God is necessary.  However, that still doesn't solve the problem.  First, one has to know that there is a God.  Then one has to know God.  Then one has to know the nature of God.  Then finally one can say what justice is after all of those steps.  But, how can a man actually prove that God exists?
Actually, it IS now possible to prove God's existence, with advancements in physics...well let's just say, they are so close now, you would have to be a charlatan (Stephan Hawkins) to deny it.  Entropy, space-time geometry proofs, and string theory, all point with virtual certainty to a "beginning".  That is what the fight is about.  Once a beginning is proven, atheists lose.   See Fr Robert Spitzer's website Magis Center for Faith and Reason for a summery of where things are in this long-standing battle, and why science is a believer's best friend, and an atheist's worst nightmare.  Click on the Encyclopedias tab and go to No. 1.

How does string theory prove the existence of God?  What do you think of the theory published by Lawrence Krauss?
Is Krauss is one of those guys who says "nothing" is "something"?  ( i simply googled the name and saw the title of one of his papers)
I think most people with "uncommon sense" agree that the atheist's argument is defeated if one can prove that before there was "something", there was "nothing".  And something cannot come from nothing without the supernatural, i.e. God. 
But like in the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man:   "If they don't listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded if one rises from the dead."
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on November 10, 2013, 11:17:08 PM
Krauss says that "nothing" is actually a bubbling brew of virtual particles.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on November 10, 2013, 11:20:29 PM
According to Krauss, particles are coming into and going out of existence all the time.  They only exist for a fraction of a second.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Non Nobis on November 11, 2013, 01:08:03 AM
Quote from: Landless Laborer on November 10, 2013, 11:14:07 PM
I think most people with "uncommon sense" agree that the atheist's argument is defeated if one can prove that before there was "something", there was "nothing".  And something cannot come from nothing without the supernatural, i.e. God. 

I think that St. Thomas taught that we know only by faith that the world had a beginning.  The world is just as dependent on God at any point in time whether time had a beginning or not.  (We do know by faith, Genesis, etc that in fact the world had a beginning, and was made from nothing)

But maybe there is evidence that St. Thomas was unaware of.   In in case his proofs start with the world as it is now, not by proving a beginning.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: rbjmartin on November 11, 2013, 02:26:13 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on November 10, 2013, 11:20:29 PM
According to Krauss, particles are coming into and going out of existence all the time.  They only exist for a fraction of a second.

It's not surprising that you give intellectual assent to a proposition that denies the common experience of our senses, simply because it fits your preconceived determination that there is no God.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Landless Laborer on November 11, 2013, 02:34:32 PM
Quote from: Non Nobis on November 11, 2013, 01:08:03 AM
Quote from: Landless Laborer on November 10, 2013, 11:14:07 PM
I think most people with "uncommon sense" agree that the atheist's argument is defeated if one can prove that before there was "something", there was "nothing".  And something cannot come from nothing without the supernatural, i.e. God. 

I think that St. Thomas taught that we know only by faith that the world had a beginning.  The world is just as dependent on God at any point in time whether time had a beginning or not.  (We do know by faith, Genesis, etc that in fact the world had a beginning, and was made from nothing)

But maybe there is evidence that St. Thomas was unaware of.   In in case his proofs start with the world as it is now, not by proving a beginning.
Non Nobis, i think St. Thomas would not change his assertion, that we can only know by faith that the world had a beginning, even given the new evidence that seems to prove it.   To scientists, a beginning would prove the existence of God...presumably.  Nevertheless,  atheists will always have an "out", because they can say the field of science is dynamic, and there may be new evidence in the future that contradicts today's. 
However i applaud Fr Spitzer's work.  His mission is to teach Catholic High School theology teachers how to defend the existence of God to students, against people like Stephen Hawking et al., who have so much authority and weight, and how much of their opinion is b.s., when held up to their own scientific method.   You ask a lot of kids today why they don't believe in God, and they will often cite Stephen Hawking, the "smartest guy in the world". 

Not to get sidetracked, but it is sort of like the peer reviewed studies that determined that we should avoid fat to reduce heart disease.  Strict, meticulous, painstaking studies, ridiculous conclusion, but nobody ever takes time to look at the actual studies.  (yes there is motive...producers can now sell milk with the most expensive part removed, for virtually the same price, and be heroes to boot.)    (okay there goes my credibility but who cares) :)

Fr Spitzer examines cutting edge physics without the goal-seeking bias of atheism.  (Of course he has his own bias Flyboy, everybody does, but most scientists are atheists i think.) 
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on November 11, 2013, 02:59:22 PM

Quote from: rbjmartin on November 11, 2013, 02:26:13 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on November 10, 2013, 11:20:29 PM
According to Krauss, particles are coming into and going out of existence all the time.  They only exist for a fraction of a second.

It's not surprising that you give intellectual assent to a proposition that denies the common experience of our senses, simply because it fits your preconceived determination that there is no God.

I don't trust the senses alone, they are merely a doorway through which information enters the mind in order to be processed by reason.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: rbjmartin on November 11, 2013, 03:06:16 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on November 11, 2013, 02:59:22 PM

Quote from: rbjmartin on November 11, 2013, 02:26:13 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on November 10, 2013, 11:20:29 PM
According to Krauss, particles are coming into and going out of existence all the time.  They only exist for a fraction of a second.

It's not surprising that you give intellectual assent to a proposition that denies the common experience of our senses, simply because it fits your preconceived determination that there is no God.

I don't trust the senses alone, they are merely a doorway through which information enters the mind in order to be processed by reason.

But the reason you don't believe in the existence of God is because you say you have no sensory proof of his existence (i.e. no "measurable or observable" proof), so you DO rely on your senses. Whereas, I believe in God because the sensory knowledge I have gained (which I openly acknowledge I trust) processed by reason leads me to the belief in a Supreme Being.

Once again, your philosophy shows inconsistencies revealing your irrational predilection for atheism.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on November 11, 2013, 05:46:04 PM

Quote from: rbjmartin on November 11, 2013, 03:06:16 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on November 11, 2013, 02:59:22 PM

Quote from: rbjmartin on November 11, 2013, 02:26:13 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on November 10, 2013, 11:20:29 PM
According to Krauss, particles are coming into and going out of existence all the time.  They only exist for a fraction of a second.

It's not surprising that you give intellectual assent to a proposition that denies the common experience of our senses, simply because it fits your preconceived determination that there is no God.

I don't trust the senses alone, they are merely a doorway through which information enters the mind in order to be processed by reason.

But the reason you don't believe in the existence of God is because you say you have no sensory proof of his existence (i.e. no "measurable or observable" proof), so you DO rely on your senses. Whereas, I believe in God because the sensory knowledge I have gained (which I openly acknowledge I trust) processed by reason leads me to the belief in a Supreme Being.

Once again, your philosophy shows inconsistencies revealing your irrational predilection for atheism.

I'll try to put it this way.  Knowledge comes from the reason informed by the senses.  All learning involves the senses and the reason.  Our senses can trick us, however.  It looks like the sun moves across the sky, but of course it is actually the earth which is moving.  Just because my senses tell me something, does not mean that is what I am seeing.  We must reason things out.  But, if I don't experience something, I can't know it.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on November 30, 2013, 12:06:50 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on November 11, 2013, 02:59:22 PM

Quote from: rbjmartin on November 11, 2013, 02:26:13 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on November 10, 2013, 11:20:29 PM
According to Krauss, particles are coming into and going out of existence all the time.  They only exist for a fraction of a second.

It's not surprising that you give intellectual assent to a proposition that denies the common experience of our senses, simply because it fits your preconceived determination that there is no God.

I don't trust the senses alone, they are merely a doorway through which information enters the mind in order to be processed by reason.
what does it mean to Love? Why do we grieve? Why is a crime against a child more henious than an adult prision convict. Why can music communicate to people of all cultures times and places. What is beauty? Why does the betrayal of a friend hurt more than the actions of an enemy? More questions unanswerable by atheism.
Title: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on November 30, 2013, 12:37:53 AM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on November 30, 2013, 12:06:50 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on November 11, 2013, 02:59:22 PM

Quote from: rbjmartin on November 11, 2013, 02:26:13 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on November 10, 2013, 11:20:29 PM
According to Krauss, particles are coming into and going out of existence all the time.  They only exist for a fraction of a second.

It's not surprising that you give intellectual assent to a proposition that denies the common experience of our senses, simply because it fits your preconceived determination that there is no God.

I don't trust the senses alone, they are merely a doorway through which information enters the mind in order to be processed by reason.
what does it mean to Love? Why do we grieve? Why is a crime against a child more henious than an adult prision convict. Why can music communicate to people of all cultures times and places. What is beauty? Why does the betrayal of a friend hurt more than the actions of an enemy? More questions unanswerable by atheism.

What are you talking about?  Can you really answer those questions by just saying, God did it?  I can use reason to answer all of your questions.  Love is the recognition of your own values in another person.  We grieve when we lose someone we love.  A crime against a child is more heinous because a child is innocent and the convict is not.  It is very human to wish for justice to be done, this is because justice makes society a more pleasant place in which to live.  Music, and all art, is the manifestation of metaphysical values, these values are shared by different cultures.  Beauty is value recognized in art.  If I see value in a piece of art, I am witnessing beauty.  Betrayal by a friend hurts because I expect more from a friend, I have put trust in a friend and he has betrayed that trust.  Too easy.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Clare on November 30, 2013, 05:12:24 AM
I'm just reading/skimming through this thread, and I'm on page 3, so there's a lot more to go, but I thought I'd make an observation on this.
Quote from: Maximilian on October 13, 2013, 10:23:34 PM
... The more that I recognize the truth of God, and the more that I recognize the truth about myself, then the more I will realize that I am certainly much less than a worm...
Undoubtedly. But then there's the fact that the Son of God could be bothered to become man, and die for us worms. We can't be that insignificant. It's a pardox, I guess.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Clare on November 30, 2013, 06:12:20 AM
Quote from: Clare on November 30, 2013, 05:12:24 AM
I'm just reading/skimming through this thread, and I'm on page 3, so there's a lot more to go, but I thought I'd make an observation on this.
Quote from: Maximilian on October 13, 2013, 10:23:34 PM
... The more that I recognize the truth of God, and the more that I recognize the truth about myself, then the more I will realize that I am certainly much less than a worm...
Undoubtedly. But then there's the fact that the Son of God could be bothered to become man, and die for us worms. We can't be that insignificant. It's a pardox, I guess.
Oh, and then there's the fact that we're created in God's image, and have to see Christ in each other.

I guess we have to see ourselves as worms or dust, but not everyone else; meanwhile everyone else should see themselves as worms or dust, but not us.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on November 30, 2013, 06:41:10 AM
Flyboy you just replaced God....with yourself. Please define metaphysical...seems to me this is. Nonexistan in atheistic terms. And if youll notice I said ATHEISM not atheists..have no answer. This goes to my point that there is no such thing as a true atheists....only cafeteria atheists who pick and choose when to deny a creator.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Maximilian on November 30, 2013, 07:14:55 AM
Quote from: Clare on November 30, 2013, 05:12:24 AM
I'm just reading/skimming through this thread, and I'm on page 3, so there's a lot more to go, but I thought I'd make an observation on this.
Quote from: Maximilian on October 13, 2013, 10:23:34 PM
... The more that I recognize the truth of God, and the more that I recognize the truth about myself, then the more I will realize that I am certainly much less than a worm...
Undoubtedly. But then there's the fact that the Son of God could be bothered to become man, and die for us worms. We can't be that insignificant. It's a pardox, I guess.

It might be a paradox in some senses, but it is not a paradox with regard to the topic of this thread which is humility.

Humility is knowledge of the truth. What is the truth about me? What is the truth about God? Having established some parameters, we can then estimate the inequality between these two objects -- which is infinite. Becoming aware of the infinite lowness of myself compared to God, what is the proper relationship for me to have with Him? And what degree of gratitude is appropriate for any recognition or kindness shown to me by God?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on November 30, 2013, 07:24:03 AM
Self condemnation in the face of Truth....repentance...gratfullness...contentment ...happyness with God. Seems to be the Order of things as Ive observed and experienced.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Maximilian on November 30, 2013, 07:33:46 AM
Quote from: Clare on November 30, 2013, 06:12:20 AM
Quote from: Clare on November 30, 2013, 05:12:24 AM
I'm just reading/skimming through this thread, and I'm on page 3, so there's a lot more to go, but I thought I'd make an observation on this.
Quote from: Maximilian on October 13, 2013, 10:23:34 PM
... The more that I recognize the truth of God, and the more that I recognize the truth about myself, then the more I will realize that I am certainly much less than a worm...
Undoubtedly. But then there's the fact that the Son of God could be bothered to become man, and die for us worms. We can't be that insignificant. It's a pardox, I guess.
Oh, and then there's the fact that we're created in God's image, and have to see Christ in each other.

I guess we have to see ourselves as worms or dust, but not everyone else; meanwhile everyone else should see themselves as worms or dust, but not us.

You're involved in intellectual speculation about humility, instead of developing the true knowledge of humility itself.

It's like knowing the taste of some strange foreign food, like a super hot pepper, for example. You can read a mountain of books about it, and you can speculate about it to your hearts content, but until you put the pepper in your mouth, you will never know what it tastes like.

Here is a little section on humility from "the celebrated Fr. Lallemant" who initiated the very powerful novena to St. Joseph which is in the St. Joseph Prayer Book, available very cheaply from TAN Books:

We are not content with this allotment ; we take
God's share to ourselves ; we desire to have the glory
as well as the profit of our possessions. This injustice
is a kind of blasphemy ; for nothing is due to nature,
considered in itself and thus we ought to consider it
but vileness and abasement. It is to that we ought
incessantly to tend and aspire with a desire and a
thirst insatiable, since therein consists our true great-
ness ; all else is but presumption, vanity, illusion, and
sin.

So much so, that they in whom this desire of ab-
jection is most ardent are the greatest in the sight of
God. It is they who, above all others, walk in the
truth, and they are so much the more like unto God,
as with Him they seek only His glory. This is His
own property; glory belongs to Him alone. As for us,
all our estate is nothingness; and if we attribute any
thing to ourselves, we are robbers. If we love the es-
teem and applause of the world, we are fools ; we feed
ourselves with wind.

We commonly form to ourselves a false idea of
humility, imagining it to be something degrading to
us. It has the very contrary effect ; for as it gives us
a true knowledge of ourselves, and is itself unmixed
truth, it brings us near to God, and consequently it
confers true greatness upon us, which we seek in vain
out of God. Humiliation degrades us only in the estimation of
men, which is nothing ; it raises us in the estimation
of God, in which true glory consists.

Upon such occasions, so trying to nature, we must
reflect, that if men behold us despised, defamed, and
made a mock of, God looks upon us as exceedingly
exalted by the very things which lower us in the eyes
of men. Jesus Christ rejoices to see us wearing His
livery, and the angels envy us the honour.

Some one will say,
" I cannot persuade myself that
I am a greater sinner than others. If I break one rule,
I see others who break many ; if I am guilty of certain
faults, I see others who are guilty of greater."

The difficulty we feel in conceiving this humble
opinion of ourselves arises from our being as yet so
very unspiritual. We shall have it when we are more
advanced. In all arts and sciences there are secrets
which are known only to those who are adepts in them.

So in spiritual science, which is the most excellent of
all, inasmuch as it is purely supernatural, there are
maxims the knowledge of which belongs only to the
Saints, who are doctors in this divine science. A St.
Francis of Assisi, a St. Francis Borgia, were most emi-
nent masters in humility. They esteemed themselves,
not after a manner of speaking, but sincerely and from
the bottom of their heart, the greatest sinners in the
world. They were inwardly persuaded of that which
their lips declared.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on November 30, 2013, 11:04:05 AM

Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on November 30, 2013, 06:41:10 AM
Flyboy you just replaced God....with yourself. Please define metaphysical...seems to me this is. Nonexistan in atheistic terms. And if youll notice I said ATHEISM not atheists..have no answer. This goes to my point that there is no such thing as a true atheists....only cafeteria atheists who pick and choose when to deny a creator.

Metaphysics is the first philosophical branch of knowledge.  It deals with being qua being.  This is the starting point for any philosopher.  Ayn Rand begins her philosophy with two axioms; existence exists and A is A.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on November 30, 2013, 02:56:48 PM
Bla bla bla ha ha ha ha!.You hold the truth like a cat holds a cattoy
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: tradical on November 30, 2013, 06:32:04 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on November 30, 2013, 11:04:05 AM

Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on November 30, 2013, 06:41:10 AM
Flyboy you just replaced God....with yourself. Please define metaphysical...seems to me this is. Nonexistan in atheistic terms. And if youll notice I said ATHEISM not atheists..have no answer. This goes to my point that there is no such thing as a true atheists....only cafeteria atheists who pick and choose when to deny a creator.

Metaphysics is the first philosophical branch of knowledge.  It deals with being qua being.  This is the starting point for any philosopher.  Ayn Rand begins her philosophy with two axioms; existence exists and A is A.

Hi Crimson,

Your first post piqued my interest.

QuoteLouis IX and Gerard, we can pick up where we left off here.

I'll start by stating that humility is bad and I prefer pride.  Humility is anti-humanistic, while pride is a wonderful virtue that celebrates man qua man.

Please provide your definition of:


God Bless!!!
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on November 30, 2013, 08:35:50 PM

Quote from: tradical on November 30, 2013, 06:32:04 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on November 30, 2013, 11:04:05 AM

Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on November 30, 2013, 06:41:10 AM
Flyboy you just replaced God....with yourself. Please define metaphysical...seems to me this is. Nonexistan in atheistic terms. And if youll notice I said ATHEISM not atheists..have no answer. This goes to my point that there is no such thing as a true atheists....only cafeteria atheists who pick and choose when to deny a creator.

Metaphysics is the first philosophical branch of knowledge.  It deals with being qua being.  This is the starting point for any philosopher.  Ayn Rand begins her philosophy with two axioms; existence exists and A is A.

Hi Crimson,

Your first post piqued my interest.

QuoteLouis IX and Gerard, we can pick up where we left off here.

I'll start by stating that humility is bad and I prefer pride.  Humility is anti-humanistic, while pride is a wonderful virtue that celebrates man qua man.

Please provide your definition of:


  • Humility
  • Bad
  • Pride
  • humanistic
  • virtue
  • man

God Bless!!!

Humility is to put others or other things ahead of one's own life in terms of value.  It is to have a miserable inferiority complex.
Something is bad in so far as it harms man in his quest for happiness.  Good and bad only have meaning in the context of human life.
Pride is to take joy in one's own accomplishments.
Humanistic is that which promotes human life as being the highest good.
A virtue is something which gives value to men as individuals.
Man is a rational animal.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: tradical on November 30, 2013, 09:03:03 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on November 30, 2013, 08:35:50 PM

Quote from: tradical on November 30, 2013, 06:32:04 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on November 30, 2013, 11:04:05 AM

Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on November 30, 2013, 06:41:10 AM
Flyboy you just replaced God....with yourself. Please define metaphysical...seems to me this is. Nonexistan in atheistic terms. And if youll notice I said ATHEISM not atheists..have no answer. This goes to my point that there is no such thing as a true atheists....only cafeteria atheists who pick and choose when to deny a creator.

Metaphysics is the first philosophical branch of knowledge.  It deals with being qua being.  This is the starting point for any philosopher.  Ayn Rand begins her philosophy with two axioms; existence exists and A is A.

Hi Crimson,

Your first post piqued my interest.

QuoteLouis IX and Gerard, we can pick up where we left off here.

I'll start by stating that humility is bad and I prefer pride.  Humility is anti-humanistic, while pride is a wonderful virtue that celebrates man qua man.

Please provide your definition of:


  • Humility
  • Bad
  • Pride
  • humanistic
  • virtue
  • man

God Bless!!!

Humility is to put others or other things ahead of one's own life in terms of value.  It is to have a miserable inferiority complex.
Something is bad in so far as it harms man in his quest for happiness.  Good and bad only have meaning in the context of human life.
Pride is to take joy in one's own accomplishments.
Humanistic is that which promotes human life as being the highest good.
A virtue is something which gives value to men as individuals.
Man is a rational animal.

Humility: I disagree with your definition.  Humility, in Catholicism is truth about one's own worth, in terms of intrinsic value as well as ability.

Bad: I will set aside your definition for the moment because you have introduced a new term. What is happiness?

Pride: So the joy a serial killer feels in accomplishing each murder meets your definition.  Am I understanding you correctly?

Also: What is joy?

Humanistic: If human life is the greatest good, then your concept of pride appears to be at variance with this definition.

Virtue: Is this something that gives value to men (or women) or something that men (or women) value? 

Man a rational animal: Does this mean that a man who looses the ability to rationalize (mental illness) is no longer a man?

God bless!
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on November 30, 2013, 09:09:38 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on November 30, 2013, 08:35:50 PM

Quote from: tradical on November 30, 2013, 06:32:04 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on November 30, 2013, 11:04:05 AM

Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on November 30, 2013, 06:41:10 AM
Flyboy you just replaced God....with yourself. Please define metaphysical...seems to me this is. Nonexistan in atheistic terms. And if youll notice I said ATHEISM not atheists..have no answer. This goes to my point that there is no such thing as a true atheists....only cafeteria atheists who pick and choose when to deny a creator.

Metaphysics is the first philosophical branch of knowledge.  It deals with being qua being.  This is the starting point for any philosopher.  Ayn Rand begins her philosophy with two axioms; existence exists and A is A.

Hi Crimson,

Your first post piqued my interest.

QuoteLouis IX and Gerard, we can pick up where we left off here.

I'll start by stating that humility is bad and I prefer pride.  Humility is anti-humanistic, while pride is a wonderful virtue that celebrates man qua man.

Please provide your definition of:


  • Humility
  • Bad
  • Pride
  • humanistic
  • virtue
  • man

God Bless!!!

Humility is to put others or other things ahead of one's own life in terms of value.  It is to have a miserable inferiority complex.
Something is bad in so far as it harms man in his quest for happiness.  Good and bad only have meaning in the context of human life.
Pride is to take joy in one's own accomplishments.
Humanistic is that which promotes human life as being the highest good.
A virtue is something which gives value to men as individuals.
Man is a rational animal.
Man is the highest good so by definition you hold Man as god....because you hold that there is a "good" (your own words dont try to squirm away you of wormy reasoning)
Flyboys flow chart of reasoning
(https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi177.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fw206%2Fvoxxpopulisux%2Fanimated-gifs-follow-the-ball_zps336e263e.gif&hash=403293b9999ce3d4ca7aeff3eda4ba3d494befdf)
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on November 30, 2013, 09:15:23 PM

Quote from: tradical on November 30, 2013, 09:03:03 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on November 30, 2013, 08:35:50 PM

Quote from: tradical on November 30, 2013, 06:32:04 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on November 30, 2013, 11:04:05 AM

Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on November 30, 2013, 06:41:10 AM
Flyboy you just replaced God....with yourself. Please define metaphysical...seems to me this is. Nonexistan in atheistic terms. And if youll notice I said ATHEISM not atheists..have no answer. This goes to my point that there is no such thing as a true atheists....only cafeteria atheists who pick and choose when to deny a creator.

Metaphysics is the first philosophical branch of knowledge.  It deals with being qua being.  This is the starting point for any philosopher.  Ayn Rand begins her philosophy with two axioms; existence exists and A is A.

Hi Crimson,

Your first post piqued my interest.

QuoteLouis IX and Gerard, we can pick up where we left off here.

I'll start by stating that humility is bad and I prefer pride.  Humility is anti-humanistic, while pride is a wonderful virtue that celebrates man qua man.

Please provide your definition of:


  • Humility
  • Bad
  • Pride
  • humanistic
  • virtue
  • man

God Bless!!!

Humility is to put others or other things ahead of one's own life in terms of value.  It is to have a miserable inferiority complex.
Something is bad in so far as it harms man in his quest for happiness.  Good and bad only have meaning in the context of human life.
Pride is to take joy in one's own accomplishments.
Humanistic is that which promotes human life as being the highest good.
A virtue is something which gives value to men as individuals.
Man is a rational animal.

Humility: I disagree with your definition.  Humility, in Catholicism is truth about one's own worth, in terms of intrinsic value as well as ability.

Bad: I will set aside your definition for the moment because you have introduced a new term. What is happiness?

Pride: So the joy a serial killer feels in accomplishing each murder meets your definition.  Am I understanding you correctly?

Also: What is joy?

Humanistic: If human life is the greatest good, then your concept of pride appears to be at variance with this definition.

Virtue: Is this something that gives value to men (or women) or something that men (or women) value? 

Man a rational animal: Does this mean that a man who looses the ability to rationalize (mental illness) is no longer a man?

God bless!

Happiness is the good feeling one gets from the enjoyment of life.  Murder is not accomplishing anything rational.  Pride is the joy, or happiness, one gets from achieving one's goals, assuming these are rational goals which are for the betterment of his life and that of others.

Human life is the highest good, and anything which goes against that is anti-humanistic.  Pride is the joy one has in making his life and the life of others better.

A virtue is a value which is worth men (or women) pursuing.  Some examples are: pride, selfishness (or self interest), productiveness, and reason.  These virtues also add value to the life of man.

Yes, as a dead man is also no longer a man.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on November 30, 2013, 09:17:06 PM

Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on November 30, 2013, 09:09:38 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on November 30, 2013, 08:35:50 PM

Quote from: tradical on November 30, 2013, 06:32:04 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on November 30, 2013, 11:04:05 AM

Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on November 30, 2013, 06:41:10 AM
Flyboy you just replaced God....with yourself. Please define metaphysical...seems to me this is. Nonexistan in atheistic terms. And if youll notice I said ATHEISM not atheists..have no answer. This goes to my point that there is no such thing as a true atheists....only cafeteria atheists who pick and choose when to deny a creator.

Metaphysics is the first philosophical branch of knowledge.  It deals with being qua being.  This is the starting point for any philosopher.  Ayn Rand begins her philosophy with two axioms; existence exists and A is A.

Hi Crimson,

Your first post piqued my interest.

QuoteLouis IX and Gerard, we can pick up where we left off here.

I'll start by stating that humility is bad and I prefer pride.  Humility is anti-humanistic, while pride is a wonderful virtue that celebrates man qua man.

Please provide your definition of:


  • Humility
  • Bad
  • Pride
  • humanistic
  • virtue
  • man

God Bless!!!

Humility is to put others or other things ahead of one's own life in terms of value.  It is to have a miserable inferiority complex.
Something is bad in so far as it harms man in his quest for happiness.  Good and bad only have meaning in the context of human life.
Pride is to take joy in one's own accomplishments.
Humanistic is that which promotes human life as being the highest good.
A virtue is something which gives value to men as individuals.
Man is a rational animal.
Man is the highest good so by definition you hold Man as god....because you hold that there is a "good" (your own words dont try to squirm away you of wormy reasoning)
Flyboys flow chart of reasoning
(https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi177.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fw206%2Fvoxxpopulisux%2Fanimated-gifs-follow-the-ball_zps336e263e.gif&hash=403293b9999ce3d4ca7aeff3eda4ba3d494befdf)

Of course there is a good, anything which promotes man's life as a man.  Food and water are two examples.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on November 30, 2013, 09:24:09 PM
Once again round and round you go...you have crowned yourself almighty arbiter of good and bad. Of course you think humility bad...what god is any kind of god if hes humble.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on November 30, 2013, 10:12:14 PM
Good and bad are quite simple.  Food and water are good because they further life.  Cancer is bad because it ends life.  Human life is the highest good, and anything which furthers human life is good.  There is no need to complicate matters.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: tradical on November 30, 2013, 10:20:02 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on November 30, 2013, 09:15:23 PM

Quote from: tradical on November 30, 2013, 09:03:03 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on November 30, 2013, 08:35:50 PM

Quote from: tradical on November 30, 2013, 06:32:04 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on November 30, 2013, 11:04:05 AM

Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on November 30, 2013, 06:41:10 AM
Flyboy you just replaced God....with yourself. Please define metaphysical...seems to me this is. Nonexistan in atheistic terms. And if youll notice I said ATHEISM not atheists..have no answer. This goes to my point that there is no such thing as a true atheists....only cafeteria atheists who pick and choose when to deny a creator.

Metaphysics is the first philosophical branch of knowledge.  It deals with being qua being.  This is the starting point for any philosopher.  Ayn Rand begins her philosophy with two axioms; existence exists and A is A.

Hi Crimson,

Your first post piqued my interest.

QuoteLouis IX and Gerard, we can pick up where we left off here.

I'll start by stating that humility is bad and I prefer pride.  Humility is anti-humanistic, while pride is a wonderful virtue that celebrates man qua man.

Please provide your definition of:


  • Humility
  • Bad
  • Pride
  • humanistic
  • virtue
  • man

God Bless!!!

Humility is to put others or other things ahead of one's own life in terms of value.  It is to have a miserable inferiority complex.
Something is bad in so far as it harms man in his quest for happiness.  Good and bad only have meaning in the context of human life.
Pride is to take joy in one's own accomplishments.
Humanistic is that which promotes human life as being the highest good.
A virtue is something which gives value to men as individuals.
Man is a rational animal.

Humility: I disagree with your definition.  Humility, in Catholicism is truth about one's own worth, in terms of intrinsic value as well as ability.

Bad: I will set aside your definition for the moment because you have introduced a new term. What is happiness?

Pride: So the joy a serial killer feels in accomplishing each murder meets your definition.  Am I understanding you correctly?

Also: What is joy?

Humanistic: If human life is the greatest good, then your concept of pride appears to be at variance with this definition.

Virtue: Is this something that gives value to men (or women) or something that men (or women) value? 

Man a rational animal: Does this mean that a man who looses the ability to rationalize (mental illness) is no longer a man?

God bless!

Happiness is the good feeling one gets from the enjoyment of life.  Murder is not accomplishing anything rational.  Pride is the joy, or happiness, one gets from achieving one's goals, assuming these are rational goals which are for the betterment of his life and that of others.

Human life is the highest good, and anything which goes against that is anti-humanistic.  Pride is the joy one has in making his life and the life of others better.

A virtue is a value which is worth men (or women) pursuing.  Some examples are: pride, selfishness (or self interest), productiveness, and reason.  These virtues also add value to the life of man.

Yes, as a dead man is also no longer a man.

You stated that pride was taking joy in one's accomplishments. Your original definition did not include rationality. 

Who is the judge of what constitutes a rational action?

Regarding "as a dead man is no longer a man", so following your reasoning the murder/killing/euthanization  of severely mentally handicapped, comatose, clinically insane, newborn as well as unborn babies is therefore licit. So if a serial killer preyed upon these population groups you would not consider it an irrational act nor a bad or anti-humanistic act as these 'people' are not human following your definition.

Are you certain that you have considered these consequences of your thought?

God bless!


Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Recovering NOer on November 30, 2013, 10:21:37 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on November 30, 2013, 02:56:48 PM
Bla bla bla ha ha ha ha!.You hold the truth like a cat holds a cattoy

So why do you keep taking the bait?  The rest of us learned to just ignore this guy a long time ago.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on November 30, 2013, 10:25:51 PM
Quote from: Recovering NOer on November 30, 2013, 10:21:37 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on November 30, 2013, 02:56:48 PM
Bla bla bla ha ha ha ha!.You hold the truth like a cat holds a cattoy

So why do you keep taking the bait?  The rest of us learned to just ignore this guy a long time ago.
Ive been on hiatus and Im catching up.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: tradical on November 30, 2013, 10:33:57 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on November 30, 2013, 10:12:14 PM
Good and bad are quite simple.  Food and water are good because they further life.  Cancer is bad because it ends life.  Human life is the highest good, and anything which furthers human life is good.  There is no need to complicate matters.

Interesting ...
So if humility (as I defined it - your definition has a number of flaws)were demonstrated as furthering human life, following this definition, then you would be proved wrong.


For reference here is a more detailed explanation of how Catholics understand the virtue of humility.

QuoteThe virtue of humility may be defined: "A quality by which a person considering his own defects has a lowly opinion of himself and willingly submits himself to God and to others for God's sake." St. Bernard defines it: "A virtue by which a man knowing himself as he truly is, abases himself." These definitions coincide with that given by St. Thomas: "The virtue of humility", he says, "Consists in keeping oneself within one's own bounds, not reaching out to things above one, but submitting to one's superior" (Summa Contra Gent., bk. IV, ch. lv, tr. Rickaby). Newadvent

So if a person, subjectively thinking of 'his' accomplishments (pride) believes himself capable beyond his actual capability and attempts what he should not (countermanding his boss for example) and suffers the adverse co sequences - then pride is bad.

If a person practicing humility as above were to decide to not countermand his boss, knowing it to be beyond his ability, he would suffer no I'll effects, therefore true humility is good.

God bless!
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on November 30, 2013, 10:44:03 PM
QuoteAyn Rand begins her philosophy with two axioms; existence exists and A is A.
To be more precise, she stole it from Aristotle, who shows that to hold such axioms depends on a first cause.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on November 30, 2013, 10:46:44 PM
QuoteMurder is not accomplishing anything rational.
So if a gang member murders members in another gang, and therefore is able to double his drug sales, and his income, he is behaving irrationally?  Suppose that doubling his income increases his happiness, and therefore is good for him?  How can you say that in this case murder is irrational?

Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on November 30, 2013, 10:52:32 PM

Quote from: james03 on November 30, 2013, 10:44:03 PM
QuoteAyn Rand begins her philosophy with two axioms; existence exists and A is A.
To be more precise, she stole it from Aristotle, who shows that to hold such axioms depends on a first cause.

A is A is the law of identity, yes she took it from Aristotle.  But she no more stole the idea than did Aquinas.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on November 30, 2013, 10:59:41 PM
But she denied the conclusions from it.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on November 30, 2013, 11:12:40 PM

Quote from: james03 on November 30, 2013, 10:59:41 PM
But she denied the conclusions from it.

Which conclusions?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on November 30, 2013, 11:31:50 PM
Answer my question first about the murderer.  Failing to address my points means I don't feel like wasting anymore time.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on December 01, 2013, 01:46:01 PM
The gang member is acting irrationally by selling illegal drugs and by being involved in a gang.  Both bring unnecessary risks to his life and his freedom.  His actions also harm the lives of the members of his community, a community which he gains benefits from.  By undermining his community he undermines a support system which he badly needs.  To think that the actions of a deadly gang can have any benefit for an individual is to have a short sided and deeply dark view of humanity.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on December 01, 2013, 01:50:43 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on December 01, 2013, 01:46:01 PM
The gang member is acting irrationally by selling illegal drugs and by being involved in a gang.  Both bring unnecessary risks to his life and his freedom.  His actions also harm the lives of the members of his community, a community which he gains benefits from.  By undermining his community he undermines a support system which he badly needs.  To think that the actions of a deadly gang can have any benefit for an individual is to have a short sided and deeply dark view of humanity.
Why is a human superior to an ape or dog? Or dolphin (porpoise)
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on December 01, 2013, 02:06:38 PM

Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on December 01, 2013, 01:50:43 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on December 01, 2013, 01:46:01 PM
The gang member is acting irrationally by selling illegal drugs and by being involved in a gang.  Both bring unnecessary risks to his life and his freedom.  His actions also harm the lives of the members of his community, a community which he gains benefits from.  By undermining his community he undermines a support system which he badly needs.  To think that the actions of a deadly gang can have any benefit for an individual is to have a short sided and deeply dark view of humanity.
Why is a human superior to an ape or dog? Or dolphin (porpoise)

Because humans have reason.  Humans have hopes and dreams.  Humans look for meaning in a world which has no objective meaning.  Animals have none of these things.

I suppose you will say the difference is that humans have an immortal soul while animals have a mortal soul.  But, how do we know this?  Are we to say that a man has an immortal soul because he displays reason, while an animal doesn't because it displays no reason?  Why not eliminate a step and say that the difference between the two is reason?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: tradical on December 01, 2013, 02:21:14 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on December 01, 2013, 02:06:38 PM

Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on December 01, 2013, 01:50:43 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on December 01, 2013, 01:46:01 PM
The gang member is acting irrationally by selling illegal drugs and by being involved in a gang.  Both bring unnecessary risks to his life and his freedom.  His actions also harm the lives of the members of his community, a community which he gains benefits from.  By undermining his community he undermines a support system which he badly needs.  To think that the actions of a deadly gang can have any benefit for an individual is to have a short sided and deeply dark view of humanity.
Why is a human superior to an ape or dog? Or dolphin (porpoise)

Because humans have reason.  Humans have hopes and dreams.  Humans look for meaning in a world which has no objective meaning.  Animals have none of these things.

I suppose you will say the difference is that humans have an immortal soul while animals have a mortal soul.  But, how do we know this?  Are we to say that a man has an immortal soul because he displays reason, while an animal doesn't because it displays no reason?  Why not eliminate a step and say that the difference between the two is reason?

While similar these questions are not exactly the same as mine ... http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=3927.msg88607#msg88607

QuoteYou stated that pride was taking joy in one's accomplishments. Your original definition did not include rationality. 

Who is the judge of what constitutes a rational action?

Regarding "as a dead man is no longer a man", so following your reasoning the murder/killing/euthanization  of severely mentally handicapped, comatose, clinically insane, newborn as well as unborn babies is therefore licit. So if a serial killer preyed upon these population groups you would not consider it an irrational act nor a bad or anti-humanistic act as these 'people' are not human following your definition.

Are you certain that you have considered these consequences of your thought?

God bless!

Looking forward to your thoughts on this ...
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on December 01, 2013, 03:26:31 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on December 01, 2013, 02:06:38 PM

Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on December 01, 2013, 01:50:43 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on December 01, 2013, 01:46:01 PM
The gang member is acting irrationally by selling illegal drugs and by being involved in a gang.  Both bring unnecessary risks to his life and his freedom.  His actions also harm the lives of the members of his community, a community which he gains benefits from.  By undermining his community he undermines a support system which he badly needs.  To think that the actions of a deadly gang can have any benefit for an individual is to have a short sided and deeply dark view of humanity.
Why is a human superior to an ape or dog? Or dolphin (porpoise)

Because humans have reason.  Humans have hopes and dreams.  Humans look for meaning in a world which has no objective meaning.  Animals have none of these things.

I suppose you will say the difference is that humans have an immortal soul while animals have a mortal soul.  But, how do we know this?  Are we to say that a man has an immortal soul because he displays reason, while an animal doesn't because it displays no reason?  Why not eliminate a step and say that the difference between the two is reason?
Reason is what exactly? Hope..what is that? Meaning? to where does meaning come in a purely physical material universe with no supernatural intellegence?
Further how do you know a dolphin has no reason? How do you know they dont hope...dogs apparently dream? Face it flyboy there is a supernatural intellect that you are a reflection of as are all humans.....it is only your base willfullness and evil desire to be god that blocks the grace of truth into your mind and heart. On a personal level you must have harbored a resentment of your father because that is the root of most who take "issue with God"
Title: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on December 01, 2013, 04:26:40 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on December 01, 2013, 03:26:31 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on December 01, 2013, 02:06:38 PM

Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on December 01, 2013, 01:50:43 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on December 01, 2013, 01:46:01 PM
The gang member is acting irrationally by selling illegal drugs and by being involved in a gang.  Both bring unnecessary risks to his life and his freedom.  His actions also harm the lives of the members of his community, a community which he gains benefits from.  By undermining his community he undermines a support system which he badly needs.  To think that the actions of a deadly gang can have any benefit for an individual is to have a short sided and deeply dark view of humanity.
Why is a human superior to an ape or dog? Or dolphin (porpoise)

Because humans have reason.  Humans have hopes and dreams.  Humans look for meaning in a world which has no objective meaning.  Animals have none of these things.

I suppose you will say the difference is that humans have an immortal soul while animals have a mortal soul.  But, how do we know this?  Are we to say that a man has an immortal soul because he displays reason, while an animal doesn't because it displays no reason?  Why not eliminate a step and say that the difference between the two is reason?
Reason is what exactly? Hope..what is that? Meaning? to where does meaning come in a purely physical material universe with no supernatural intellegence?
Further how do you know a dolphin has no reason? How do you know they dont hope...dogs apparently dream? Face it flyboy there is a supernatural intellect that you are a reflection of as are all humans.....it is only your base willfullness and evil desire to be god that blocks the grace of truth into your mind and heart. On a personal level you must have harbored a resentment of your father because that is the root of most who take "issue with God"

Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses.  And you didn't answer my questions.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on December 01, 2013, 04:37:20 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on December 01, 2013, 04:26:40 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on December 01, 2013, 03:26:31 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on December 01, 2013, 02:06:38 PM

Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on December 01, 2013, 01:50:43 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on December 01, 2013, 01:46:01 PM
The gang member is acting irrationally by selling illegal drugs and by being involved in a gang.  Both bring unnecessary risks to his life and his freedom.  His actions also harm the lives of the members of his community, a community which he gains benefits from.  By undermining his community he undermines a support system which he badly needs.  To think that the actions of a deadly gang can have any benefit for an individual is to have a short sided and deeply dark view of humanity.
Why is a human superior to an ape or dog? Or dolphin (porpoise)

Because humans have reason.  Humans have hopes and dreams.  Humans look for meaning in a world which has no objective meaning.  Animals have none of these things.

I suppose you will say the difference is that humans have an immortal soul while animals have a mortal soul.  But, how do we know this?  Are we to say that a man has an immortal soul because he displays reason, while an animal doesn't because it displays no reason?  Why not eliminate a step and say that the difference between the two is reason?
Reason is what exactly? Hope..what is that? Meaning? to where does meaning come in a purely physical material universe with no supernatural intellegence?
Further how do you know a dolphin has no reason? How do you know they dont hope...dogs apparently dream? Face it flyboy there is a supernatural intellect that you are a reflection of as are all humans.....it is only your base willfullness and evil desire to be god that blocks the grace of truth into your mind and heart. On a personal level you must have harbored a resentment of your father because that is the root of most who take "issue with God"

Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses.  And you didn't answer my questions.
Im sorry what questions are those? And you didnt answer mine either nor did I expect you could considering your worldview.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on December 01, 2013, 04:40:08 PM

Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on December 01, 2013, 04:37:20 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on December 01, 2013, 04:26:40 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on December 01, 2013, 03:26:31 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on December 01, 2013, 02:06:38 PM

Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on December 01, 2013, 01:50:43 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on December 01, 2013, 01:46:01 PM
The gang member is acting irrationally by selling illegal drugs and by being involved in a gang.  Both bring unnecessary risks to his life and his freedom.  His actions also harm the lives of the members of his community, a community which he gains benefits from.  By undermining his community he undermines a support system which he badly needs.  To think that the actions of a deadly gang can have any benefit for an individual is to have a short sided and deeply dark view of humanity.
Why is a human superior to an ape or dog? Or dolphin (porpoise)

Because humans have reason.  Humans have hopes and dreams.  Humans look for meaning in a world which has no objective meaning.  Animals have none of these things.

I suppose you will say the difference is that humans have an immortal soul while animals have a mortal soul.  But, how do we know this?  Are we to say that a man has an immortal soul because he displays reason, while an animal doesn't because it displays no reason?  Why not eliminate a step and say that the difference between the two is reason?
Reason is what exactly? Hope..what is that? Meaning? to where does meaning come in a purely physical material universe with no supernatural intellegence?
Further how do you know a dolphin has no reason? How do you know they dont hope...dogs apparently dream? Face it flyboy there is a supernatural intellect that you are a reflection of as are all humans.....it is only your base willfullness and evil desire to be god that blocks the grace of truth into your mind and heart. On a personal level you must have harbored a resentment of your father because that is the root of most who take "issue with God"

Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses.  And you didn't answer my questions.
Im sorry what questions are those? And you didnt answer mine either nor did I expect you could considering your worldview.

I suppose you will say the difference is that humans have an immortal soul while animals have a mortal soul.  But, how do we know this?  Are we to say that a man has an immortal soul because he displays reason, while an animal doesn't because it displays no reason?  Why not eliminate a step and say that the difference between the two is reason?

To which questions are you referring?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on December 01, 2013, 04:46:34 PM
my questions:
Reason is what exactly? Hope..what is that? Meaning? to where does meaning come in a purely physical material universe with no supernatural intellegence?
Further how do you know a dolphin has no reason? How do you know they dont hope...dogs apparently dream?

your question:
I suppose you will say the difference is that humans have an immortal soul while animals have a mortal soul.  But, how do we know this?  Are we to say that a man has an immortal soul because he displays reason, while an animal doesn't because it displays no reason?  Why not eliminate a step and say that the difference between the two is reason?
your answer:
yes thats well put an animal has lifeforce that is a kind of soul (whether its immortal is immaterial) and because man displays reason and a NEED for REASONS (seeking meaning) obviously his consciousness has something else going on..but this too is besides the point...my question is why that has more value than the animalistic consciousness?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on December 01, 2013, 05:07:32 PM

Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on December 01, 2013, 04:46:34 PM
my questions:
Reason is what exactly? Hope..what is that? Meaning? to where does meaning come in a purely physical material universe with no supernatural intellegence?
Further how do you know a dolphin has no reason? How do you know they dont hope...dogs apparently dream?

your question:
I suppose you will say the difference is that humans have an immortal soul while animals have a mortal soul.  But, how do we know this?  Are we to say that a man has an immortal soul because he displays reason, while an animal doesn't because it displays no reason?  Why not eliminate a step and say that the difference between the two is reason?
your answer:
yes thats well put an animal has lifeforce that is a kind of soul (whether its immortal is immaterial) and because man displays reason and a NEED for REASONS (seeking meaning) obviously his consciousness has something else going on..but this too is besides the point...my question is why that has more value than the animalistic consciousness?

I have you my definition of reason: Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses.  Hope is to look forward toward something with desire and reasonable confidence.  Meaning is what man makes of the world wound him, it is what he chooses to pursue.  Animals haven't reason as they live on pure instincts and are unable to create anything.  Dogs do dream, but they do not hope.  A dog has no way of making plans for the future.

Why do you think animals have no reason?  Why do you think humans have immortal souls, but animals do not?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on December 01, 2013, 05:12:59 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on December 01, 2013, 05:07:32 PM

Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on December 01, 2013, 04:46:34 PM
my questions:
Reason is what exactly? Hope..what is that? Meaning? to where does meaning come in a purely physical material universe with no supernatural intellegence?
Further how do you know a dolphin has no reason? How do you know they dont hope...dogs apparently dream?

your question:
I suppose you will say the difference is that humans have an immortal soul while animals have a mortal soul.  But, how do we know this?  Are we to say that a man has an immortal soul because he displays reason, while an animal doesn't because it displays no reason?  Why not eliminate a step and say that the difference between the two is reason?
your answer:
yes thats well put an animal has lifeforce that is a kind of soul (whether its immortal is immaterial) and because man displays reason and a NEED for REASONS (seeking meaning) obviously his consciousness has something else going on..but this too is besides the point...my question is why that has more value than the animalistic consciousness?

I have you my definition of reason: Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses.  Hope is to look forward toward something with desire and reasonable confidence.  Meaning is what man makes of the world wound him, it is what he chooses to pursue.  Animals haven't reason as they live on pure instincts and are unable to create anything.  Dogs do dream, but they do not hope.  A dog has no way of making plans for the future.

Why do you think animals have no reason?  Why do you think humans have immortal souls, but animals do not?
I never said animals do not have immortal souls...the immortality part is not the sailient part. The important issue is the value...you placed a higher value on human consciousness over animalistic consciousness. I wanted to know what give humans an intrinsic value not afforded animals. Yes humans can reason...but so can a crow.
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzEdi074SuQ[/yt]
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on December 01, 2013, 06:10:06 PM
QuoteThe gang member is acting irrationally by selling illegal drugs and by being involved in a gang.  Both bring unnecessary risks to his life and his freedom.  His actions also harm the lives of the members of his community, a community which he gains benefits from.  By undermining his community he undermines a support system which he badly needs.  To think that the actions of a deadly gang can have any benefit for an individual is to have a short sided and deeply dark view of humanity.

But isn't your definition of good and rational doing what is in your own interest?  Who is to judge this?  In your system, the individual is supposed to judge this.  I take a risk driving in extreme winter conditions as part of my job.  I do it because it makes me money.  By your definition I am irrational.  The drug dealer has a choice, continue in abject poverty living off of beans and living in a tin shack, or taking some risk, and being a millionaire.

It is funny as a libertarian you switch over and start talking about the community.  Before becoming a drug lord, the "community" provided him no job, and a tin shack and a daily bowl of beans.  It is in his self interest to be a drug lord.  That is settled.  Next, to keep his position, he must murder.  By your definition, murder is a good thing for this individual.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on December 01, 2013, 06:11:41 PM
Quote from: james03 on December 01, 2013, 06:10:06 PM
QuoteThe gang member is acting irrationally by selling illegal drugs and by being involved in a gang.  Both bring unnecessary risks to his life and his freedom.  His actions also harm the lives of the members of his community, a community which he gains benefits from.  By undermining his community he undermines a support system which he badly needs.  To think that the actions of a deadly gang can have any benefit for an individual is to have a short sided and deeply dark view of humanity.

But isn't your definition of good and rational doing what is in your own interest?  Who is to judge this?  In your system, the individual is supposed to judge this.  I take a risk driving in extreme winter conditions as part of my job.  I do it because it makes me money.  By your definition I am irrational.  The drug dealer has a choice, continue in abject poverty living off of beans and living in a tin shack, or taking some risk, and being a millionaire.

It is funny as a libertarian you switch over and start talking about the community.  Before becoming a drug lord, the "community" provided him no job, and a tin shack and a daily bowl of beans.  It is in his self interest to be a drug lord.  That is settled.  Next, to keep his position, he must murder.  By your definition, murder is a good thing for this individual.
This is exactly correct.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on December 01, 2013, 08:15:02 PM

Quote from: james03 on December 01, 2013, 06:10:06 PM
QuoteThe gang member is acting irrationally by selling illegal drugs and by being involved in a gang.  Both bring unnecessary risks to his life and his freedom.  His actions also harm the lives of the members of his community, a community which he gains benefits from.  By undermining his community he undermines a support system which he badly needs.  To think that the actions of a deadly gang can have any benefit for an individual is to have a short sided and deeply dark view of humanity.

But isn't your definition of good and rational doing what is in your own interest?  Who is to judge this?  In your system, the individual is supposed to judge this.  I take a risk driving in extreme winter conditions as part of my job.  I do it because it makes me money.  By your definition I am irrational.  The drug dealer has a choice, continue in abject poverty living off of beans and living in a tin shack, or taking some risk, and being a millionaire.

It is funny as a libertarian you switch over and start talking about the community.  Before becoming a drug lord, the "community" provided him no job, and a tin shack and a daily bowl of beans.  It is in his self interest to be a drug lord.  That is settled.  Next, to keep his position, he must murder.  By your definition, murder is a good thing for this individual.

Libertarians are not against community.  They just desire that each individual in the community be treated as a free individual, and not to be dissolved into the collective.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on December 01, 2013, 08:24:03 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on December 01, 2013, 08:15:02 PM

Quote from: james03 on December 01, 2013, 06:10:06 PM
QuoteThe gang member is acting irrationally by selling illegal drugs and by being involved in a gang.  Both bring unnecessary risks to his life and his freedom.  His actions also harm the lives of the members of his community, a community which he gains benefits from.  By undermining his community he undermines a support system which he badly needs.  To think that the actions of a deadly gang can have any benefit for an individual is to have a short sided and deeply dark view of humanity.

But isn't your definition of good and rational doing what is in your own interest?  Who is to judge this?  In your system, the individual is supposed to judge this.  I take a risk driving in extreme winter conditions as part of my job.  I do it because it makes me money.  By your definition I am irrational.  The drug dealer has a choice, continue in abject poverty living off of beans and living in a tin shack, or taking some risk, and being a millionaire.

It is funny as a libertarian you switch over and start talking about the community.  Before becoming a drug lord, the "community" provided him no job, and a tin shack and a daily bowl of beans.  It is in his self interest to be a drug lord.  That is settled.  Next, to keep his position, he must murder.  By your definition, murder is a good thing for this individual.

Libertarians are not against community.  They just desire that each individual in the community be treated as a free individual, and not to be dissolved into the collective.
So how do you square that with your assertion that anarchy is the solution? You do remeber asserting that right?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on December 01, 2013, 08:29:43 PM

Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on December 01, 2013, 08:24:03 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on December 01, 2013, 08:15:02 PM

Quote from: james03 on December 01, 2013, 06:10:06 PM
QuoteThe gang member is acting irrationally by selling illegal drugs and by being involved in a gang.  Both bring unnecessary risks to his life and his freedom.  His actions also harm the lives of the members of his community, a community which he gains benefits from.  By undermining his community he undermines a support system which he badly needs.  To think that the actions of a deadly gang can have any benefit for an individual is to have a short sided and deeply dark view of humanity.

But isn't your definition of good and rational doing what is in your own interest?  Who is to judge this?  In your system, the individual is supposed to judge this.  I take a risk driving in extreme winter conditions as part of my job.  I do it because it makes me money.  By your definition I am irrational.  The drug dealer has a choice, continue in abject poverty living off of beans and living in a tin shack, or taking some risk, and being a millionaire.

It is funny as a libertarian you switch over and start talking about the community.  Before becoming a drug lord, the "community" provided him no job, and a tin shack and a daily bowl of beans.  It is in his self interest to be a drug lord.  That is settled.  Next, to keep his position, he must murder.  By your definition, murder is a good thing for this individual.

Libertarians are not against community.  They just desire that each individual in the community be treated as a free individual, and not to be dissolved into the collective.
So how do you square that with your assertion that anarchy is the solution? You do remeber asserting that right?

Anarchy is the ultimate freedom, but I doubt it would actually be possible in today's world.  Since it is not yet possible, the solution should be as little government as possible.  In today's political climate minimalism is probably the best we could hope for, and even that is not something I expect anytime soon.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on December 01, 2013, 08:31:46 PM
I am involved with the local libertarian party here in Alabama and anarchists are fairly common within the party.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: AnneTce on December 23, 2013, 08:53:06 PM
Quote

start by stating that humility is bad
and I prefer pride. 


Good or Bad depends upon what standard you are comparing it to.

I thought Humility of aligning your will with the will of God.

Pride, a capital sin.

Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on December 23, 2013, 08:58:29 PM
Do you concede that humans need some form of external governance?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on December 23, 2013, 10:39:39 PM

Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on December 23, 2013, 08:58:29 PM
Do you concede that humans need some form of external governance?

In today's world some level of government is needed to protect individual rights.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on December 23, 2013, 11:11:39 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on December 23, 2013, 10:39:39 PM

Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on December 23, 2013, 08:58:29 PM
Do you concede that humans need some form of external governance?

In today's world some level of government is needed to protect individual rights.
why are people unable to handle power?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on December 24, 2013, 12:13:36 AM

Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on December 23, 2013, 11:11:39 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on December 23, 2013, 10:39:39 PM

Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on December 23, 2013, 08:58:29 PM
Do you concede that humans need some form of external governance?

In today's world some level of government is needed to protect individual rights.
why are people unable to handle power?

There are those who would violate the rights of individuals, therefore police are necessary.  External threats must be handles, therefore military is needed.  Criminals must be tried in court, therefore courts are needed.  There you have a minarchist government.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on December 24, 2013, 10:33:30 AM
you didnt answer the question.
Were do despot kings and presidents come from?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: GloriaPatri on December 24, 2013, 10:47:21 AM
To answer the OP (I have no interest in the current discussion on this thread): It depends what you mean by humility. Abject debasement of the self is not humility. Recognizing that you're not the be-all-end-all of existence is. Thus I would say humility is good. It gives one the opportunity to learn from others, rather than simply thinking that others are beneath them. And there is a healthy sense of pride, like pride in one's work or in one's family, heritage, etc. But like all things it must be in moderation.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 16, 2014, 04:54:26 PM

Quote from: GloriaPatri on December 24, 2013, 10:47:21 AM
To answer the OP (I have no interest in the current discussion on this thread): It depends what you mean by humility. Abject debasement of the self is not humility. Recognizing that you're not the be-all-end-all of existence is. Thus I would say humility is good. It gives one the opportunity to learn from others, rather than simply thinking that others are beneath them. And there is a healthy sense of pride, like pride in one's work or in one's family, heritage, etc. But like all things it must be in moderation.

I understand what you are saying, and you make good points.  I think the terms self interest and self sacrifice work better.  Do you think a man should sacrifice his own interests for the sake of others or God?  If so, why?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: RobertJS on April 16, 2014, 05:27:02 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 16, 2014, 04:54:26 PM

Quote from: GloriaPatri on December 24, 2013, 10:47:21 AM
To answer the OP (I have no interest in the current discussion on this thread): It depends what you mean by humility. Abject debasement of the self is not humility. Recognizing that you're not the be-all-end-all of existence is. Thus I would say humility is good. It gives one the opportunity to learn from others, rather than simply thinking that others are beneath them. And there is a healthy sense of pride, like pride in one's work or in one's family, heritage, etc. But like all things it must be in moderation.

I understand what you are saying, and you make good points.  I think the terms self interest and self sacrifice work better.  Do you think a man should sacrifice his own interests for the sake of others or God?  If so, why?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Humility is truth, logic & reason, and going with it....no matter where it leads.

You don't do that, Crimson.

Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 16, 2014, 08:07:50 PM
I love truth and will follow truth wherever it leads.  That is being rational, not self-sacrificing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: JuniorCouncilor on April 16, 2014, 09:17:07 PM
Is this really a thread on a trad Catholic board?  What is going on?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 16, 2014, 10:21:07 PM

Quote from: JuniorCouncilor on April 16, 2014, 09:17:07 PM
Is this really a thread on a trad Catholic board?  What is going on?

I was in the traditional movement for a while, but no longer have the faith.  I have been talking with folks on here trying to clarify some things.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on April 17, 2014, 07:27:35 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 16, 2014, 08:07:50 PM
I love truth and will follow truth wherever it leads.  That is being rational, not self-sacrificing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
if you love truth you would still be catholic
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: lauermar on April 17, 2014, 07:32:20 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 12, 2013, 08:23:04 PM
Louis IX and Gerard, we can pick up where we left off here.

I'll start by stating that humility is bad and I prefer pride.  Humility is anti-humanistic, while pride is a wonderful virtue that celebrates man qua man.

I hope you don't mean this. Seriously. If this is a joke, it isn't funny. Pride is one of the 7 deadly sins. This is what caused Lucifer's fall like lightning from the sky. Whoever dies while in this state will suffer eternal fire. Humility is the antidote to pride. I hope you see a priest about this.

So since you love the truth and follow where it leads, let's put that to the test. Read the link below.

http://www.catholicbible101.com/7deadlysins.htm

Anarchy is *not* true freedom nor liberty, it is slavery. Pope Emeritus Benedict rejects the voluntaristic understanding of freedom current in the West, i.e., that freedom means an absence of external constraints on behavior. Instead, he accepts a classic theleological view, according to which freedom means the free choice to become the kind of person God intends. From this point of view, it is not an exercise in "liberty" to choose a mode of life that is inconsistent with natural law, but "anarchy."
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: lauermar on April 17, 2014, 07:35:12 AM
Quote from: JuniorCouncilor on April 16, 2014, 09:17:07 PM
Is this really a thread on a trad Catholic board?  What is going on?

My thoughts exactly. Holy Thursday has begun. Hello.

:ghost1:
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 17, 2014, 08:14:28 AM

Quote from: lauermar on April 17, 2014, 07:32:20 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 12, 2013, 08:23:04 PM
Louis IX and Gerard, we can pick up where we left off here.

I'll start by stating that humility is bad and I prefer pride.  Humility is anti-humanistic, while pride is a wonderful virtue that celebrates man qua man.

I hope you don't mean this. Seriously. If this is a joke, it isn't funny. Pride is one of the 7 deadly sins. This is what caused Lucifer's fall like lightning from the sky. Whoever dies while in this state will suffer eternal fire. Humility is the antidote to pride. I hope you see a priest about this.

So since you love the truth and follow where it leads, let's put that to the test. Read the link below.

http://www.catholicbible101.com/7deadlysins.htm

Anarchy is *not* true freedom nor liberty, it is slavery. Pope Emeritus Benedict rejects the voluntaristic understanding of freedom current in the West, i.e., that freedom means an absence of external constraints on behavior. Instead, he accepts a classic theleological view, according to which freedom means the free choice to become the kind of person God intends. From this point of view, it is not an exercise in "liberty" to choose a mode of life that is inconsistent with natural law, but "anarchy."

I've come to realize that we are not using the same definitions.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 17, 2014, 08:16:02 AM

Quote from: lauermar on April 17, 2014, 07:35:12 AM
Quote from: JuniorCouncilor on April 16, 2014, 09:17:07 PM
Is this really a thread on a trad Catholic board?  What is going on?

My thoughts exactly. Holy Thursday has begun. Hello.

:ghost1:

I shall be at the Easter mass with my family.  I couldn't imagine not being there, it is very enjoyable.  I love Easter time.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Larry on April 17, 2014, 08:17:36 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 17, 2014, 08:16:02 AM

Quote from: lauermar on April 17, 2014, 07:35:12 AM
Quote from: JuniorCouncilor on April 16, 2014, 09:17:07 PM
Is this really a thread on a trad Catholic board?  What is going on?

My thoughts exactly. Holy Thursday has begun. Hello.

:ghost1:

I shall be at the Easter mass with my family.  I couldn't imagine not being there, it is very enjoyable.  I love Easter time.

CF, what do you think of the Shroud of Turin? This is a good time of year to meditate on it.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: lauermar on April 17, 2014, 08:36:38 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 17, 2014, 08:14:28 AM

Quote from: lauermar on April 17, 2014, 07:32:20 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 12, 2013, 08:23:04 PM
Louis IX and Gerard, we can pick up where we left off here.

I'll start by stating that humility is bad and I prefer pride.  Humility is anti-humanistic, while pride is a wonderful virtue that celebrates man qua man.

I hope you don't mean this. Seriously. If this is a joke, it isn't funny. Pride is one of the 7 deadly sins. This is what caused Lucifer's fall like lightning from the sky. Whoever dies while in this state will suffer eternal fire. Humility is the antidote to pride. I hope you see a priest about this.

So since you love the truth and follow where it leads, let's put that to the test. Read the link below.

http://www.catholicbible101.com/7deadlysins.htm

Anarchy is *not* true freedom nor liberty, it is slavery. Pope Emeritus Benedict rejects the voluntaristic understanding of freedom current in the West, i.e., that freedom means an absence of external constraints on behavior. Instead, he accepts a classic theleological view, according to which freedom means the free choice to become the kind of person God intends. From this point of view, it is not an exercise in "liberty" to choose a mode of life that is inconsistent with natural law, but "anarchy."

I've come to realize that we are not using the same definitions.

That is correct. You are using your own definition of pride and not the Catholic church's. Nor are you following Benedict's ideas about anarchy. Apparently you are wiser than the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.  I hope you plan to go to confession soon about this pride problem. It would be better if you don't present yourself for communion on Sunday. Delay until you have spoken to a priest. Seriously.

I have been to the real shroud of Turin in Italy. They rarely take it out for viewing after so many decades have passed. I visited only a month after His Holiness was there.

I believe my restoration to the Catholic faith began there.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 17, 2014, 08:39:19 AM
Well, I have an intense curiosity and I cannot accept what others tell me.  I have a real need to know for myself.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 17, 2014, 08:41:25 AM

Quote from: Larry on April 17, 2014, 08:17:36 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 17, 2014, 08:16:02 AM

Quote from: lauermar on April 17, 2014, 07:35:12 AM
Quote from: JuniorCouncilor on April 16, 2014, 09:17:07 PM
Is this really a thread on a trad Catholic board?  What is going on?

My thoughts exactly. Holy Thursday has begun. Hello.

:ghost1:

I shall be at the Easter mass with my family.  I couldn't imagine not being there, it is very enjoyable.  I love Easter time.

CF, what do you think of the Shroud of Turin? This is a good time of year to meditate on it.

The scientific tests have been inconclusive.  If it is real, it would just be a natural item with sentimental value attached to it.  It doesn't take on special qualities if Jesus used it.  It would still be very cool if it turns out to be true.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: lauermar on April 17, 2014, 08:41:43 AM
You're not curious about what the church says about anything. The only thing you pay heed to is atheists, humanists, and agnostics.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Miriam_M on April 17, 2014, 08:46:01 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 17, 2014, 08:39:19 AM
Well, I have an intense curiosity and I cannot accept what others tell me.  I have a real need to know for myself.

Then why believe Jesus is risen?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: lauermar on April 17, 2014, 08:49:40 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 17, 2014, 08:41:25 AM

Quote from: Larry on April 17, 2014, 08:17:36 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 17, 2014, 08:16:02 AM

Quote from: lauermar on April 17, 2014, 07:35:12 AM
Quote from: JuniorCouncilor on April 16, 2014, 09:17:07 PM
Is this really a thread on a trad Catholic board?  What is going on?

My thoughts exactly. Holy Thursday has begun. Hello.

:ghost1:

I shall be at the Easter mass with my family.  I couldn't imagine not being there, it is very enjoyable.  I love Easter time.

CF, what do you think of the Shroud of Turin? This is a good time of year to meditate on it.

The scientific tests have been inconclusive.  If it is real, it would just be a natural item with sentimental value attached to it.  It doesn't take on special qualities if Jesus used it.  It would still be very cool if it turns out to be true.


THAT IS PATENTLY FALSE.  I went to Turin. I saw the actual cloth in church. Took me 3 hours standing in line to see it. Before that, I sat through an hour long video of scientific presentation on it. I also went to a professional exhibit hall looked at the scientific findings of 100+ scientists who have been studying the shroud up to the present day, using modern technology. The displays took me an hour to read. It has been examined by scientists from all around the world, all walks of life, multi-disciplines. There were atheists who examined it. They concluded that it is in fact the burial cloth of a human being that lived in Christ's time when a certain type of scourging instrument was used. They correctly identified the plant species as coming from the exact area of the world where the crucifixion took place. The marks on the victim are consistent with gospel testimony. Most importantly, researches noted that the shroud bears marks of someone who died with a crown of thorns on his head. There were many such scourgings and crucifixions in that time, but only one person was buried with a crown of thorns. That is specific to one man.

Whoever gave you the idea that the shroud is a painting, a mockup, an imposter or whatever is a liar. Why don't you take a trip to an exhibit and see for yourself? Better yet, go to Italy like I did.  Since you love truth so much. You claim you're not taking someone else's word for it, but you just did. You believe tests are "inconclusive" without researching it yourself. What a sham.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 17, 2014, 08:53:01 AM
I did not say that the shroud is a painting, mockup, or imposter.  I said the tests were inconclusive.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: lauermar on April 17, 2014, 08:54:20 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 17, 2014, 08:53:01 AM
I did not say that the shroud is a painting, mockup, or imposter.  I said the tests were inconclusive.

That is also a lie that you have accepted arbitrarily without examining the science yourself. You would believe the lies of people who never once engaged in scientific examination of the shroud yet claim the tests are inconclusive. Meanwhile, you won't read the findings of hundreds of scientists, many of whom are also who are atheists, who actually tested the physical shroud themselves and reached the opposite conclusion. Why is that?

It took me days and a pilgrimage to absorb all the research before I concluded the shroud was real. It took you less than 15 minutes on the Internet to decide it wasn't conclusive.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Larry on April 17, 2014, 09:22:48 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 17, 2014, 08:41:25 AM

Quote from: Larry on April 17, 2014, 08:17:36 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 17, 2014, 08:16:02 AM

Quote from: lauermar on April 17, 2014, 07:35:12 AM
Quote from: JuniorCouncilor on April 16, 2014, 09:17:07 PM
Is this really a thread on a trad Catholic board?  What is going on?

My thoughts exactly. Holy Thursday has begun. Hello.

:ghost1:

I shall be at the Easter mass with my family.  I couldn't imagine not being there, it is very enjoyable.  I love Easter time.

CF, what do you think of the Shroud of Turin? This is a good time of year to meditate on it.

The scientific tests have been inconclusive.  If it is real, it would just be a natural item with sentimental value attached to it.  It doesn't take on special qualities if Jesus used it.  It would still be very cool if it turns out to be true.

Since the bloodstains and serum are undisturbed, it would mean that the body left the cloth without it being unwrapped. Also, why is this the only burial shroud in world history that has such an image? It has to at least make you think.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: lauermar on April 17, 2014, 11:10:33 AM
Yes, I remember seeing a study that studied the atomic particles on the shroud. The body left the shroud in an atomic shower that exceeded our capabilities of measuring it.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 17, 2014, 12:21:48 PM
When I say that the test were inconclusive, I mean that the carbon 14 tests came up with an age which put the shroud in the Middle Ages.  However, the tests were proven to be flawed and no other carbon 14 test has been done.  The shroud was involved in a fire many years ago and was burnt badly around the edges.  The shroud was repaired by adding linen to the exterior, but the old fibers were interwoven with the new fibers.  This means when the tests were done the scientists were actually testing old and new fibers.  The dates given would be consistent with a shroud from the 1st century that had been repaired with fibers which were added after the dates which the tests came up with, but no one knows for certain.  Until another test is done with fibers from the middle section of the shroud, the date will be inconclusive.  Here is a good link describing the carbon 14 tests:  http://www.shroud.com/nature.htm
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Larry on April 17, 2014, 04:44:47 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 17, 2014, 12:21:48 PM
When I say that the test were inconclusive, I mean that the carbon 14 tests came up with an age which put the shroud in the Middle Ages.  However, the tests were proven to be flawed and no other carbon 14 test has been done.  The shroud was involved in a fire many years ago and was burnt badly around the edges.  The shroud was repaired by adding linen to the exterior, but the old fibers were interwoven with the new fibers.  This means when the tests were done the scientists were actually testing old and new fibers.  The dates given would be consistent with a shroud from the 1st century that had been repaired with fibers which were added after the dates which the tests came up with, but no one knows for certain.  Until another test is done with fibers from the middle section of the shroud, the date will be inconclusive.  Here is a good link describing the carbon 14 tests:  http://www.shroud.com/nature.htm

Yeah, but don't you think it's interesting that there is only one burial shroud in the world with an image like the one in Turin? It corresponds exactly to the Gospel accounts of the Passion and Death of Christ. The image itself may very well be evidence for the Resurrection. It's absolutely not a painting or work of art of any kind. When I was a kid and a nun in sixth grade showed me a picture of the Shroud, I was stunned. And when I read books about it, I came to one conclusion...that the central mystery of the Christian faith is, in fact, true.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Petrie on April 17, 2014, 04:48:01 PM
Quote from: Larry on April 17, 2014, 04:44:47 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 17, 2014, 12:21:48 PM
When I say that the test were inconclusive, I mean that the carbon 14 tests came up with an age which put the shroud in the Middle Ages.  However, the tests were proven to be flawed and no other carbon 14 test has been done.  The shroud was involved in a fire many years ago and was burnt badly around the edges.  The shroud was repaired by adding linen to the exterior, but the old fibers were interwoven with the new fibers.  This means when the tests were done the scientists were actually testing old and new fibers.  The dates given would be consistent with a shroud from the 1st century that had been repaired with fibers which were added after the dates which the tests came up with, but no one knows for certain.  Until another test is done with fibers from the middle section of the shroud, the date will be inconclusive.  Here is a good link describing the carbon 14 tests:  http://www.shroud.com/nature.htm

Yeah, but don't you think it's interesting that there is only one burial shroud in the world with an image like the one in Turin? It corresponds exactly to the Gospel accounts of the Passion and Death of Christ. The image itself may very well be evidence for the Resurrection. It's absolutely not a painting or work of art of any kind. When I was a kid and a nun in sixth grade showed me a picture of the Shroud, I was stunned. And when I read books about it, I came to one conclusion...that the central mystery of the Christian faith is, in fact, true.

"For those who believe, no explanation is necessary; for those who do not believe, no explanation is possible".
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Miriam_M on April 17, 2014, 08:47:54 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 16, 2014, 10:21:07 PM

Quote from: JuniorCouncilor on April 16, 2014, 09:17:07 PM
Is this really a thread on a trad Catholic board?  What is going on?

I was in the traditional movement for a while, but no longer have the faith.  I have been talking with folks on here trying to clarify some things.

When you say you were "in" "the movement," are you saying that you were intellectually convinced of it, merely toying with it, and are you in fact a baptized Catholic who "no longer has the faith?"

Because if you are a baptized Catholic, I would hesitate, if I were you, to be eagerly glorifying sentiments and movements not in accord with your baptism.  Being lapsed is one thing; and so are doubts.  But advocating for oppositional movements (atheism, humanism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, scientism, and what have you, is a risky activity for a baptized Catholic to be engaging in, in such a cavalier manner.  We will all be judged on whether we lived out our baptismal promises, especially those of us (and I assume that would include yourself; you sound like an intelligent fellow) who have resources to understand the faith and to seek spiritual aids when we encounter doubts.  Those aids are most often outside of ourselves. 
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 17, 2014, 09:01:20 PM
I was involved with the SSPX because I love the latin liturgy, I never was in favor of the theology however.  I had many disagreements with traditional Catholics over politics.  I am a baptized Catholic and have gone through all of the sacraments.  Is it more dangerous for a baptized Catholic to advocate un-Catholic ideas than it is for a non Catholic?  If so, why?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Miriam_M on April 17, 2014, 09:56:16 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 17, 2014, 09:01:20 PM
I was involved with the SSPX because I love the latin liturgy, I never was in favor of the theology however.  I had many disagreements with traditional Catholics over politics.  I am a baptized Catholic and have gone through all of the sacraments.  Is it more dangerous for a baptized Catholic to advocate un-Catholic ideas than it is for a non Catholic?  If so, why?

Yes, it is, because the condition of "invincible ignorance" would not apply to you.  A non-Catholic has not been given graces (through sacraments) or training (through catechesis) to be culpable for opposing Catholicism.

Also, "in favor of" and "theology" is a weird duo.   Theology is not up for votes in the Church.  Lay people don't judge approved theology on whether or not we "favor" it.  Gosh, most wouldn't, because theology includes moral theology, which directly relates to our sins.  It's mighty uncomfortable having someone else point out to us what our sins are.  No one is "in favor of" that, LOL.

And if the theology you're not "in favor it" is in regard to the branch of theology called Systematics, then most of that comes under the heading of dogma and doctrine.  One can "favor" a particular approach to an established Catholic theology (certain ways of describing the doctrine and dogma), but it's meaningless to say that we "don't favor" dogma or doctrine.  Why?  because Reason is not the final decider; Faith is.  Catholicism is a marriage of faith and reason.

Finally, I'm not sure what you mean by getting into arguments with traditionalists over "politics."  Are you talking about ecclesiastical politics?  parish politics?  politics within the SSPX? or secular politics?

Please keep in mind that none of the above comments is meant as criticism or implying any superiority on my part.  I was non-practicing for awhile and had similarly decided I was in a position to evaluate dogma.  Then I came to my senses and understood how arrogant and unreliable that was.  That's what's nice about Catholicism: unlike other religions and sects, there aren't 30,000 legitimate ways of interpreting the faith.  Officially speaking, a single teaching authority exists and a single Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: mikemac on April 17, 2014, 10:05:58 PM
It's just too obvious that Crimson Flyboy is here to stir up crap.  His last post was December 24, 2013, then he gets this thread fired up again just before Easter on April 16, 2014.  I wouldn't give him the time of day.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 17, 2014, 10:16:17 PM

Quote from: Miriam_M on April 17, 2014, 09:56:16 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 17, 2014, 09:01:20 PM
I was involved with the SSPX because I love the latin liturgy, I never was in favor of the theology however.  I had many disagreements with traditional Catholics over politics.  I am a baptized Catholic and have gone through all of the sacraments.  Is it more dangerous for a baptized Catholic to advocate un-Catholic ideas than it is for a non Catholic?  If so, why?

Yes, it is, because the condition of "invincible ignorance" would not apply to you.  A non-Catholic has not been given graces (through sacraments) or training (through catechesis) to be culpable for opposing Catholicism.

Also, "in favor of" and "theology" is a weird duo.   Theology is not up for votes in the Church.  Lay people don't judge approved theology on whether or not we "favor" it.  Gosh, most wouldn't, because theology includes moral theology, which directly relates to our sins.  It's mighty uncomfortable having someone else point out to us what our sins are.  No one is "in favor of" that, LOL.

And if the theology you're not "in favor it" is in regard to the branch of theology called Systematics, then most of that comes under the heading of dogma and doctrine.  One can "favor" a particular approach to an established Catholic theology (certain ways of describing the doctrine and dogma), but it's meaningless to say that we "don't favor" dogma or doctrine.  Why?  because Reason is not the final decider; Faith is.  Catholicism is a marriage of faith and reason.

Finally, I'm not sure what you mean by getting into arguments with traditionalists over "politics."  Are you talking about ecclesiastical politics?  parish politics?  politics within the SSPX? or secular politics?

Please keep in mind that none of the above comments is meant as criticism or implying any superiority on my part.  I was non-practicing for awhile and had similarly decided I was in a position to evaluate dogma.  Then I came to my senses and understood how arrogant and unreliable that was.  That's what's nice about Catholicism: unlike other religions and sects, there aren't 30,000 legitimate ways of interpreting the faith.  Officially speaking, a single teaching authority exists and a single Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

By politics I meant secular politics.  I ran into a lot of monarchists and I liked to argue for libertarianism with them.  Good night and have a good Good Friday tomorrow.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 21, 2014, 09:39:04 AM
I had a wonderful Easter with my family, I hope y'all did as well.  Many of my family members were asking me about Ayn Rand and Objectivism on Easter Sunday and I got to thinking about this.  I believe I can do a better job of explaining this than I have been.  A man makes a mistake and he gets very down on himself, traditionally the explanation has been that this man was full of pride and fell off his ivory tower.  I submit that he actually has an inferiority complex and his one mistake has confirmed for him his worst fear, that he is a failure and has no value to offer others.  A prideful man, however, will not feel too bad, as he knows that one mistake does not mean he is a failure.  He feels comfortable with himself and can overcome a single mistake quite easily.  Take the boastful man as an example as well.  He must tell everyone how great he is, not because he believes it, but because he doesn't.  If he really felt that he was a great man, he would not need to tell others.  When a man boasts to others, ask him, who are you trying to convince?  He is trying to convince himself by convincing others.  If others believe I am great, he reasons, then it must be true.  The sad part is that even if everyone around him begins to believe that he is great, he will still not believe it himself.  This is because pride, or self esteem, must come from within, and can never come from without.  The prideful man has self esteem and never boasts, as he knows that his own opinion of himself is all that matters.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on April 21, 2014, 10:17:28 AM
QuoteWhen I say that the test were inconclusive, I mean that the carbon 14 tests came up with an age which put the shroud in the Middle Ages.
The studies of pollen prove a mid East origin of the Shroud.  Historical studies of the weave used also point to a first century origin.  Carbon 14 was not the only scientific test done.  I suggest you do some research.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 21, 2014, 10:20:56 AM
Quote from: james03 on April 21, 2014, 10:17:28 AM
QuoteWhen I say that the test were inconclusive, I mean that the carbon 14 tests came up with an age which put the shroud in the Middle Ages.
The studies of pollen prove a mid East origin of the Shroud.  Historical studies of the weave used also point to a first century origin.  Carbon 14 was not the only scientific test done.  I suggest you do some research.

I know there was a whole battery of tests done on the shroud, but until it is known how old the thing is, the result will be inconclusive.  What do you think about my post above with regard to pride and humility?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on April 21, 2014, 10:26:33 AM
What I think is your imprecision in terms leads you into error.  E.G.:
QuoteHe is trying to convince himself by convincing others.  If others believe I am great, he reasons, then it must be true.
What you describe is the vice of pride.  What you think is meant by pride is in fact the Catholic virtue of magnanimity, coupled with humility, fortitude, temperance, and prudence.  This video was meant for you.

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7V1W967ofA[/yt]

The priest goes through the various virtues and shows how they lead to real manliness.  The presentation is so logical I believe it will do you a lot of good.  As a bonus, please try to catch where he condemns big government and advocates subsidiarity.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on April 21, 2014, 10:33:41 AM
QuoteI know there was a whole battery of tests done on the shroud, but until it is known how old the thing is, the result will be inconclusive.
Get a good book on it and read it.  Then you won't make ignorant statements.

1.  The weave dates the cloth to the first century.  It is possible (highly improbable) that a person from the Middle ages could have obtained a first century cloth and forged an image.  It is so improbable that someone asserting it should be laughed to scorn, however:
2.  Pollen embedded within the image shows that the image was not created in middle ages Europe, but was from the mid-East.

There were other tests done, however I have not read the book in over ten years.  I recall that there were coins in the eyes dating from the first century.  The micro precision in that image can not be replicated even today.  I came away convinced from the scientific evidence that the Shroud of Turin was the burial cloth of Jesus Christ.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 21, 2014, 10:44:08 AM
Quote from: james03 on April 21, 2014, 10:33:41 AM
QuoteI know there was a whole battery of tests done on the shroud, but until it is known how old the thing is, the result will be inconclusive.
Get a good book on it and read it.  Then you won't make ignorant statements.

1.  The weave dates the cloth to the first century.  It is possible (highly improbable) that a person from the Middle ages could have obtained a first century cloth and forged an image.  It is so improbable that someone asserting it should be laughed to scorn, however:
2.  Pollen embedded within the image shows that the image was not created in middle ages Europe, but was from the mid-East.

There were other tests done, however I have not read the book in over ten years.  I recall that there were coins in the eyes dating from the first century.  The micro precision in that image can not be replicated even today.  I came away convinced from the scientific evidence that the Shroud of Turin was the burial cloth of Jesus Christ.

I don't know which statements you are referring to as ignorant.  I gave you a link in which the carbon 14 tests were shown to date the shroud from the middle ages, and then I explained why the carbon 14 tests were problematic.  There is nothing as of right now that can prove how old the shroud is, but even if there were it would be impossible to prove that it was the shroud of Jesus.  No matter what tests are done, the only thing scientists will be able to say is that it might be the burial shroud of Jesus, it is impossible to say for certainty that it is definitely his.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: columba on April 21, 2014, 11:30:19 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 21, 2014, 10:44:08 AM
Quote from: james03 on April 21, 2014, 10:33:41 AM
QuoteI know there was a whole battery of tests done on the shroud, but until it is known how old the thing is, the result will be inconclusive.
Get a good book on it and read it.  Then you won't make ignorant statements.

1.  The weave dates the cloth to the first century.  It is possible (highly improbable) that a person from the Middle ages could have obtained a first century cloth and forged an image.  It is so improbable that someone asserting it should be laughed to scorn, however:
2.  Pollen embedded within the image shows that the image was not created in middle ages Europe, but was from the mid-East.

There were other tests done, however I have not read the book in over ten years.  I recall that there were coins in the eyes dating from the first century.  The micro precision in that image can not be replicated even today.  I came away convinced from the scientific evidence that the Shroud of Turin was the burial cloth of Jesus Christ.

I don't know which statements you are referring to as ignorant.  I gave you a link in which the carbon 14 tests were shown to date the shroud from the middle ages, and then I explained why the carbon 14 tests were problematic.  There is nothing as of right now that can prove how old the shroud is, but even if there were it would be impossible to prove that it was the shroud of Jesus.  No matter what tests are done, the only thing scientists will be able to say is that it might be the burial shroud of Jesus, it is impossible to say for certainty that it is definitely his.

In his sermon at Mass yesterday (Easter Sunday) the priest revealed a new piece of evidence recently discovered on the shroud of Turin. It was found that other relics of burial cloths discovered near Golgotha contained the name of condemned criminals and the charge against them writen on the cloth they were buried in. The shroud of Turin was examined for such a mark and a female forensics scientist discovered the writen name and crime that the condemned on the Turin shroud was charged with. After many enhancement methods were employed It was found to read; "Jesus of Nazareth, Blasphemer."

I will ask him (the priest) for the source when I see him next which will be May 4th.

Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 21, 2014, 11:39:19 AM
Let's move the shroud talk to another thread.  I interested in this idea of pride/humility and how they are defined.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: columba on April 21, 2014, 12:10:47 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 21, 2014, 11:39:19 AM
Let's move the shroud talk to another thread.  I interested in this idea of pride/humility and how they are defined.

In a nutshell:

Pride = Falsehood, (acknowledging that one's existence was not derived from oneself yet claiming independnce from the Creator who can be known with certainty through His works)
Humility = Truth, (acknowledging one's total dependence for everything one has -including one's very existence- on the Creator).
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 21, 2014, 12:19:27 PM
Quote from: columba on April 21, 2014, 12:10:47 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 21, 2014, 11:39:19 AM
Let's move the shroud talk to another thread.  I interested in this idea of pride/humility and how they are defined.

In a nutshell:

Pride = Falsehood, (acknowledging that one's existence was not derived from oneself yet claiming independnce from the Creator who can be known with certainty through His works)
Humility = Truth, (acknowledging one's total dependence for everything one has -including one's very existence- on the Creator).

So...

Pride = Not believing in God.
Humility = Believing in God.

Really?  Is this all there is to these two terms?  Can you define the two terms?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: columba on April 21, 2014, 12:33:00 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 21, 2014, 12:19:27 PM
Quote from: columba on April 21, 2014, 12:10:47 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 21, 2014, 11:39:19 AM
Let's move the shroud talk to another thread.  I interested in this idea of pride/humility and how they are defined.

In a nutshell:

Pride = Falsehood, (acknowledging that one's existence was not derived from oneself yet claiming independnce from the Creator who can be known with certainty through His works)
Humility = Truth, (acknowledging one's total dependence for everything one has -including one's very existence- on the Creator).

So...

Pride = Not believing in God.
Humility = Believing in God.

Really?  Is this all there is to these two terms?  Can you define the two terms?

Yep... That's all there is to it.  But that's not to say that pride cannot be found in those who do acknowledge their Creator for they/I too are still prone to thinking themselves independent. The origin of this follishness can be found in Genesis.

Pride = personal autonomy (including determining for oneself what is good and what is evil)
Humility = Dependency. As in, how a child depends on its mother for everything. ("Without Me you can do nothing." John 15:5)
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 21, 2014, 12:42:19 PM
If a man is not independent, he can do nothing for others.  How will he be a husband if he is dependent on others, will he be dependent on his wife?  The independent man is strong and is capable of taking care of others.  He neither sacrifices himself to others, nor does he seek to sacrifice others to himself.  Here is how I define the two terms.  Pride is the joy which proceeds from the attainment of proper values.  Humility is to wallow in one's sense of inferiority, it is self abasement.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: columba on April 21, 2014, 01:50:07 PM
QuoteIf a man is not independent, he can do nothing for others.

But no matter how independent a man may think he is, he is still dependent on a 1000 and 1 other people and factors, eg, Boss, employees, weather, electricity, skills, intellect, health, peace; any one of which could fail at any time. He isn't in total control of any of the above mentioned so where does that leave his independence?

QuoteHow will he be a husband if he is dependent on others

The fact remains; He is dependent on others.

Quotewill he be dependent on his wife?

He could well be if his health should fail.

QuoteThe independent man is strong and is capable of taking care of others.

But this is false. He is not creator of of the strength he now has. It can be taken from him at any time, can it not?  Not only his strength but his continued existence on earth isn't even guaranteed from one moment to the next.

QuoteHe neither sacrifices himself to others,

But he does sacrifice himself for others, ie, his family, loved ones, otherwise he wouldn't go out and provide for them while he still can.

Quotenor does he seek to sacrifice others to himself.

This would be a sign associated with a virtuous man.

QuotePride is the joy which proceeds from the attainment of proper values.

Pride is not always bad for there are two kinds of pride. One can have pride in ones work that it may be done well to further the common good and yes, there is even a temporal reward associated with that. The pride we are discussing is the bad kind where one couldn't care less about the benefit to others that his work would attain but carelessly performs his duties (what he can get away with) and still claim his wage.
Joy is a reward for something done well but it is distinct from pride.

QuoteHumility is to wallow in one's sense of inferiority, it is self abasement.

Humility is appropriate even for the proper order in society. For example; if one where a carpenter he would acknowledge his inferiority in the presence of a surgeon by not trying to perform a medical operation. Likewise, the surgeon would not try and build a cabinet but neither could be said to be wallowing in their inferiority.

The old cliché, "No man is an island" comes to mind. The prideful man believes -despite the evidence- that he is self sufficient. The humble man knows that he's at the mercy of others and above all at the mercy of God.


Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on April 21, 2014, 01:52:28 PM
Until you listen to the talk, you will continue to screw up with your imprecision.  This is a Catholic forum, so learn to use the precise terms.  What you call "pride" is in reality magnanimity, so use that term.  What you call "humility" is in reality self-loathing, and is a mental disease.  So use the term "self loathing" when that is what you mean.

Listen to the talk and pick up on the terms he uses.  He goes through the virtues.

As far as sacrifice, you are picking that up from Rand.  She was a woman and therefore understanding manly sacrifice was impossible for her.  Tell any successful leader that he does not have to sacrifice for his men, and he'll laugh you to scorn.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on April 21, 2014, 01:56:38 PM
QuoteThe independent man is strong and is capable of taking care of others.
Quit being sophmoric.  An independent man is highly constrained and under utilizing resources.  I run million dollar projects.  I can do that because I depend on the team.  If I was independent, I'd be poking holes in the ground with a stick.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 21, 2014, 02:00:04 PM
I did listen to the talk, the priest said some very good things, but I disagree with some other things he said.  As long as we are defining terms, it is necessary to define the term sacrifice.  If I give up $10,000 and in return receive a car worth $20,000, surely no man would say I sacrificed.  If I give up $10,000 and in return receive a car worth $10,000, no man would say I sacrificed.  If I give up $10,000 and receive nothing in return, I could rightly be said to have sacrificed.  So, I shall define sacrifice as to give up something of value only to receive less in value or nothing in return.  Do you agree with this definition or not, and why?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 21, 2014, 02:18:38 PM
Quote from: james03 on April 21, 2014, 01:52:28 PM
Until you listen to the talk, you will continue to screw up with your imprecision.  This is a Catholic forum, so learn to use the precise terms.  What you call "pride" is in reality magnanimity, so use that term.  What you call "humility" is in reality self-loathing, and is a mental disease.  So use the term "self loathing" when that is what you mean.

Listen to the talk and pick up on the terms he uses.  He goes through the virtues.

As far as sacrifice, you are picking that up from Rand.  She was a woman and therefore understanding manly sacrifice was impossible for her.  Tell any successful leader that he does not have to sacrifice for his men, and he'll laugh you to scorn.

mag·nan·i·mous adjective \mag-?na-n?-m?s\
: having or showing a generous and kind nature
1
:  showing or suggesting a lofty and courageous spirit

mag·nan·i·mous  [mag-nan-uh-muhs]  Show IPA
adjective
1.
generous in forgiving an insult or injury; free from petty resentfulness or vindictiveness: to be magnanimous toward one's enemies.
2.
high-minded; noble: a just and magnanimous ruler.
3.
proceeding from or revealing generosity or nobility of mind, character, etc.: a magnanimous gesture of forgiveness.

Definitions matter.  How is magnanimity used to mean the joy which proceeds from the attainment of proper values, when the dictionary defines the word differently?  Magnanimity is not the same thing as pride.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: rbjmartin on April 21, 2014, 02:33:46 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 21, 2014, 02:00:04 PM
I did listen to the talk, the priest said some very good things, but I disagree with some other things he said.  As long as we are defining terms, it is necessary to define the term sacrifice.  If I give up $10,000 and in return receive a car worth $20,000, surely no man would say I sacrificed.  If I give up $10,000 and in return receive a car worth $10,000, no man would say I sacrificed.  If I give up $10,000 and receive nothing in return, I could rightly be said to have sacrificed.  So, I shall define sacrifice as to give up something of value only to receive less in value or nothing in return.  Do you agree with this definition or not, and why?

What specific things from the talk did you disagree with? Did you listen to the whole thing?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: rbjmartin on April 21, 2014, 02:37:17 PM
In a philosophical discussion, dictionary definitions are virtually useless. The dictionary is not meant to be used as a divinely-inspired text whence all truth proceeds. You need to do a little INDEPENDENT thinking, CF.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 21, 2014, 03:17:53 PM

Quote from: rbjmartin on April 21, 2014, 02:33:46 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 21, 2014, 02:00:04 PM
I did listen to the talk, the priest said some very good things, but I disagree with some other things he said.  As long as we are defining terms, it is necessary to define the term sacrifice.  If I give up $10,000 and in return receive a car worth $20,000, surely no man would say I sacrificed.  If I give up $10,000 and in return receive a car worth $10,000, no man would say I sacrificed.  If I give up $10,000 and receive nothing in return, I could rightly be said to have sacrificed.  So, I shall define sacrifice as to give up something of value only to receive less in value or nothing in return.  Do you agree with this definition or not, and why?

What specific things from the talk did you disagree with? Did you listen to the whole thing?

I did listen to the whole thing.  The priest starts by talking about Adam and Eve in a historical context as if these two people actually lived.  Take the story as a metaphor if you would like, but it is certainly not literal.  Then he speaks of the need for women to subordinate themselves to men, yet a real relationship must be among equals.  He then uses the term effeminacy in a very broad and vague manner, which can cause confusion.  Here is the definition from Merriam-Webster:

1ef·fem·i·nate adjective -n?t
: having or showing qualities that are considered more suited to women than to men : not manly

The priest is a very good speaker though.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 21, 2014, 03:20:01 PM

Quote from: rbjmartin on April 21, 2014, 02:37:17 PM
In a philosophical discussion, dictionary definitions are virtually useless. The dictionary is not meant to be used as a divinely-inspired text whence all truth proceeds. You need to do a little INDEPENDENT thinking, CF.

Then how shall we define terms?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Jayne on April 21, 2014, 03:28:17 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 21, 2014, 03:17:53 PM
I did listen to the whole thing.  The priest starts by talking about Adam and Eve in a historical context as if these two people actually lived.  Take the story as a metaphor if you would like, but it is certainly not literal.  Then he speaks of the need for women to subordinate themselves to men, yet a real relationship must be among equals.

You have confronted me with a dilemma.  I cannot decide which of your comments I disagree with more. Adam and Eve were actual people and a wife does need to be subordinate to her husband.

Oh well, at least we agree that the priest is a good speaker.  :)
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 21, 2014, 03:36:21 PM
Okay, I think we can agree on the following: a man should seek virtue and take joy in this achievement, he also should not seek self abasement or self loathing.  A man should act in a way which furthers his life and makes him a better man.  And that the priest is a very good speaker.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: rbjmartin on April 21, 2014, 03:51:19 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 21, 2014, 03:17:53 PM

Quote from: rbjmartin on April 21, 2014, 02:33:46 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 21, 2014, 02:00:04 PM
I did listen to the talk, the priest said some very good things, but I disagree with some other things he said.  As long as we are defining terms, it is necessary to define the term sacrifice.  If I give up $10,000 and in return receive a car worth $20,000, surely no man would say I sacrificed.  If I give up $10,000 and in return receive a car worth $10,000, no man would say I sacrificed.  If I give up $10,000 and receive nothing in return, I could rightly be said to have sacrificed.  So, I shall define sacrifice as to give up something of value only to receive less in value or nothing in return.  Do you agree with this definition or not, and why?

What specific things from the talk did you disagree with? Did you listen to the whole thing?

I did listen to the whole thing.  The priest starts by talking about Adam and Eve in a historical context as if these two people actually lived.  Take the story as a metaphor if you would like, but it is certainly not literal.  Then he speaks of the need for women to subordinate themselves to men, yet a real relationship must be among equals.  He then uses the term effeminacy in a very broad and vague manner, which can cause confusion.  Here is the definition from Merriam-Webster:

1ef·fem·i·nate adjective -n?t
: having or showing qualities that are considered more suited to women than to men : not manly

The priest is a very good speaker though.

Are you SURE you listened to the whole thing? Because he did just the opposite of what you just claimed (with regard to the use of the term "effeminate"). He gave a very clear, philosophical definition of "effeminacy," and even gave the Latin roots and how they should effect our understanding of the word.

Once again, you are relying on a non-philosophical, superficial dictionary definition. You treat the dictionary like an evangelical Christian treats the Bible.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: rbjmartin on April 21, 2014, 03:52:52 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 21, 2014, 03:20:01 PM

Quote from: rbjmartin on April 21, 2014, 02:37:17 PM
In a philosophical discussion, dictionary definitions are virtually useless. The dictionary is not meant to be used as a divinely-inspired text whence all truth proceeds. You need to do a little INDEPENDENT thinking, CF.

Then how shall we define terms?

Through a Socratic process of dialogue and deduction. Otherwise, you're just a dictionary positivist.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: rbjmartin on April 21, 2014, 03:53:47 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 21, 2014, 03:36:21 PM
Okay, I think we can agree on the following: a man should seek virtue and take joy in this achievement, he also should not seek self abasement or self loathing.  A man should act in a way which furthers his life and makes him a better man.  And that the priest is a very good speaker.

What is virtue in your understanding?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 21, 2014, 04:04:48 PM

Quote from: rbjmartin on April 21, 2014, 03:53:47 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 21, 2014, 03:36:21 PM
Okay, I think we can agree on the following: a man should seek virtue and take joy in this achievement, he also should not seek self abasement or self loathing.  A man should act in a way which furthers his life and makes him a better man.  And that the priest is a very good speaker.

What is virtue in your understanding?

A virtue is an action to attain values, and values are objects which sustain and further life.

Here are some virtues:

1. Reason
2. Honesty
3. Integrity
4. Justice
5. Independence
6. Productiveness
7. Pride, or self-esteem
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on April 21, 2014, 04:24:46 PM
QuoteMagnanimity is not the same thing as pride.
Correct, we are making progress.  Magnanimity is believing in, and striving for great things driven by the delight in attaining virtue.

Pride is an effeminate vice whereby a man defies reason and exalts himself above what he actually is, living with a secret fear that his actual weakness will be revealed, thus depending on lies and a need for praise from others.

Those are the definitions to use on this Catholic forum.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: rbjmartin on April 21, 2014, 04:25:51 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 21, 2014, 04:04:48 PM

Quote from: rbjmartin on April 21, 2014, 03:53:47 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 21, 2014, 03:36:21 PM
Okay, I think we can agree on the following: a man should seek virtue and take joy in this achievement, he also should not seek self abasement or self loathing.  A man should act in a way which furthers his life and makes him a better man.  And that the priest is a very good speaker.

What is virtue in your understanding?

A virtue is an action to attain values, and values are objects which sustain and further life.

Here are some virtues:

1. Reason
2. Honesty
3. Integrity
4. Justice
5. Independence
6. Productiveness
7. Pride, or self-esteem

You just defined virtue as an action, but I have never heard anyone refer to virtues as actions. Take patience, for example. Patience is not an action. It cannot be used as a verb.

Also, you have provided a list of virtues, but you have not identified what is the common characteristic they all share and what is essential to virtues. Coincidentally, this is the exact same mistake Meno makes in Plato's dialogue that takes his name.

You will need to refine your definition.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: zork on April 21, 2014, 04:27:17 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 21, 2014, 04:04:48 PM

A virtue is an action to attain values, and values are objects which sustain and further life.

Here are some virtues:

1. Reason
2. Honesty
3. Integrity
4. Justice
5. Independence
6. Productiveness
7. Pride, or self-esteem

Hm. I'd replace #6 with "Industriousness", but that's just me...
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on April 21, 2014, 04:30:37 PM
QuoteOkay, I think we can agree on the following: a man should seek virtue and take joy in this achievement, he also should not seek self abasement or self loathing.  A man should act in a way which furthers his life and makes him a better man.
No you can't agree on this, because it is irrational for an atheist to believe in transcendentals like virtue, and even more absurd to take joy in these faerie tales.  Again, hitch hiking on Catholic thought.  To repeat the idiot Dawkins, I won't believe in "virtue" until science can demonstrate it.  Though I can't believe in science until science shows me the scientific method, which is not material.

Let me ask you a question.  You repeated that one of your problems was a strain of leftism in the Trad world.  Months ago I gave you a link to a free book that directly addresses this, in fact I entitled it the Catholic Libertarian Manifesto, something that you should be interested in.  Have you read the book?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: dymphna17 on April 21, 2014, 04:35:27 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 21, 2014, 03:36:21 PM
Okay, I think we can agree on the following: a man should seek virtue and take joy in this achievement, he also should not seek self abasement or self loathing.  A man should act in a way which furthers his life and makes him a better man.  And that the priest is a very good speaker.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but are you comparing the virtue of humility with humiliation?  I ask because many people confuse the two and they are not comparable. 
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: columba on April 21, 2014, 04:54:11 PM
Reason is a tool not a virtue which if used correctly would bring you into agreement with the rest of the forum on at least the fundamentals.

Independence is an anti-virtue and if everyone subscribed to it, it would lead to utter chaos. Can you imagine the result of independence in an army?

Productiveness would be the fruit of virtue providing that what is being produced is good. I can imagine productivity bonuses being handed out in an abortion mill; the fruit of the anti-virtue, "independence from God."

Your virtues only work if there's an objective standard by which value can be measured.
Can each man determine his own values in opposition to what others hold as their values?

Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 21, 2014, 05:36:52 PM
Each man must choose between existence and non-existence.  If he chooses non-existence, he does not need values, as values only pertain to living things.  Non-living things continue to exist no matter what, as matter cannot be destroyed, but living things must choose.  If a man chooses to live, he must act in order to remain alive.  He does this by pursuing values which further his life, doing this is to act virtuously.  Life is an action, not a state of being.  This is why I say that a virtue is an act as well, because it is an action which pursues life serving values.  Actions which pursue life serving values are virtues, actions which pursue life defeating values are vices.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Non Nobis on April 21, 2014, 05:44:08 PM
Crimson Flyboy,

Is humility nothing but self-debasement and the like for you?

I've known people who to me seemed very humble and yet I had no clue that they were believers.

They were strong, very capable and self-assured, but they let you see their talent and virtues by yourself.  They did not brag or boast.  They were not resentful when others were praised, and they praised others readily. 

Humility is truth, not puffing your self up, nor putting yourself down.  If you don't believe in God humility would be recognizing that, however they got there (or if they "just were"), you had qualities that YOU did not put there. It would be trying to appreciate them in others as you appreciate them in yourself. It would be recognizing that even if you think you are "superior" there are innumerable men through the ages who are truly superior to you.  Pride is sometimes just silly.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: rbjmartin on April 21, 2014, 05:45:26 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 21, 2014, 05:36:52 PM
Each man must choose between existence and non-existence.  If he chooses non-existence, he does not need values, as values only pertain to living things.  Non-living things continue to exist no matter what, as matter cannot be destroyed, but living things must choose.  If a man chooses to live, he must act in order to remain alive.  He does this by pursuing values which further his life, doing this is to act virtuously.  Life is an action, not a state of being.  This is why I say that a virtue is an act as well, because it is an action which pursues life serving values.  Actions which pursue life serving values are virtues, actions which pursue life defeating values are vices.

Man does not have to choose to exist. If he only follows his most basic animal instincts (i.e. satisfy his hunger, rest when he is tired, avoid danger, etc.), he will continue to exist, just as any irrational creature. So by your definition, all animals possess virtue. But this is the antithesis of the definition of virtue as it has existed since ancient Greece. Virtue is something that ONLY man possesses.

So you need to go back to the drawing board with your definition. Virtue is not an action, and it is not simply surviving.

You could make use of the virtue of humility by looking to the learning and wisdom of the ancients who already explored these questions thousands of years ago, rather than assuming that you can and should re-invent the wheel.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: rbjmartin on April 21, 2014, 05:48:34 PM
(https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdcbarroco.files.wordpress.com%2F2012%2F03%2F120404-cicero.jpg&hash=1c1ff176b61e58800971e29529bb2cf94e84e5eb)
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 21, 2014, 05:57:02 PM

Quote from: rbjmartin on April 21, 2014, 05:45:26 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 21, 2014, 05:36:52 PM
Each man must choose between existence and non-existence.  If he chooses non-existence, he does not need values, as values only pertain to living things.  Non-living things continue to exist no matter what, as matter cannot be destroyed, but living things must choose.  If a man chooses to live, he must act in order to remain alive.  He does this by pursuing values which further his life, doing this is to act virtuously.  Life is an action, not a state of being.  This is why I say that a virtue is an act as well, because it is an action which pursues life serving values.  Actions which pursue life serving values are virtues, actions which pursue life defeating values are vices.

Man does not have to choose to exist. If he only follows his most basic animal instincts (i.e. satisfy his hunger, rest when he is tired, avoid danger, etc.), he will continue to exist, just as any irrational creature. So by your definition, all animals possess virtue. But this is the antithesis of the definition of virtue as it has existed since ancient Greece. Virtue is something that ONLY man possesses.

So you need to go back to the drawing board with your definition. Virtue is not an action, and it is not simply surviving.

You could make use of the virtue of humility by looking to the learning and wisdom of the ancients who already explored these questions thousands of years ago, rather than assuming that you can and should re-invent the wheel.

Man cannot survive on his instincts alone, he must use his reason.  If he does not want to live, he need simply cease from acting and he will die soon enough.  To live, however, requires action, and action requires a choice, at least in men it does.  Animals also pursue values, but with instinct instead of reason.  Animals do not have the use of reason, and  hence do not have virtue.

I prefer philosophers such as Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, and Frederic Bastiat to the ancients.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on April 21, 2014, 06:02:54 PM
But Rand says Aristotle was the greatest philosopher ever, so your are refuting yourself.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 21, 2014, 06:04:56 PM
Aristotle did some great things, but I prefer modern philosophers.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Angelorum on April 21, 2014, 06:10:36 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 21, 2014, 06:04:56 PM
Aristotle did some great things, but I prefer modern philosophers.

Like who?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 21, 2014, 06:13:03 PM

Quote from: Angelorum on April 21, 2014, 06:10:36 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 21, 2014, 06:04:56 PM
Aristotle did some great things, but I prefer modern philosophers.

Like who?

Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, Frederic Bastiat, Stefan Molyneaux, John Locke, to name a few.  I have been very interested in Anarcho-Capitalism recently.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 21, 2014, 06:19:27 PM
I should add Daniel Dennett.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on April 21, 2014, 07:23:10 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 21, 2014, 06:13:03 PM

Quote from: Angelorum on April 21, 2014, 06:10:36 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 21, 2014, 06:04:56 PM
Aristotle did some great things, but I prefer modern philosophers.

Like who?

Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, Frederic Bastiat, Stefan Molyneaux, John Locke, to name a few.  I have been very interested in Anarcho-Capitalism recently.
Rand was a complete nut.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 21, 2014, 07:24:22 PM

Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on April 21, 2014, 07:23:10 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 21, 2014, 06:13:03 PM

Quote from: Angelorum on April 21, 2014, 06:10:36 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 21, 2014, 06:04:56 PM
Aristotle did some great things, but I prefer modern philosophers.

Like who?

Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, Frederic Bastiat, Stefan Molyneaux, John Locke, to name a few.  I have been very interested in Anarcho-Capitalism recently.
Rand was a complete nut.

What do you think about the other philosophers I mentioned?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on April 21, 2014, 07:34:29 PM
Rand is a novelist who ignores Aristotle where convenient.  Rothbard and Bastiat are great economists, though I disagree with basitat on his free trade argument as he fails to define the system, Molyneaux is a recovering abuse victim, but I admire him for taking responsibility for his future actions, and I believe John Locke is the only real philosopher.  To be honest I have not read much of Locke, but I have read a little and agree with some of his stuff.

Dennett is a piker from what I just read on Wikipedia, and that is the end of my knowledge about him.  Here he is trying to explain conciousness and intentionality:

QuoteThe model of decision making I am proposing has the following feature: when we are faced with an important decision, a consideration-generator whose output is to some degree undetermined produces a series of considerations, some of which may of course be immediately rejected as irrelevant by the agent (consciously or unconsciously).
The agent?  Did you catch that?  Kind of begging the question.

Quote"all varieties of perception—indeed all varieties of thought or mental activity—are accomplished in the brain by parallel, multitrack processes of interpretation and elaboration of sensory inputs. Information entering the nervous system is under continuous 'editorial revision.'"
Let me guess, the "it" doing the editorial revision is again this "agent".  But he does give it a stab:
Quote"These yield, over the course of time, something rather like a narrative stream or sequence, which can be thought of as subject to continual editing by many processes distributed around the brain, ..."
Except this begs the question of IMMEIDACY and of course intentionality.  A piker.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on April 21, 2014, 07:35:01 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 21, 2014, 07:24:22 PM

Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on April 21, 2014, 07:23:10 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 21, 2014, 06:13:03 PM

Quote from: Angelorum on April 21, 2014, 06:10:36 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 21, 2014, 06:04:56 PM
Aristotle did some great things, but I prefer modern philosophers.

Like who?

Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, Frederic Bastiat, Stefan Molyneaux, John Locke, to name a few.  I have been very interested in Anarcho-Capitalism recently.
Rand was a complete nut.

What do you think about the other philosophers I mentioned?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Actually I always loved Bastiats..."The Law"
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on April 21, 2014, 07:43:27 PM
Interestingly Locke and Dennett are almost polar opposites.  Locke argues from Deism.  His argument about private property is actually in agreement with Pope Leo XIII.  And he argues for consciousness, denied by Dennett.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on April 21, 2014, 08:13:12 PM
Learn something every day.  The "agent" of Dennett is the homunculus fallacy.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 21, 2014, 08:15:37 PM

Quote from: james03 on April 21, 2014, 07:43:27 PM
Interestingly Locke and Dennett are almost polar opposites.  Locke argues from Deism.  His argument about private property is actually in agreement with Pope Leo XIII.  And he argues for consciousness, denied by Dennett.

Dennett doesn't argue against consciousness, he argues that it is only a physical phenomenon.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on April 21, 2014, 08:46:57 PM
No, he inserts an "agent", so it is not a physical process.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: rbjmartin on April 21, 2014, 08:50:10 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 21, 2014, 05:57:02 PM
Man cannot survive on his instincts alone, he must use his reason.  If he does not want to live, he need simply cease from acting and he will die soon enough.  To live, however, requires action, and action requires a choice, at least in men it does.

If men only listened to their passions, they would still survive (given a survivable environment). The passions aren't rational.

Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 21, 2014, 05:57:02 PMAnimals also pursue values, but with instinct instead of reason.  Animals do not have the use of reason, and  hence do not have virtue.

No, they don't pursue "values." To place "value" on a thing requires the gift of judgement, which animals don't have. Strike two.

Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 21, 2014, 05:57:02 PM
I prefer philosophers such as Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, and Frederic Bastiat to the ancients.

Based on a whim? Because it's convenient for you? Or have you actually read the ancients? You do realize that all of the above were familiar with ancient philosophy and stood on the shoulders of the ancient philosophers, don't you?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: rbjmartin on April 21, 2014, 08:52:53 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 21, 2014, 06:13:03 PM

Quote from: Angelorum on April 21, 2014, 06:10:36 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 21, 2014, 06:04:56 PM
Aristotle did some great things, but I prefer modern philosophers.

Like who?

Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, Frederic Bastiat, Stefan Molyneaux, John Locke, to name a few.  I have been very interested in Anarcho-Capitalism recently.

As mentioned above, all of these people pay tribute to the ancients. Molyneaux is really into Socratic method. You should listen to one of his talks on philosophy.

Bastiat's theory of law is 100% based on an acknowledgement of natural law (as was Cicero's, Aristotle's, Plato's, etc.).

So what do you have against the ancients? What are you afraid of?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 21, 2014, 08:54:39 PM

Quote from: james03 on April 21, 2014, 08:46:57 PM
No, he inserts an "agent", so it is not a physical process.

3:30
http://youtu.be/JP1nmExfgpg
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 21, 2014, 08:59:12 PM

Quote from: rbjmartin on April 21, 2014, 08:52:53 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 21, 2014, 06:13:03 PM

Quote from: Angelorum on April 21, 2014, 06:10:36 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 21, 2014, 06:04:56 PM
Aristotle did some great things, but I prefer modern philosophers.

Like who?

Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, Frederic Bastiat, Stefan Molyneaux, John Locke, to name a few.  I have been very interested in Anarcho-Capitalism recently.

As mentioned above, all of these people pay tribute to the ancients. Molyneaux is really into Socratic method. You should listen to one of his talks on philosophy.

Bastiat's theory of law is 100% based on an acknowledgement of natural law (as was Cicero's, Aristotle's, Plato's, etc.).

So what do you have against the ancients? What are you afraid of?

I have nothing against the ancients, I simply told you that I prefer the moderns, as in I prefer to read the moderns.  We all have much to thank the ancients for, and we have much to thank the Islamic philosophers from the 10th to the 13th centuries as well, such as Avicenna and Averroes.  Many cultures have produced great minds, I prefer to read Rand as she is my favorite.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: rbjmartin on April 21, 2014, 09:02:32 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 21, 2014, 08:59:12 PM

Quote from: rbjmartin on April 21, 2014, 08:52:53 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 21, 2014, 06:13:03 PM

Quote from: Angelorum on April 21, 2014, 06:10:36 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 21, 2014, 06:04:56 PM
Aristotle did some great things, but I prefer modern philosophers.

Like who?

Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, Frederic Bastiat, Stefan Molyneaux, John Locke, to name a few.  I have been very interested in Anarcho-Capitalism recently.

As mentioned above, all of these people pay tribute to the ancients. Molyneaux is really into Socratic method. You should listen to one of his talks on philosophy.

Bastiat's theory of law is 100% based on an acknowledgement of natural law (as was Cicero's, Aristotle's, Plato's, etc.).

So what do you have against the ancients? What are you afraid of?

I have nothing against the ancients, I simply told you that I prefer the moderns, as in I prefer to read the moderns.  We all have much to thank the ancients for, and we have much to thank the Islamic philosophers from the 10th to the 13th centuries as well, such as Avicenna and Averroes.  Many cultures have produced great minds, I prefer to read Rand as she is my favorite.

You continue to talk in generalities and "preferences," but you have demonstrated very little substance with regard to your "preferences." My BS detector is going off.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on April 21, 2014, 09:25:42 PM
Quote3:30

"There seems to you to be a red stripe".

Again he slips in the agent.  So there is an illusion "to you".  So what?  What has this to do with intentionality?  It proves that "you" can be fooled.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 21, 2014, 09:32:09 PM

Quote from: james03 on April 21, 2014, 09:25:42 PM
Quote3:30

"There seems to you to be a red stripe".

Again he slips in the agent.  So there is an illusion "to you".  So what?  What has this to do with intentionality?  It proves that "you" can be fooled.

He clearly states that the mind is explained by the brain and that the brain is physical, so consciousness is something physical.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 21, 2014, 09:39:20 PM

Quote from: rbjmartin on April 21, 2014, 09:02:32 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 21, 2014, 08:59:12 PM

Quote from: rbjmartin on April 21, 2014, 08:52:53 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 21, 2014, 06:13:03 PM

Quote from: Angelorum on April 21, 2014, 06:10:36 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 21, 2014, 06:04:56 PM
Aristotle did some great things, but I prefer modern philosophers.

Like who?

Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, Frederic Bastiat, Stefan Molyneaux, John Locke, to name a few.  I have been very interested in Anarcho-Capitalism recently.

As mentioned above, all of these people pay tribute to the ancients. Molyneaux is really into Socratic method. You should listen to one of his talks on philosophy.

Bastiat's theory of law is 100% based on an acknowledgement of natural law (as was Cicero's, Aristotle's, Plato's, etc.).

So what do you have against the ancients? What are you afraid of?

I have nothing against the ancients, I simply told you that I prefer the moderns, as in I prefer to read the moderns.  We all have much to thank the ancients for, and we have much to thank the Islamic philosophers from the 10th to the 13th centuries as well, such as Avicenna and Averroes.  Many cultures have produced great minds, I prefer to read Rand as she is my favorite.

You continue to talk in generalities and "preferences," but you have demonstrated very little substance with regard to your "preferences." My BS detector is going off.

There is no need to see me as an adversary, I was simply telling you whom I enjoy reading.  I enjoy reading many philosophers, some of whom I don't entirely agree with, yet I still get something from them.  I think Rand, Rothbard, and Bastiat are great.  I am still new to Molyneaux.  I haven't read much Locke, but what I have read I really like.  I enjoy Dennett's YouTube videos, I don't know what his whole philosophical system is, but I like the way he discusses the mind.  I have even a little Marx, and I can't stand the man.

Is there anything else you want to know.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 21, 2014, 09:42:07 PM

Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on April 21, 2014, 07:35:01 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 21, 2014, 07:24:22 PM

Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on April 21, 2014, 07:23:10 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 21, 2014, 06:13:03 PM

Quote from: Angelorum on April 21, 2014, 06:10:36 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 21, 2014, 06:04:56 PM
Aristotle did some great things, but I prefer modern philosophers.

Like who?

Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, Frederic Bastiat, Stefan Molyneaux, John Locke, to name a few.  I have been very interested in Anarcho-Capitalism recently.
Rand was a complete nut.

What do you think about the other philosophers I mentioned?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Actually I always loved Bastiats..."The Law"

I love the law, it's a great book.  I'm a little surprised that you like it.  What did you like about the book?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: rbjmartin on April 21, 2014, 09:44:13 PM
In reading your posts, I get the impression that you aren't very well-read in philosophy, yet you don't approach philosophical questions with any sense of humility because you dismiss the philosophical suggestions of others with BS statements like "I prefer the moderns."

Rather, you have certain opinions, and then you reason backward, making use of whatever supporting philosophers you can find to support your opinions. That is not the modus operandi of a lover of truth.

When I try to dialogue with you, I feel like I'm arguing with an adolescent. That's not meant to be an insult. It's just the impression I get by how much you value your own opinions and preferences. Seriously, you need to man up and let the truth move you when the path of reason is laid out for you. Your attachment to your own opinions is your biggest hindrance.

If you are sincere about wanting to arrive at philosophical truths, you need to be authentically open-minded. If not, you should just go somewhere else and stop wasting everyone's time.
Title: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 21, 2014, 09:48:16 PM
When I tell you that I prefer the moderns, I am not saying they are the only philosophers worth reading, or that they are the only ones that are correct, I was simply telling you whom I enjoy reading.  I wasn't trying to be argumentative.  I enjoy reading Dostoyevsky, that doesn't mean that I hate Dickens.  I was merely mentioning whom I enjoy reading, don't take anymore into the statement than that,
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on April 21, 2014, 09:50:09 PM
QuoteHe clearly states that the mind is explained by the brain and that the brain is physical, so consciousness is something physical.
Did you even pay attention to the video?  It was a waste of my time.  He explains how images enter the brain and are encoded there.  He then says "we are making progress" on understanding conciousness and ........well that's it.  ZERO explanation on intentionality from a materialist understanding.  None, zip, nada.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: rbjmartin on April 21, 2014, 09:56:01 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 21, 2014, 09:48:16 PM
When I tell you that I prefer the moderns, I am not saying they are the only philosophers worth reading, or that they are the only ones that are correct, I was simply telling you whom I enjoy reading.  I wasn't trying to be argumentative.  I enjoy reading Dostoyevsky, that doesn't mean that I hate Dickens.  I was merely mentioning whom I enjoy reading, don't take anymore into the statement than that,

But you used your "preference for the moderns" as a means of deflecting my suggestion that you read the ancients, a suggestion I made NOT as a means of personal enjoyment (which seems to be the basis of your philosophical preferences) but as a means of arriving at truth via reasoning.

If you just want to be trapped in your own pleasures and enjoyments, fine, that's your choice. It's a prison of your own making. But don't pretend to care about truth, and don't pretend to care about freedom (which can only come from an acknowledgement of truth). Truth always costs something. It requires that we conform our minds to reality and surrender our petty preferences. Enjoyment and pleasure are not the arbiters of truth.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: BigMelvin on April 22, 2014, 04:02:20 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 12, 2013, 09:45:49 PM

Quote from: Gerard on October 12, 2013, 09:37:02 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 12, 2013, 08:23:04 PM
Louis IX and Gerard, we can pick up where we left off here.

I'll start by stating that humility is bad and I prefer pride.  Humility is anti-humanistic, while pride is a wonderful virtue that celebrates man qua man.

Let's start by clarifying terms.  What do you mean by "bad"?  Probably you should also supply definitions for pride and humility as well as what "good" means.  The discussion can be worthwhile if I know we are all submitting to the same understanding of the language used.

Excellent point.  A thing is bad in so far as it does not advance man in his quest for survival.  Pride is the joy one takes in achieving one's own moral perfection.  Humility is self-abasement, it is to see no value in one's own self.  The humble man says 'I am no good, and I do not intend on improving'.  Clearly y'all are using the term differently.

Hello Mr Flyboy and all the other contributors. Big Melvin here, nice to see you all. I have only just started reading this thread and would like to post as I read it, so I might be stating what is by now obvious (or indeed what has now been refuted!). So please excuse me if I duplicate.

Firstly, four points with respect to the above. Humility does advance man in his quest for survival, and indeed is the ultimate foundation of him being able to survive, providing we understand survival as eternal survival. This is because the theological virtue of charity - by which the just live eternally - is received in the soul who acknowledges his dependence on his Creator and lives accordingly.

Secondly, the moral perfection of the proud is not perfection at all, since without humility before God the acts of the proud lack reference to their final end and thus are not properly virtuous or indeed moral. Since the proud man acts with himself as end (Kant!), his acts are not performed in virtue but in vice, and are not moral but immoral.

Thirdly, humility is indeed to see no value in oneself if one is understood as self-sufficient, but to see an incredible value in oneself - and in one's neighbour - when understood as a creature of God.

ANd finally, the humble man indeed says I am no good, since I can do nothing of myself, but I do intend on improving since I trust in the infinite providence of God to lead me to perfection. So, conversely, it is only the truly humble person who genuinely intends improving, since it is she alone who recognises her weakness and nothingness and thus relies on the power of God.

I look forward to reading the rest of the thread, thank you!
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on April 22, 2014, 04:09:08 AM
On the temporal level, pride, as properly defined on this Catholic forum, is evil.  A proud leader is no leader at all. Every great leader I have known has been humble and magnanimous.  Every one.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: BigMelvin on April 22, 2014, 04:22:46 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 14, 2013, 09:44:46 AM

Quote from: Maximilian on October 14, 2013, 09:39:37 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 14, 2013, 09:19:16 AM

What would be a better method?

Prayer. There is a being who is infinitely beyond our comprehension, who is, moreover, our creator. We are like those figures who spin around and hammer the bells on those old clocks in European town squares, and God is the clockmaker. If He doesn't tell us what to do, then we have no way of knowing.

Prayer is speaking to God. The amazing thing, beyond all our hopes or dreams or expectations is that God is willing to communicate with us. When He created us and provided us with all of our various faculties like our organs and our intellect and our memory, He also provided us with the most important faculty of all, the ability to pray. We have the ability to communicate with our Creator.

We are like one of those black megaliths in "2001: A Space Oddysey" which has been launched into the universe, but built into it is a transmitter so that it can communicate across the reaches of space with its Creator. And one day you trigger it and make contact. Jody Foster is trying to make "Contact" with aliens, but I can make contact right this minute with the Creator of those aliens, assuming they exist.

The 2 realities that prevent me from succeeding at figuring out the meaning of my life do not apply to God. He has infinite wisdom and infinite time. He is willing to be a parent to me if I am willing to be a child to Him and accept His authority (as we discussed on the other thread). If I do, then He will educate me and draw me out of my ignorance and misery, but if I refuse, then I kill time in my pointless existence until I die.

I have tried prayer, with a lot of effort, all I heard was my own inner thought.  Since you talk about knowing, how can I know there is a God at all?

I am being a little presumptious here, but if your prayer began with the insistence that pride is better than and more realistic than humility, then it is little wonder all you found was yourself. All the Saints begin prayer with the assumption of our littleness before God, and the great truth that we owe everything to God. "The prayer of him that humbleth himself shall pierce the clouds" (Sirach 35:21)

And secondly, the Catholic faith of the Ages, commited by Christ to the Apostles, has always known that there are two ways of knowing that there is a God at all. One is through the use of natural reason, involving the axioms of non-contradiction, causality, and the intelligibility of being, and the other through the infused knowledge of faith. Faith is a theological virtue (or habit, a sort of modification) of the soul which elevates the knowledge of man above things known naturally so as to give him knowledge of things ordinarily beyond him. This is the Catholic principle of the supernatural, by which we know dimly the Holy Trinity and believe in the redemption in Christ and in many other wonderful things. Without supernatural knowledge we are like the fool that points at the sky and sees only his finger.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: BigMelvin on April 22, 2014, 05:09:03 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 14, 2013, 07:58:52 PM
GUDC

As mentioned earlier, I have studied the five ways of Aquinas and I find them insufficient.  I find the contingency argument to be the weakest.  Just because a thing is contingent does not necessarily mean that something created it.  A contingent being could very well have come about by chance.

I am sure I will be stating something that someone else has said, but as I understand it the contingency argument proves a necessary being, on whom all contingent beings depend. It seems to me that it is in subsequent questions that the issue of creation is dealt with. Did you study St Thomas's five ways in isolation, or in the context of his background in Aristotelian physics (philosophy of nature) and metaphysics?

Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: BigMelvin on April 22, 2014, 05:11:25 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 14, 2013, 08:17:16 PM

Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 14, 2013, 08:13:42 PM
I'll explain further.  A contingent thing didn't have to exist, it isn't necessary.  But to equate contingency with a need for a creator seems to be assuming that there is some purpose to existence and that existence is objectively better than non-existence.  I don't think that's the case.  Existence is subjectively better from our point of view only.

Yes, I can and do believe this.  It's no different really than rolling the dice.

and do die come from chance?!?!
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 22, 2014, 06:37:48 AM

Quote from: rbjmartin on April 21, 2014, 09:56:01 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 21, 2014, 09:48:16 PM
When I tell you that I prefer the moderns, I am not saying they are the only philosophers worth reading, or that they are the only ones that are correct, I was simply telling you whom I enjoy reading.  I wasn't trying to be argumentative.  I enjoy reading Dostoyevsky, that doesn't mean that I hate Dickens.  I was merely mentioning whom I enjoy reading, don't take anymore into the statement than that,

But you used your "preference for the moderns" as a means of deflecting my suggestion that you read the ancients, a suggestion I made NOT as a means of personal enjoyment (which seems to be the basis of your philosophical preferences) but as a means of arriving at truth via reasoning.

If you just want to be trapped in your own pleasures and enjoyments, fine, that's your choice. It's a prison of your own making. But don't pretend to care about truth, and don't pretend to care about freedom (which can only come from an acknowledgement of truth). Truth always costs something. It requires that we conform our minds to reality and surrender our petty preferences. Enjoyment and pleasure are not the arbiters of truth.

If you are interested in truth then you cannot speak of the 'ancients' as if they are one big party with one view.  They had incredibly diverse views.  I am getting around to Aristotle, so l will read him eventually.  I am interested in Lao Tzu as well.  I have a list that keeps growing, and I can only read so much at once.  I have been working my way through Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology by Ayn Rand recently, it isn't long, but it is very dense.

Since we are on philosophy, do you think Epistemology or Metaphysics should come first?

Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 22, 2014, 06:39:17 AM

Quote from: james03 on April 21, 2014, 09:50:09 PM
QuoteHe clearly states that the mind is explained by the brain and that the brain is physical, so consciousness is something physical.
Did you even pay attention to the video?  It was a waste of my time.  He explains how images enter the brain and are encoded there.  He then says "we are making progress" on understanding conciousness and ........well that's it.  ZERO explanation on intentionality from a materialist understanding.  None, zip, nada.

I was merely pointing out that he clearly has a materialistic view of the brain, which you said he didn't.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 22, 2014, 07:29:23 AM
Quote from: BigMelvin on April 22, 2014, 04:02:20 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 12, 2013, 09:45:49 PM

Quote from: Gerard on October 12, 2013, 09:37:02 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 12, 2013, 08:23:04 PM
Louis IX and Gerard, we can pick up where we left off here.

I'll start by stating that humility is bad and I prefer pride.  Humility is anti-humanistic, while pride is a wonderful virtue that celebrates man qua man.

Let's start by clarifying terms.  What do you mean by "bad"?  Probably you should also supply definitions for pride and humility as well as what "good" means.  The discussion can be worthwhile if I know we are all submitting to the same understanding of the language used.

Excellent point.  A thing is bad in so far as it does not advance man in his quest for survival.  Pride is the joy one takes in achieving one's own moral perfection.  Humility is self-abasement, it is to see no value in one's own self.  The humble man says 'I am no good, and I do not intend on improving'.  Clearly y'all are using the term differently.

Hello Mr Flyboy and all the other contributors. Big Melvin here, nice to see you all. I have only just started reading this thread and would like to post as I read it, so I might be stating what is by now obvious (or indeed what has now been refuted!). So please excuse me if I duplicate.

Firstly, four points with respect to the above. Humility does advance man in his quest for survival, and indeed is the ultimate foundation of him being able to survive, providing we understand survival as eternal survival. This is because the theological virtue of charity - by which the just live eternally - is received in the soul who acknowledges his dependence on his Creator and lives accordingly.

Secondly, the moral perfection of the proud is not perfection at all, since without humility before God the acts of the proud lack reference to their final end and thus are not properly virtuous or indeed moral. Since the proud man acts with himself as end (Kant!), his acts are not performed in virtue but in vice, and are not moral but immoral.

Thirdly, humility is indeed to see no value in oneself if one is understood as self-sufficient, but to see an incredible value in oneself - and in one's neighbour - when understood as a creature of God.

ANd finally, the humble man indeed says I am no good, since I can do nothing of myself, but I do intend on improving since I trust in the infinite providence of God to lead me to perfection. So, conversely, it is only the truly humble person who genuinely intends improving, since it is she alone who recognises her weakness and nothingness and thus relies on the power of God.

I look forward to reading the rest of the thread, thank you!

Welcome to the conversation.  There has been a problem over definitions up to this point.  I have been working on a definition of pride as a joy which proceeds from the attainment of virtue, and humility as self-abasement.  Which brings up the question of altruism.  What do you think of altruism?  Is altruism to be seen as a good thing which should be pursued?  Is it practical?  Does it promote life?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: rbjmartin on April 22, 2014, 09:04:41 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 22, 2014, 06:37:48 AM

Quote from: rbjmartin on April 21, 2014, 09:56:01 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 21, 2014, 09:48:16 PM
When I tell you that I prefer the moderns, I am not saying they are the only philosophers worth reading, or that they are the only ones that are correct, I was simply telling you whom I enjoy reading.  I wasn't trying to be argumentative.  I enjoy reading Dostoyevsky, that doesn't mean that I hate Dickens.  I was merely mentioning whom I enjoy reading, don't take anymore into the statement than that,

But you used your "preference for the moderns" as a means of deflecting my suggestion that you read the ancients, a suggestion I made NOT as a means of personal enjoyment (which seems to be the basis of your philosophical preferences) but as a means of arriving at truth via reasoning.

If you just want to be trapped in your own pleasures and enjoyments, fine, that's your choice. It's a prison of your own making. But don't pretend to care about truth, and don't pretend to care about freedom (which can only come from an acknowledgement of truth). Truth always costs something. It requires that we conform our minds to reality and surrender our petty preferences. Enjoyment and pleasure are not the arbiters of truth.

If you are interested in truth then you cannot speak of the 'ancients' as if they are one big party with one view.  They had incredibly diverse views.  I am getting around to Aristotle, so l will read him eventually.  I am interested in Lao Tzu as well.  I have a list that keeps growing, and I can only read so much at once.  I have been working my way through Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology by Ayn Rand recently, it isn't long, but it is very dense.

Since we are on philosophy, do you think Epistemology or Metaphysics should come first?

Your problem seems to be intellectual promiscuity. You seem to hop from philosophy to philosophy as it suits you, but you only seem to latch on to what seems pleasurable and convenient to you. There is no conviction of truth in your studies.

If you are just now "getting around" to Aristotle, don't pretend to have a general familiarity with Western philosophy. You should exercise some humility and consider yourself relatively unlearned in the field of philosophy. But this is not what you have done. For instance, you summarily dismissed St. Thomas's Five Ways, but it's apparent that you don't even have the philosophical background to understand his arguments correctly. For example, your statements about the argument from contingency demonstrate that you don't even know what contingency is, so you are being quite presumptuous when you dismiss it.

When I generically refer to the Greek and Roman philosophers as "the ancients," I mean those philosophers who constitute part of the canon of Western literature. For instance, anyone with at least a cursory understanding of Western philosophy will have a familiarity with ideas and writings of the pre-Socratics, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Stoics (Cicero, Seneca, Marcus Aurelius), Epicureans, Sceptics, early Christian philosophers/theologians, etc. That means having read a significant amount from each and gleaning what truth is available in each. But again, there is a cost to accepting truth. Pleasure is not the arbiter of truth, but you have made it out to be.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: rbjmartin on April 22, 2014, 09:07:04 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 22, 2014, 07:29:23 AM
Welcome to the conversation.  There has been a problem over definitions up to this point.  I have been working on a definition of pride as a joy which proceeds from the attainment of virtue, and humility as self-abasement.  Which brings up the question of altruism.  What do you think of altruism?  Is altruism to be seen as a good thing which should be pursued?  Is it practical?  Does it promote life?

Altruism has nothing to do with the current conversations. This is just more of your intellectual promiscuity. You hop from topic to topic and remain unfocused because you don't really seem to care about arriving at any sort of conclusions (unless they are your own and you find them pleasurable).
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 22, 2014, 09:31:50 AM
Quote from: rbjmartin on April 22, 2014, 09:07:04 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 22, 2014, 07:29:23 AM
Welcome to the conversation.  There has been a problem over definitions up to this point.  I have been working on a definition of pride as a joy which proceeds from the attainment of virtue, and humility as self-abasement.  Which brings up the question of altruism.  What do you think of altruism?  Is altruism to be seen as a good thing which should be pursued?  Is it practical?  Does it promote life?

Altruism has nothing to do with the current conversations. This is just more of your intellectual promiscuity. You hop from topic to topic and remain unfocused because you don't really seem to care about arriving at any sort of conclusions (unless they are your own and you find them pleasurable).

Altruism has everything to do with the concepts of pride and humility.  The reason Miss Rand discussed pride and humility in the way that she did was because she dismissed altruism as a great evil.  She thought altruism was the worst evil the world has ever seen, and that only rational selfishness could counter act it.  Miss Rand believed that humility led to selflessness, which is against life.  (Her opinion)

I will readily admit that I am not well read when it comes to philosophy, I have never claimed otherwise.  I have read some of the metaphysics of Aristotle, but I don't understand it.  I tried reading St. Thomas, but it may as well have been greek.  Please excuse my generally confrontational manner, it is a flaw in my personality which I don't always handle in the best way.  I'm sorry for this.  So, let's start over as I think I have a chance to learn something here.  I am beginning with epistemology and working my way slowly through the topic.  Do you have any suggestions on good books to read on epistemology.  So far all I have is a book by Ayn Rand, but I want to be more diverse and see what others have to say.  Thank you.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: rbjmartin on April 22, 2014, 09:45:31 AM
Humility is simply the rational acknowledgement of one's limitations and weaknesses. However, true humility doesn't see the self as worse than it really is (which would be false humility). Humility is simply an objective and realistic view of self, and for human beings, that inevitably means the acknowledgement of our shortcomings, limitations, dependencies, and weaknesses.

So Rand is wrong. Humility does not NECESSARILY lead to selflessness. It is simply an acknowledgement of reality.

Back to your discussion of independence as a virtue (I don't even remember if it was in this thread)...you do realize that simply by using language, you are demonstrating dependence? You didn't invent the language you use. You also frequently depend on the dictionary for your definitions. Independence is not an absolute good, nor is dependence an absolute evil.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 22, 2014, 10:08:19 AM
Quote from: rbjmartin on April 22, 2014, 09:45:31 AM
Humility is simply the rational acknowledgement of one's limitations and weaknesses. However, true humility doesn't see the self as worse than it really is (which would be false humility). Humility is simply an objective and realistic view of self, and for human beings, that inevitably means the acknowledgement of our shortcomings, limitations, dependencies, and weaknesses.

So Rand is wrong. Humility does not NECESSARILY lead to selflessness. It is simply an acknowledgement of reality.

Back to your discussion of independence as a virtue (I don't even remember if it was in this thread)...you do realize that simply by using language, you are demonstrating dependence? You didn't invent the language you use. You also frequently depend on the dictionary for your definitions. Independence is not an absolute good, nor is dependence an absolute evil.

Miss Rand just had a different understanding of humility.

Now we are making progress.  In a way total independence is not possible, but neither is total dependence.  When I say independence I mean that a man works to sustain himself and makes his own decisions.  He does not demand that others feed him nor does he demand that others take care of his needs.   The dependent man lives on welfare, he takes from others without giving anything back, while the independent man seeks to exchange value for value.  A man living on an island would have a very meager life, he needs to work with others in order to have a better life.  But, if he is to live in society, he cannot seek to be a burden to others.  If he wants goods from someone else, he must be willing to exchange his own goods for the goods he seeks.  All goods are obtained through either production or theft, if he is a good man he will produce and then seek to exchange some of what he has produced for some of what others have produced.  This is what I mean when I speak of independence.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on April 22, 2014, 10:15:55 AM
But some are weak and we are not to condemn them for it as nutzo rand asserts. If we are prosperous because we worked hard and were just and honest...that does not mean we get to judge and dismiss those who were weak and because of it did not prosper. Jesus defined all the laws of moses as only 2 commands..Love God (humility) and your neighbor as if he was yourself ( more humility)...all good socioty and true justice flow from these truths...rand the rancid rejected this.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: rbjmartin on April 22, 2014, 11:01:07 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 22, 2014, 10:08:19 AM
Miss Rand just had a different understanding of humility.

I would be so bold as to assert that her understanding was false, as her notion of humility seems more visceral and not in accord with how the virtue of humility has been understood in the West for the last 2500+ years. She falsely associated it with weakness. Yet the Romans, who were anything but weak, appreciated humility (understood correctly) as a personal virtue.

Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 22, 2014, 10:08:19 AM
Now we are making progress.  In a way total independence is not possible, but neither is total dependence.  When I say independence I mean that a man works to sustain himself and makes his own decisions.  He does not demand that others feed him nor does he demand that others take care of his needs.   The dependent man lives on welfare, he takes from others without giving anything back, while the independent man seeks to exchange value for value.  A man living on an island would have a very meager life, he needs to work with others in order to have a better life.  But, if he is to live in society, he cannot seek to be a burden to others.  If he wants goods from someone else, he must be willing to exchange his own goods for the goods he seeks.  All goods are obtained through either production or theft, if he is a good man he will produce and then seek to exchange some of what he has produced for some of what others have produced.  This is what I mean when I speak of independence.

I don't think anyone is going to argue with your presentation of humility given above, but you were trying to make an absolute virtue out of independence, and it simply isn't, because dependence is a good and necessary thing under certain circumstances.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 22, 2014, 12:13:17 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on April 22, 2014, 10:15:55 AM
But some are weak and we are not to condemn them for it as nutzo rand asserts. If we are prosperous because we worked hard and were just and honest...that does not mean we get to judge and dismiss those who were weak and because of it did not prosper. Jesus defined all the laws of moses as only 2 commands..Love God (humility) and your neighbor as if he was yourself ( more humility)...all good socioty and true justice flow from these truths...rand the rancid rejected this.

First, insults are not necessary.  Second, Miss Rand never said any such thing.  She was perfectly fine with charity, so long as it was not seen as a virtue in itself.  (By charity I mean giving alms to the poor)  She wanted everyone to love each other, but not to use others as ends.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on April 22, 2014, 12:25:28 PM
QuoteNow we are making progress.  In a way total independence is not possible, but neither is total dependence.  When I say independence I mean that a man works to sustain himself and makes his own decisions.  He does not demand that others feed him nor does he demand that others take care of his needs.   The dependent man lives on welfare, he takes from others without giving anything back, while the independent man seeks to exchange value for value.  A man living on an island would have a very meager life, he needs to work with others in order to have a better life.  But, if he is to live in society, he cannot seek to be a burden to others.  If he wants goods from someone else, he must be willing to exchange his own goods for the goods he seeks.  All goods are obtained through either production or theft, if he is a good man he will produce and then seek to exchange some of what he has produced for some of what others have produced. This is what I mean when I speak of independence.

And this is what is crippling you, and Rand.  What you just stated is given a precise term: commutative justice.  If you want to use your Randian terms on an Objectivist forum, have at it.  On a Catholic forum such imprecision will get you nowhere.  Which if you are here to whine, I guess that suits you just fine.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 22, 2014, 12:26:39 PM
Quote from: rbjmartin on April 22, 2014, 11:01:07 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 22, 2014, 10:08:19 AM
Miss Rand just had a different understanding of humility.

I would be so bold as to assert that her understanding was false, as her notion of humility seems more visceral and not in accord with how the virtue of humility has been understood in the West for the last 2500+ years. She falsely associated it with weakness. Yet the Romans, who were anything but weak, appreciated humility (understood correctly) as a personal virtue.

Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 22, 2014, 10:08:19 AM
Now we are making progress.  In a way total independence is not possible, but neither is total dependence.  When I say independence I mean that a man works to sustain himself and makes his own decisions.  He does not demand that others feed him nor does he demand that others take care of his needs.   The dependent man lives on welfare, he takes from others without giving anything back, while the independent man seeks to exchange value for value.  A man living on an island would have a very meager life, he needs to work with others in order to have a better life.  But, if he is to live in society, he cannot seek to be a burden to others.  If he wants goods from someone else, he must be willing to exchange his own goods for the goods he seeks.  All goods are obtained through either production or theft, if he is a good man he will produce and then seek to exchange some of what he has produced for some of what others have produced.  This is what I mean when I speak of independence.

I don't think anyone is going to argue with your presentation of humility given above, but you were trying to make an absolute virtue out of independence, and it simply isn't, because dependence is a good and necessary thing under certain circumstances.

As far as humility goes we are getting into semantics with the two different concepts.  She dismissed self-loathing, and so does The Catholic Church.

How do you distinguish between absolute and non-absolute virtues?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 22, 2014, 12:27:41 PM
Quote from: james03 on April 22, 2014, 12:25:28 PM
QuoteNow we are making progress.  In a way total independence is not possible, but neither is total dependence.  When I say independence I mean that a man works to sustain himself and makes his own decisions.  He does not demand that others feed him nor does he demand that others take care of his needs.   The dependent man lives on welfare, he takes from others without giving anything back, while the independent man seeks to exchange value for value.  A man living on an island would have a very meager life, he needs to work with others in order to have a better life.  But, if he is to live in society, he cannot seek to be a burden to others.  If he wants goods from someone else, he must be willing to exchange his own goods for the goods he seeks.  All goods are obtained through either production or theft, if he is a good man he will produce and then seek to exchange some of what he has produced for some of what others have produced. This is what I mean when I speak of independence.

And this is what is crippling you, and Rand.  What you just stated is given a precise term: commutative justice.  If you want to use your Randian terms on an Objectivist forum, have at it.  On a Catholic forum such imprecision will get you nowhere.  Which if you are here to whine, I guess that suits you just fine.

Okay, define commutative justice.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Angelorum on April 22, 2014, 12:37:08 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 22, 2014, 12:27:41 PM

Okay, define commutative justice.

https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=32673

QuoteThe virtue that regulates those actions which involve the rights between one individual and another individual. If a person steals another's money, he or she violates commutative justice. Any violation of commutative justice imposes on the guilty party the duty of restitution, that is, the duty of repairing the harm caused. In fact, strictly speaking, only violations of commutative justice give rise to this duty of restitution.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 22, 2014, 12:39:53 PM

Quote from: Angelorum on April 22, 2014, 12:37:08 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 22, 2014, 12:27:41 PM

Okay, define commutative justice.

https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=32673

QuoteThe virtue that regulates those actions which involve the rights between one individual and another individual. If a person steals another's money, he or she violates commutative justice. Any violation of commutative justice imposes on the guilty party the duty of restitution, that is, the duty of repairing the harm caused. In fact, strictly speaking, only violations of commutative justice give rise to this duty of restitution.

Thank you.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 22, 2014, 12:41:31 PM

Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 22, 2014, 12:13:17 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on April 22, 2014, 10:15:55 AM
But some are weak and we are not to condemn them for it as nutzo rand asserts. If we are prosperous because we worked hard and were just and honest...that does not mean we get to judge and dismiss those who were weak and because of it did not prosper. Jesus defined all the laws of moses as only 2 commands..Love God (humility) and your neighbor as if he was yourself ( more humility)...all good socioty and true justice flow from these truths...rand the rancid rejected this.

First, insults are not necessary.  Second, Miss Rand never said any such thing.  She was perfectly fine with charity, so long as it was not seen as a virtue in itself.  (By charity I mean giving alms to the poor)  She wanted everyone to love each other, but not to use others as ends.

Here is a great video in which Miss Rand is interviewed by Donahue.  She mentions her view of charity briefly.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 22, 2014, 12:45:54 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 22, 2014, 12:41:31 PM

Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 22, 2014, 12:13:17 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on April 22, 2014, 10:15:55 AM
But some are weak and we are not to condemn them for it as nutzo rand asserts. If we are prosperous because we worked hard and were just and honest...that does not mean we get to judge and dismiss those who were weak and because of it did not prosper. Jesus defined all the laws of moses as only 2 commands..Love God (humility) and your neighbor as if he was yourself ( more humility)...all good socioty and true justice flow from these truths...rand the rancid rejected this.

First, insults are not necessary.  Second, Miss Rand never said any such thing.  She was perfectly fine with charity, so long as it was not seen as a virtue in itself.  (By charity I mean giving alms to the poor)  She wanted everyone to love each other, but not to use others as ends.

Here is a great video in which Miss Rand is interviewed by Donahue.  She mentions her view of charity briefly.  (It is at the beginning, Donahue asks if is good to do good for others.)
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on April 22, 2014, 12:46:33 PM
Here's the definition:
Quotewhile the independent (sic)  man seeks to exchange value for value.  ....  But, if he is to live in society, he cannot seek to be a burden to others.  If he wants goods from someone else, he must be willing to exchange his own goods for the goods he seeks.

This is out of the cardinal virtue of justice.  A Catholic can explain on first principles why this is moral living.  An atheist can not because at the end of the day it is necessary that he arrives at materialistic eliminativism and nihilism.  Which is exemplified by Dennett who you say you like.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 22, 2014, 12:48:54 PM
Quote from: james03 on April 22, 2014, 12:46:33 PM
Here's the definition:
Quotewhile the independent (sic)  man seeks to exchange value for value.  ....  But, if he is to live in society, he cannot seek to be a burden to others.  If he wants goods from someone else, he must be willing to exchange his own goods for the goods he seeks.

This is out of the cardinal virtue of justice.  A Catholic can explain on first principles why this is moral living.  An atheist can not because at the end of the day it is necessary that he arrives at materialistic eliminativism and nihilism.  Which is exemplified by Dennett who you say you like.

I don't know all of Dennett's philosophy, but I like what he has to say on the mind.  I don't know if he is right or not, but he is interesting.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 22, 2014, 12:51:41 PM
Quote from: james03 on April 22, 2014, 12:46:33 PM
Here's the definition:
Quotewhile the independent (sic)  man seeks to exchange value for value.  ....  But, if he is to live in society, he cannot seek to be a burden to others.  If he wants goods from someone else, he must be willing to exchange his own goods for the goods he seeks.

This is out of the cardinal virtue of justice.  A Catholic can explain on first principles why this is moral living.  An atheist can not because at the end of the day it is necessary that he arrives at materialistic eliminativism and nihilism.  Which is exemplified by Dennett who you say you like.

What is materialistic eliminativism?  Will you please define this term?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on April 22, 2014, 12:51:49 PM
What he says about the mind is that it does not exist.  Therefore the ability to be owed can not exist.  Therefore trading value for value is meaningless.  That is the necessary conclusion, and doesn't depend on what you like.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on April 22, 2014, 12:54:39 PM
QuoteWhat is materialistic eliminativism?  Will you please define this term?
That at the end of the day we are just neutrons, protons, and electrons.  Therefore it is foolish to believe in love, beauty, justice, trading value for value, living, "bettering yourself", the mind, intentionalism, or any other kind of virtue or transcendental immaterial concept.  In a word, it is atheism.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 22, 2014, 12:55:18 PM
Quote from: james03 on April 22, 2014, 12:51:49 PM
What he says about the mind is that it does not exist.  Therefore the ability to be owed can not exist.  Therefore trading value for value is meaningless.  That is the necessary conclusion, and doesn't depend on what you like.

I'm not saying you are wrong, but that is not what I have gotten from his videos.  He seems to be trying to de-mystify the mind, but not deny it.  Why do you say that he denies the mind?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 22, 2014, 12:56:29 PM
Quote from: james03 on April 22, 2014, 12:54:39 PM
QuoteWhat is materialistic eliminativism?  Will you please define this term?
That at the end of the day we are just neutrons, protons, and electrons.  Therefore it is foolish to believe in love, beauty, justice, trading value for value, living, "bettering yourself", the mind, intentionalism, or any other kind of virtue or transcendental immaterial concept.  In a word, it is atheism.

Why do you say neutrons, protons, and electrons?  By this do you mean only matter?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: rbjmartin on April 22, 2014, 12:56:45 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 22, 2014, 12:48:54 PM
I don't know all of Dennett's philosophy, but I like what he has to say on the mind.  I don't know if he is right or not, but he is interesting.

So once again, we see you basing your opinions on whim. You reveal it in your word choice. "I like," "I prefer," "he is interesting," etc. but nothing about whether certain ideas are true or false. In fact, you seem to view that as a peripheral concern.

This is why it's pointless for you to take the "Catholic challenge" or pray the "atheist's prayer"; you have no interest in the truth. In which case, you really are wasting everyone's time here, and simply out of consideration, you should consider leaving and not coming back until you gain an interest in the truth. That's all we care about as Catholics.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 22, 2014, 12:58:58 PM
Quote from: rbjmartin on April 22, 2014, 12:56:45 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 22, 2014, 12:48:54 PM
I don't know all of Dennett's philosophy, but I like what he has to say on the mind.  I don't know if he is right or not, but he is interesting.

So once again, we see you basing your opinions on whim. You reveal it in your word choice. "I like," "I prefer," "he is interesting," etc. but nothing about whether certain ideas are true or false. In fact, you seem to view that as a peripheral concern.

This is why it's pointless for you to take the "Catholic challenge" or pray the "atheist's prayer"; you have no interest in the truth. In which case, you really are wasting everyone's time here, and simply out of consideration, you should consider leaving and not coming back until you gain an interest in the truth. That's all we care about as Catholics.

I don't base any opinions on Dennett.  The great thing about philosophy is that I can listen to a philosopher without accepting everything he says.  I am interested in his theory on the mind, but I don't know enough yet to accept or reject it.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on April 22, 2014, 01:19:43 PM
But you know enough to reject God?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 22, 2014, 01:23:28 PM
Quote from: james03 on April 22, 2014, 01:19:43 PM
But you know enough to reject God?

I don't know enough to judge Dennett's theory of the mind as of yet, but I do know enough to reject God, yes.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on April 22, 2014, 01:25:09 PM
QuoteI'm not saying you are wrong, but that is not what I have gotten from his videos.  He seems to be trying to de-mystify the mind, but not deny it.  Why do you say that he denies the mind?
Because he denies what is the common meaning of the term "mind".  He says there is only one transcription, and then just a bunch of chemical/electrical reactions.  That is it.  He is a consistent eliminativist.  Chemical/electrical reactions don't have justice, or value, or virtue, or even life.  In a word, that is atheism.

And he fails at demystifying anything, contradicting himself with a talk of an agent, "you", and saying: we are making progress.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on April 22, 2014, 01:34:43 PM
QuoteI don't know enough to judge Dennett's theory of the mind as of yet, but I do know enough to reject God, yes.

But if God does not exist, then Dennett's heretofore undetailed theory has to be right.  Or to be precise, eliminativism has to be correct.  But you say that we can trade value for value.  However your rejection means that "value" can not exist. 

But in reality you don't reject God, you just refuse to accept him.  So you spend your time whining thinking it will get you off the hook when judgement comes.  "It's not my fault!!".  It won't help at all, in fact it will be worse for you in hell.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 22, 2014, 01:46:14 PM
Quote from: james03 on April 22, 2014, 01:25:09 PM
QuoteI'm not saying you are wrong, but that is not what I have gotten from his videos.  He seems to be trying to de-mystify the mind, but not deny it.  Why do you say that he denies the mind?
Because he denies what is the common meaning of the term "mind".  He says there is only one transcription, and then just a bunch of chemical/electrical reactions.  That is it.  He is a consistent eliminativist.  Chemical/electrical reactions don't have justice, or value, or virtue, or even life.  In a word, that is atheism.

And he fails at demystifying anything, contradicting himself with a talk of an agent, "you", and saying: we are making progress.

When he speaks of the brain, he is speaking of "you."  "You" are brain and body combined.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 22, 2014, 01:48:40 PM
Quote from: james03 on April 22, 2014, 01:34:43 PM
QuoteI don't know enough to judge Dennett's theory of the mind as of yet, but I do know enough to reject God, yes.

But if God does not exist, then Dennett's heretofore undetailed theory has to be right.  Or to be precise, eliminativism has to be correct.  But you say that we can trade value for value.  However your rejection means that "value" can not exist. 

But in reality you don't reject God, you just refuse to accept him.  So you spend your time whining thinking it will get you off the hook when judgement comes.  "It's not my fault!!".  It won't help at all, in fact it will be worse for you in hell.

I do not whine, and I do accept value.  If there is a God, I shall make no excuses, instead I shall accept whatever is my fate with dignity.  The concept of value is not necessarily tied to the concept of God.  Anything which furthers life has value.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on April 22, 2014, 02:32:23 PM
There is no dignity in hell.  As far as life, according to a consistent atheism, it does not exist.  For that matter, dignity can not exist.  As far as "you" being the brain, you are correct.  It is just a material clump that is part of the body.  There is no mind, no concepts, just nihilism.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on April 22, 2014, 06:27:15 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 22, 2014, 12:13:17 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on April 22, 2014, 10:15:55 AM
But some are weak and we are not to condemn them for it as nutzo rand asserts. If we are prosperous because we worked hard and were just and honest...that does not mean we get to judge and dismiss those who were weak and because of it did not prosper. Jesus defined all the laws of moses as only 2 commands..Love God (humility) and your neighbor as if he was yourself ( more humility)...all good socioty and true justice flow from these truths...rand the rancid rejected this.

First, insults are not necessary.  Second, Miss Rand never said any such thing.  She was perfectly fine with charity, so long as it was not seen as a virtue in itself.  (By charity I mean giving alms to the poor)  She wanted everyone to love each other, but not to use others as ends.
according to the lunatic ayne rand insults can be very necessary.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Non Nobis on April 22, 2014, 07:31:23 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 22, 2014, 12:58:58 PMThe great thing about philosophy is that I can listen to a philosopher without accepting everything he says.  .

"Philosophy" comes from the Greek for "love of wisdom". Do you believe in wisdom, or in truth?  These are things outside yourself that exist whether or not you accept them or are interested in them. They are not best obtained by "dabbling" in whatever appeals to you.

If I were an atheist I hope I would recognize that throughout all history the belief in God has been thought to be the greatest wisdom.  I would not stop studying about God (and even arguing) instead of dabbling in one little philosopher after another.  If God is truth what a waste of life to pass Him by.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 22, 2014, 07:45:42 PM

Quote from: Non Nobis on April 22, 2014, 07:31:23 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 22, 2014, 12:58:58 PMThe great thing about philosophy is that I can listen to a philosopher without accepting everything he says.  .

"Philosophy" comes from the Greek for "love of wisdom". Do you believe in wisdom, or in truth?  These are things outside yourself that exist whether or not you accept them or are interested in them. They are not best obtained by "dabbling" in whatever appeals to you.

If I were an atheist I hope I would recognize that throughout all history the belief in God has been thought to be the greatest wisdom.  I would not stop studying about God (and even arguing) instead of dabbling in one little philosopher after another.  If God is truth what a waste of life to pass Him by.

I love wisdom and truth, and I am interested in Objectivism because it exists in reality.  I am still here because I still want to argue about God.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 22, 2014, 07:47:32 PM

Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on April 22, 2014, 06:27:15 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 22, 2014, 12:13:17 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on April 22, 2014, 10:15:55 AM
But some are weak and we are not to condemn them for it as nutzo rand asserts. If we are prosperous because we worked hard and were just and honest...that does not mean we get to judge and dismiss those who were weak and because of it did not prosper. Jesus defined all the laws of moses as only 2 commands..Love God (humility) and your neighbor as if he was yourself ( more humility)...all good socioty and true justice flow from these truths...rand the rancid rejected this.

First, insults are not necessary.  Second, Miss Rand never said any such thing.  She was perfectly fine with charity, so long as it was not seen as a virtue in itself.  (By charity I mean giving alms to the poor)  She wanted everyone to love each other, but not to use others as ends.
according to the lunatic ayne rand insults can be very necessary.

Ayn Rand did not say that insults are necessary.  By the way, proper nouns are capitalized.  I capitalize the name of God, the least you could do is capitalize Miss Rand's name.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: JuniorCouncilor on April 22, 2014, 07:56:31 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 22, 2014, 12:58:58 PM
The great thing about philosophy is that I can listen to a philosopher without accepting everything he says. 

Whereas the great thing about God is that you can listen to Him and accept everything He says.


Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 22, 2014, 01:48:40 PM
I do not whine
Quote

Everybody whines.  It's part of the human condition.  Prouder people have more to whine about-- one of the great things about humility.

QuoteAnything which furthers life has value.

I totally disagree with this.  If I didn't believe in God, I think what would make the most sense would be to get out of life as quickly as possible.  Nor is this opinion uncommon among the philosophers.  You will find it in Plato, for example.

Anyway, historically, post-Christian atheists' respect for human dignity (think Russian and Spanish communism) has been more disastrous than anything Christians have ever done.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 22, 2014, 08:00:47 PM

Quote from: JuniorCouncilor on April 22, 2014, 07:56:31 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 22, 2014, 12:58:58 PM
The great thing about philosophy is that I can listen to a philosopher without accepting everything he says. 

Whereas the great thing about God is that you can listen to Him and accept everything He says.


Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 22, 2014, 01:48:40 PM
I do not whine
Quote

Everybody whines.  It's part of the human condition.  Prouder people have more to whine about-- one of the great things about humility.

QuoteAnything which furthers life has value.

I totally disagree with this.  If I didn't believe in God, I think what would make the most sense would be to get out of life as quickly as possible.  Nor is this opinion uncommon among the philosophers.  You will find it in Plato, for example.

Anyway, historically, post-Christian atheists' respect for human dignity (think Russian and Spanish communism) has been more disastrous than anything Christians have ever done.

If I did believe in God, I would want to get out of to world as soon as possible in order to get to Heaven.  And altruism has been more disastrous to humanity than anything.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on April 22, 2014, 08:44:14 PM
QuoteI am still here because I still want to argue about God.
Really?  I haven't seen any.  Just contradiction after contradiction, e.g. Dennett plus objective value.  Or atheism with objective value.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: LouisIX on April 22, 2014, 08:50:13 PM
Out of curiosity, CF, why have you changed your avatar to the Rockefeller Atlas statue (which curiously was built directly across the street, facing St. Patrick's Cathedral)?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 22, 2014, 08:55:24 PM

Quote from: LouisIX on April 22, 2014, 08:50:13 PM
Out of curiosity, CF, why have you changed your avatar to the Rockefeller Atlas statue (which curiously was built directly across the street, facing St. Patrick's Cathedral)?

The Atlas statue is often used to signify Objectivism (Atlas Shrugged).  I wanted  to change things up a bit, and used an Objectivist holiday as a time to so just that.  Today is the Objectivist holiday 'Exploit the Earth Day.'  By the way, Happy Exploit the Earth Day.

I have been to St. Patrick's, it is beautiful.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 22, 2014, 08:56:40 PM

Quote from: james03 on April 22, 2014, 08:44:14 PM
QuoteI am still here because I still want to argue about God.
Really?  I haven't seen any.  Just contradiction after contradiction, e.g. Dennett plus objective value.  Or atheism with objective value.

Objective values exist in reality, that's why they are called objective.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on April 23, 2014, 04:01:09 AM
So if objective values exist in reality...Objectively you must admit to God existing to write these values into the universal objective understanding of these values.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 23, 2014, 06:28:50 AM

Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on April 23, 2014, 04:01:09 AM
So if objective values exist in reality...Objectively you must admit to God existing to write these values into the universal objective understanding of these values.

How are you defining values?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: rbjmartin on April 23, 2014, 09:39:06 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 22, 2014, 08:56:40 PM
Objective values exist in reality, that's why they are called objective.

This is such BS, I don't even know where to begin.

If you are an atheist, then logic demands that you be a materialist. And if you are a materialist, there is no such thing as spiritual values or Platonic forms. Everything is just what you can see or touch. Values are just names people place on things; ergo, they don't exist in reality. "Order" doesn't exist, because there is no divine mind to order the universe. Everything is just random and material.

You are an inconsistent atheist. You want to deny God, but you want to keep the benefits of God (i.e. moral values, virtues, order, etc.). You want to be a hedonist (which is consistent with a materialist) but you want to claim that there are virtues that should be sought (which is inconsistent with hedonism, because virtues are difficult goods, which often deny pleasure).

If I were an atheist, I would just go all the way. I would live to satisfy my lower appetites. YOLO would be my creed. This would be consistent with an atheist, materialist belief system.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 23, 2014, 10:09:15 AM
Quote from: rbjmartin on April 23, 2014, 09:39:06 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 22, 2014, 08:56:40 PM
Objective values exist in reality, that's why they are called objective.

This is such BS, I don't even know where to begin.

If you are an atheist, then logic demands that you be a materialist. And if you are a materialist, there is no such thing as spiritual values or Platonic forms. Everything is just what you can see or touch. Values are just names people place on things; ergo, they don't exist in reality. "Order" doesn't exist, because there is no divine mind to order the universe. Everything is just random and material.

You are an inconsistent atheist. You want to deny God, but you want to keep the benefits of God (i.e. moral values, virtues, order, etc.). You want to be a hedonist (which is consistent with a materialist) but you want to claim that there are virtues that should be sought (which is inconsistent with hedonism, because virtues are difficult goods, which often deny pleasure).

If I were an atheist, I would just go all the way. I would live to satisfy my lower appetites. YOLO would be my creed. This would be consistent with an atheist, materialist belief system.

We have gone over this to the point of redundancy.  You are falling into a false dichotomy, which is that we must choose either religion or subjectivity.  True objectivity deals with reality as it is, and not the way we want it to be.  The world around me exists regardless of what I think, nature couldn't care any less about my ideas.  Even if there wasn't a single conscious mind in existence, the world would still be exactly as it is now, nothing would change.  Objective morals must be based on something we can prove and know.  This means that morality must be viewed as a science.  Ayn Rand said it best when she said, "the truth is not for all men, but only for those who seek it."  Truth is not something that is handed down from generation to generation, it is not something inherited through the genes, it is something that must be sought out and found.  If a man tells me that something is immoral, my response is to say "prove it."  Give me evidence or reason why a thing is immoral, and I will fight along side you in denouncing this immorality.  True objectivity lies in accepting the world as it is, existence exists.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: rbjmartin on April 23, 2014, 10:15:07 AM
Science deals with empirical knowledge, which ALL originates in the senses. As a materialist, you can never prove to me that morality exists. I can't see it. I can't touch it. I can't observe it in any way. I can't do experiments on it. It doesn't exist. Period.

You're right. We have been over this before, and you have no answer to the argument. I asked you to prove to me that morality exists, and you can't do it.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on April 23, 2014, 10:16:34 AM
So if I dont seek truth truth doesnt exist for me? Ayne Rand was stark raving loony
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 23, 2014, 10:47:35 AM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on April 23, 2014, 10:16:34 AM
So if I dont seek truth truth doesnt exist for me? Ayne Rand was stark raving loony

Truth is objective, that is it exists in reality outside of me or anybody else.  It exists in the object.  If you do not seek truth, you will not have a mental grasp of it, but it will still exist.  I may not believe in gravity, yet if I jump off a cliff, gravity will still pull me to the ground.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: rbjmartin on April 23, 2014, 10:50:59 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 23, 2014, 10:47:35 AM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on April 23, 2014, 10:16:34 AM
So if I dont seek truth truth doesnt exist for me? Ayne Rand was stark raving loony

Truth is objective, that is it exists in reality outside of me or anybody else.  It exists in the object.  If you do not seek truth, you will not have a mental grasp of it, but it will still exist.  I may not believe in gravity, yet if I jump off a cliff, gravity will still pull me to the ground.

Prove that morality is an object that exists.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 23, 2014, 10:56:06 AM
Quote from: rbjmartin on April 23, 2014, 10:15:07 AM
Science deals with empirical knowledge, which ALL originates in the senses. As a materialist, you can never prove to me that morality exists. I can't see it. I can't touch it. I can't observe it in any way. I can't do experiments on it. It doesn't exist. Period.

You're right. We have been over this before, and you have no answer to the argument. I asked you to prove to me that morality exists, and you can't do it.

Just because you cannot experience a thing directly with your senses, does not mean that it does not exist.  We can experience things with our senses by the aid of instruments.  I have no direct experience of atoms, they are too small for me to see.  Yet I know they exist as scientists have been able to create instruments which can prove they exist.  There are galaxies so far away that we cannot see them with the unaided eye, yet we know that they exist because scientists have invented telescopes powerful enough to view them.  I can only see a small sliver of the light spectrum, yet I know there is more than what I see.  This is because special instruments have been invented which see things like infrared light.  Sometimes our senses are not strong enough and we need instruments which give us greater insight into the universe we see all around us.  Empirical evidence doesn't only come from the unaided senses, but can also come from the aided senses.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 23, 2014, 10:58:34 AM
Allow me to add that even though all knowledge comes in through the senses, that doesn't mean that our senses are our only means of obtaining knowledge.  Often times our senses need help.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 23, 2014, 11:11:39 AM
Quote from: rbjmartin on April 23, 2014, 10:50:59 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 23, 2014, 10:47:35 AM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on April 23, 2014, 10:16:34 AM
So if I dont seek truth truth doesnt exist for me? Ayne Rand was stark raving loony

Truth is objective, that is it exists in reality outside of me or anybody else.  It exists in the object.  If you do not seek truth, you will not have a mental grasp of it, but it will still exist.  I may not believe in gravity, yet if I jump off a cliff, gravity will still pull me to the ground.

Prove that morality is an object that exists.

Morality exists, but not as an object.  Morality exists as a set of ideas which correspond to reality.  There is one fundamental right, and that is the right to live.  All other rights are derived from the right to live.  The right to live is an irreducible primary, which does not need to be proven, nor can it be proven as it is an axiom.  As my nature demands that I seek out certain values in order to remain alive, I must have the right to seek out and obtain these values.  And by values I mean anything which sustains and furthers my life as a man, a rational animal.  As I am a man, I have these rights, yet others are men too and also have these rights.  This is the basis for morality.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: rbjmartin on April 23, 2014, 11:11:56 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 23, 2014, 10:56:06 AM
Quote from: rbjmartin on April 23, 2014, 10:15:07 AM
Science deals with empirical knowledge, which ALL originates in the senses. As a materialist, you can never prove to me that morality exists. I can't see it. I can't touch it. I can't observe it in any way. I can't do experiments on it. It doesn't exist. Period.

You're right. We have been over this before, and you have no answer to the argument. I asked you to prove to me that morality exists, and you can't do it.

Just because you cannot experience a thing directly with your senses, does not mean that it does not exist.  We can experience things with our senses by the aid of instruments.  I have no direct experience of atoms, they are too small for me to see.  Yet I know they exist as scientists have been able to create instruments which can prove they exist.  There are galaxies so far away that we cannot see them with the unaided eye, yet we know that they exist because scientists have invented telescopes powerful enough to view them.  I can only see a small sliver of the light spectrum, yet I know there is more than what I see.  This is because special instruments have been invented which see things like infrared light.  Sometimes our senses are not strong enough and we need instruments which give us greater insight into the universe we see all around us.  Empirical evidence doesn't only come from the unaided senses, but can also come from the aided senses.

You are still relying on sensory data (whether aided by instruments or not) to make your case here.

What sensory data (aided or unaided) can prove that morality is a real, independently existing thing?

I challenge you to go on your atheist message board and tell them that you can prove that morality exists. They will laugh you to scorn.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 23, 2014, 11:15:33 AM
Quote from: rbjmartin on April 23, 2014, 11:11:56 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 23, 2014, 10:56:06 AM
Quote from: rbjmartin on April 23, 2014, 10:15:07 AM
Science deals with empirical knowledge, which ALL originates in the senses. As a materialist, you can never prove to me that morality exists. I can't see it. I can't touch it. I can't observe it in any way. I can't do experiments on it. It doesn't exist. Period.

You're right. We have been over this before, and you have no answer to the argument. I asked you to prove to me that morality exists, and you can't do it.

Just because you cannot experience a thing directly with your senses, does not mean that it does not exist.  We can experience things with our senses by the aid of instruments.  I have no direct experience of atoms, they are too small for me to see.  Yet I know they exist as scientists have been able to create instruments which can prove they exist.  There are galaxies so far away that we cannot see them with the unaided eye, yet we know that they exist because scientists have invented telescopes powerful enough to view them.  I can only see a small sliver of the light spectrum, yet I know there is more than what I see.  This is because special instruments have been invented which see things like infrared light.  Sometimes our senses are not strong enough and we need instruments which give us greater insight into the universe we see all around us.  Empirical evidence doesn't only come from the unaided senses, but can also come from the aided senses.

You are still relying on sensory data (whether aided by instruments or not) to make your case here.

What sensory data (aided or unaided) can prove that morality is a real, independently existing thing?

I challenge you to go on your atheist message board and tell them that you can prove that morality exists. They will laugh you to scorn.

First, I have not been on The Thinking Atheist forum for months, as there is nothing but vile and filth over there.  Second, read my above post.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: rbjmartin on April 23, 2014, 11:18:09 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 23, 2014, 11:11:39 AM
Quote from: rbjmartin on April 23, 2014, 10:50:59 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 23, 2014, 10:47:35 AM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on April 23, 2014, 10:16:34 AM
So if I dont seek truth truth doesnt exist for me? Ayne Rand was stark raving loony

Truth is objective, that is it exists in reality outside of me or anybody else.  It exists in the object.  If you do not seek truth, you will not have a mental grasp of it, but it will still exist.  I may not believe in gravity, yet if I jump off a cliff, gravity will still pull me to the ground.

Prove that morality is an object that exists.

Morality exists, but not as an object.  Morality exists as a set of ideas which correspond to reality.  There is one fundamental right, and that is the right to live.  All other rights are derived from the right to live.  The right to live is an irreducible primary, which does not need to be proven, nor can it be proven as it is an axiom.  As my nature demands that I seek out certain values in order to remain alive, I must have the right to seek out and obtain these values.  And by values I mean anything which sustains and furthers my life as a man, a rational animal.  As I am a man, I have these rights, yet others are men too and also have these rights.  This is the basis for morality.

Morality...rights...these are all abstract notions. How do I know you didn't just make them up? Prove they exist. You haven't proven anything.

The "right to live" is not a first principle. I can easily disagree with you if I am a thug and you have something I want.

You keep on positing certain opinions as facts, but you have failed to formulate proofs of their existence. Your system is internally logical, but you haven't established the truth of your first principles, so your whole system falls like a house of cards.

Once again, try peddling your ideas to your materialist atheist friends and see what happens.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 23, 2014, 11:29:27 AM
Quote from: rbjmartin on April 23, 2014, 11:18:09 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 23, 2014, 11:11:39 AM
Quote from: rbjmartin on April 23, 2014, 10:50:59 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 23, 2014, 10:47:35 AM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on April 23, 2014, 10:16:34 AM
So if I dont seek truth truth doesnt exist for me? Ayne Rand was stark raving loony

Truth is objective, that is it exists in reality outside of me or anybody else.  It exists in the object.  If you do not seek truth, you will not have a mental grasp of it, but it will still exist.  I may not believe in gravity, yet if I jump off a cliff, gravity will still pull me to the ground.

Prove that morality is an object that exists.

Morality exists, but not as an object.  Morality exists as a set of ideas which correspond to reality.  There is one fundamental right, and that is the right to live.  All other rights are derived from the right to live.  The right to live is an irreducible primary, which does not need to be proven, nor can it be proven as it is an axiom.  As my nature demands that I seek out certain values in order to remain alive, I must have the right to seek out and obtain these values.  And by values I mean anything which sustains and furthers my life as a man, a rational animal.  As I am a man, I have these rights, yet others are men too and also have these rights.  This is the basis for morality.

Morality...rights...these are all abstract notions. How do I know you didn't just make them up? Prove they exist. You haven't proven anything.

The "right to live" is not a first principle. I can easily disagree with you if I am a thug and you have something I want.

You keep on positing certain opinions as facts, but you have failed to formulate proofs of their existence. Your system is internally logical, but you haven't established the truth of your first principles, so your whole system falls like a house of cards.

Once again, try peddling your ideas to your materialist atheist friends and see what happens.

I have no atheist friends, all of my friends are Christian, Jewish, or Muslim.  Thank you for recognizing the internal logic of my system, though it isn't really mine.  And we are making progress now, as we have honed in on the first principle which is the rub.  Let's just focus on that then.  I have given you the right to live as a first principle, and by this I do not mean the right to life.  Notice that I use the verb 'live' instead of the noun 'life.'  This is because living is an action and not a state of being.  I must do something in order to live, life will not be handed to me.  It would be false to say that a man has a right to a life, because that would mean that a burden would be placed upon someone else for sustaining that life.  This would be as silly as saying that a man has a right to a car, house, or any other good.  These goods must be sought out and obtained through effort, whether mental or physical.  So, I have the right to live.  Would you please explain your objection to this first principle?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: rbjmartin on April 23, 2014, 11:34:19 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 23, 2014, 11:29:27 AM
I have no atheist friends, all of my friends are Christian, Jewish, or Muslim.

Perhaps you should ask yourself why.

Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 23, 2014, 11:29:27 AMI have given you the right to live as a first principle, and by this I do not mean the right to life. Notice that I use the verb 'live' instead of the noun 'life.'  This is because living is an action and not a state of being.  I must do something in order to live, life will not be handed to me.  It would be false to say that a man has a right to a life, because that would mean that a burden would be placed upon someone else for sustaining that life.  This would be as silly as saying that a man has a right to a car, house, or any other good.  These goods must be sought out and obtained through effort, whether mental or physical.  So, I have the right to live.  Would you please explain your objection to this first principle?

My objection is that it is NOT a first principle because it hasn't been proven. Bear in mind, when I talk with you, I am only going to operate within a materialist, godless paradigm. And within that paradigm, you have not proven your first principle, nor have you proven the existence of rights or morality. So while your system is internally consistent, it is objectively false and illogical because you have no proven first principles.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 23, 2014, 11:42:46 AM
Quote from: rbjmartin on April 23, 2014, 11:34:19 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 23, 2014, 11:29:27 AM
I have no atheist friends, all of my friends are Christian, Jewish, or Muslim.

Perhaps you should ask yourself why.

Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 23, 2014, 11:29:27 AMI have given you the right to live as a first principle, and by this I do not mean the right to life. Notice that I use the verb 'live' instead of the noun 'life.'  This is because living is an action and not a state of being.  I must do something in order to live, life will not be handed to me.  It would be false to say that a man has a right to a life, because that would mean that a burden would be placed upon someone else for sustaining that life.  This would be as silly as saying that a man has a right to a car, house, or any other good.  These goods must be sought out and obtained through effort, whether mental or physical.  So, I have the right to live.  Would you please explain your objection to this first principle?

My objection is that it is NOT a first principle because it hasn't been proven. Bear in mind, when I talk with you, I am only going to operate within a materialist, godless paradigm. And within that paradigm, you have not proven your first principle, nor have you proven the existence of rights or morality. So while your system is internally consistent, it is objectively false and illogical because you have no proven first principles.

I have some cousins who don't really believe, but they are afraid of taking the name atheist.  Society puts pressure on people to at least pretend to believe in God, chances are you know many atheists who just haven't come out of the closet.

A first principle cannot and need not be proven, that is why it is a first principle.  It is an irreducible primary, and if it could be reduced, it would not be a first principle.  Proof derives from antecedent knowledge, but there is no knowledge which is antecedent to an axiom.  If you can prove that the right to live is not an axiom, then let's here it.  Give your reasoning.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: rbjmartin on April 23, 2014, 11:56:59 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 23, 2014, 11:42:46 AM
A first principle cannot and need not be proven, that is why it is a first principle.  It is an irreducible primary, and if it could be reduced, it would not be a first principle.  Proof derives from antecedent knowledge, but there is no knowledge which is antecedent to an axiom.  If you can prove that the right to live is not an axiom, then let's here it.  Give your reasoning.

The right to live is not a first principle because it is not self-evident. It's not like the first principles of reason, like non-contradiction. Nor is it self-evident like 1+1=2. It is your opinion. You can't just posit an opinion and call it a first principle. That is just intellectual laziness and arrogance.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 23, 2014, 12:10:40 PM
Give me a reason please.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: rbjmartin on April 23, 2014, 12:15:06 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 23, 2014, 12:10:40 PM
Give me a reason please.

Because you never proved that "rights" exist, and your entire principle is predicated on the existence of rights.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: rbjmartin on April 23, 2014, 12:18:14 PM
That is only one problem with your claim. On top of that, the "right to live" comes nowhere near being self-evident. If there is such a thing as a right to live, how come it is so easy to make someone die? Death is just as natural as life.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 23, 2014, 12:41:17 PM
You clearly read nothing which I wrote.  I clearly stated that the principle is the right to live, not the right to life.  I even explained the difference between using the verb and the noun, and that I am speaking here of an action and not a state of being.  I also mentioned that life will not be handed to anyone on a silver platter and that it must be worked for, one must work in order to sustain life.  Obviously one might lose his life, and eventually we all do.  Rights pertain to action, a man has a right to do something, to seek something out, to pursue something, but he never has the right to a thing.  In order for values to be in one's possession, they must be obtained, and someone must do the obtaining.  If one claims the right to a thing, then he is claiming that another has the burden of obtaining that thing for him, which means he is claiming the right to another's work, which is ridiculous.  A man has a right to pursue life, whether he obtains life or not is based upon his own efforts.  If he is to have life, he must go out and get it.  This is what I mean by the right to live.  One cannot be called upon to prove an axiom, because if one could then it would not be an axiom.  If you haven't the right to live, why are you doing so?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: rbjmartin on April 23, 2014, 12:45:49 PM
Rights don't exist. You haven't proven that they do. You can blabber all day about rights, but until you prove they exist, your words are utterly wasted and pointless.

You expect anyone to believe you when you can't even prove the basis of your most fundamental beliefs? You just expect us to expect it as a "first principle" just because you said so?

You are a positivist. You think that whatever you say is so. You aren't anywhere close to being objective. If you were, you would prove that rights exist. To me, it's just a word that you made up as a crutch for your moral system. It's just a way for the weak to protect themselves from the strong.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 23, 2014, 01:42:46 PM
If you actually read what I have written, you would understand my position.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: rbjmartin on April 23, 2014, 01:53:33 PM
I have read everything you've written. The only thing you've proved is that you believe in something called "rights," but you have given no evidence for its objective existence. It's just an idea in your head. You've also proved that you believe first principles come from you positing them. So essentially, you practice science and philosophy by fiat. If you say something is true, it must be so.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 23, 2014, 02:20:30 PM
Quote from: rbjmartin on April 23, 2014, 01:53:33 PM
I have read everything you've written. The only thing you've proved is that you believe in something called "rights," but you have given no evidence for its objective existence. It's just an idea in your head. You've also proved that you believe first principles come from you positing them. So essentially, you practice science and philosophy by fiat. If you say something is true, it must be so.

Your act has grown stale and you have become a broken record.  Your only argument seems to be, if God, then rights, and if not God, then not rights.  You haven't even attempted to prove how God can be an objective basis for morality.  You have no basis for grounding rights in objectivity.  I, however, have given you an obvious axiom, which cannot be denied while remaining outside of a mental institution, and yet you have actually denied it, and on no grounds as well.  You give no reason why a man has no right to live, you simply state this as if it were somehow obvious.  What sort of conclusions are we to draw from this position of yours?  Should every man be killed, as he is claiming a right he has no claim to?  Should every man commit suicide in order to cease practicing a right which you claim doesn't exist?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: rbjmartin on April 23, 2014, 02:33:07 PM
I'm not trying to prove the existence of God (at least not in this thread). I'm simply demonstrating the blatant inconsistency of your position, i.e. believing in the objective reality of an immaterial thing (rights) while being a materialist.

As long as rights do not exist (you haven't proven that they do), then a man's right to live does not exist.

Perhaps you think your axiom is self-evident because most people believe men have a right to live, but philosophy is not a democratic endeavor. If your axiom is true, you should be able to prove it rather than simply say it's self-evident "because I say so" (which is essentially all you're saying).
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 23, 2014, 02:37:14 PM
Quote from: rbjmartin on April 23, 2014, 02:33:07 PM
I'm not trying to prove the existence of God (at least not in this thread). I'm simply demonstrating the blatant inconsistency of your position, i.e. believing in the objective reality of an immaterial thing (rights) while being a materialist.

As long as rights do not exist (you haven't proven that they do), then a man's right to live does not exist.

Perhaps you think your axiom is self-evident because most people believe men have a right to live, but philosophy is not a democratic endeavor. If your axiom is true, you should be able to prove it rather than simply say it's self-evident "because I say so" (which is essentially all you're saying).

If you had read what I wrote, you would know I said that an axiom cannot be proven, or else it would not be an axiom.

My position includes materialism, but that does not mean that it can't include ideas.  You are hung up on this and can't seem to get unstuck.  You don't have a good grasp of what materialism is, instead you have created a straw man for anyone who disagrees with The Church.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: rbjmartin on April 23, 2014, 02:44:24 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 23, 2014, 02:37:14 PM
If you had read what I wrote, you would know I said that an axiom cannot be proven, or else it would not be an axiom.

All I have to do to break your axiom is deny it. It is not a self-evident truth. It is just a starting place for your position, but I deny your starting place as a falsehood, unless you can PROVE that it is true.

Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 23, 2014, 02:37:14 PM
My position includes materialism, but that does not mean that it can't include ideas.

Your ideas are your own. They only exist in your head. They are utterly subjective and not universal. As a materialist, the only reality is what is material. For you to try to make up a morality for others to live by is arrogant and presumptuous. You do not take into account other materialists who disagree with your ideas.

Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 23, 2014, 02:50:39 PM
An axiom is not broken just because a man denies it, otherwise axioms wouldn't exist.

I say nothing of how a man must live, only that he not violate the rights of others.

It is your Church which imposes onerous rules upon every minute aspect of everyone's lives.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: rbjmartin on April 23, 2014, 02:54:26 PM
The atheistic materialist responds:

Don't impose your morality on me. If I can will it, I will do it.

You do not have a right to live. Rights don't exist. Your theory of rights is BS. You made it up to protect yourself from men like me because I'm strong and you are weak.

Your axiom is broken because you can't prove it. It's no use as a starting place for discussion because I deny it's reality. Only what I can sense is real to me.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 23, 2014, 03:03:19 PM
How many times must I say that axioms are not proven?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Angelorum on April 23, 2014, 03:04:43 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 23, 2014, 02:50:39 PM
An axiom is not broken just because a man denies it, otherwise axioms wouldn't exist.

CF is right. An axiom is a self-evident statement. (i.e. All Bachelors are Male).

QuoteI say nothing of how a man must live, only that he not violate the rights of others.

How can a man live if he has no end to fulfill? Of course, it is important in a civil society that rights exist to protect individuals from unjust intrusion. However, this isn't enough for an individual to live ethically. We can observe that a plant that is properly nurtured will have the traits best fitted for its survival. Similarly, Man has ends whose fulfillment will lead to true happiness and not merely a satisfaction the flesh. This is where we get the Natural Law.

But Man also has a last end whose goodness surpasses all others. This is believing and fulfilling the law of God.

QuoteIt is your Church which imposes onerous rules upon every minute aspect of everyone's lives.

What exactly do you mean by this?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: rbjmartin on April 23, 2014, 03:08:38 PM
Quote from: Angelorum on April 23, 2014, 03:04:43 PM
CF is right. An axiom is a self-evident statement. (i.e. All Bachelors are Male).

But what he is calling an axiom (men have a right to live) is not self-evident. It is a statement of his values, not of an objective, observable truth (at least according to a materialist framework).
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Angelorum on April 23, 2014, 03:16:53 PM
Quote from: rbjmartin on April 23, 2014, 03:08:38 PM
Quote from: Angelorum on April 23, 2014, 03:04:43 PM
CF is right. An axiom is a self-evident statement. (i.e. All Bachelors are Male).

But what he is calling an axiom (men have a right to live) is not self-evident. It is a statement of his values, not of an objective, observable truth (at least according to a materialist framework).

Did he really say that? If so, then he is wrong. He is simply begging the question, as he assumes his conclusion to be true even though he hasn't given any argument.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: rbjmartin on April 23, 2014, 03:19:28 PM
He sure did.

Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 23, 2014, 11:11:39 AM
The right to live is an irreducible primary, which does not need to be proven, nor can it be proven as it is an axiom.
Title: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 23, 2014, 03:19:56 PM
Quote from: Angelorum on April 23, 2014, 03:04:43 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 23, 2014, 02:50:39 PM
An axiom is not broken just because a man denies it, otherwise axioms wouldn't exist.

CF is right. An axiom is a self-evident statement. (i.e. All Bachelors are Male).

QuoteI say nothing of how a man must live, only that he not violate the rights of others.

How can a man live if he has no end to fulfill? Of course, it is important in a civil society that rights exist to protect individuals from unjust intrusion. However, this isn't enough for an individual to live ethically. We can observe that a plant that is properly nurtured will have the traits best fitted for its survival. Similarly, Man has ends whose fulfillment will lead to true happiness and not merely a satisfaction the flesh. This is where we get the Natural Law.

But Man also has a last end whose goodness surpasses all others. This is believing and fulfilling the law of God.

QuoteIt is your Church which imposes onerous rules upon every minute aspect of everyone's lives.

What exactly do you mean by this?

Every man must choose his own path.  There is an important difference between not violating the rights of others and choosing a proper path in life.  If a man violates the rights of others, he must be stopped.  If he merely makes poor decisions with regard to his own life, it may be sad, but it is his life and no one may use force to prevent him from doing stupid things.

The Church imposes rules on men.  These rules deal with nearly everything including a man's thoughts.  I say to you that any man who looks upon a woman with lust, has already commit adultery in his heart.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Mono no aware on April 23, 2014, 03:45:20 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 22, 2014, 08:55:24 PM

Quote from: LouisIX on April 22, 2014, 08:50:13 PM
Out of curiosity, CF, why have you changed your avatar to the Rockefeller Atlas statue (which curiously was built directly across the street, facing St. Patrick's Cathedral)?

The Atlas statue is often used to signify Objectivism (Atlas Shrugged).  I wanted  to change things up a bit, and used an Objectivist holiday as a time to so just that.  Today is the Objectivist holiday 'Exploit the Earth Day.'  By the way, Happy Exploit the Earth Day.

Just a slight digression, Crimson Flyboy, to say that I think this new avatar is a cut above your old one, which was an awful eyesore IMO; its colors and design were putrid.  This one is a little more aesthetically pleasing, and I think it communicates your libertarianism and Ayn Randism more artistically.  First of all, the statue is of a god in human form: the classical pagan expression of humanism.  That he holds the world on his shoulders signifies determination and brute strength: a fine symbol for a creed of dominance and power.  And the fact that it's placed in a modern urban setting, with cold steel and concrete rising up all around him, conveys the libertarian love for progress and industrialization, and its hatred of the natural world.  Altogether a definite improvement.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 23, 2014, 03:51:23 PM

Quote from: Pon de Replay on April 23, 2014, 03:45:20 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 22, 2014, 08:55:24 PM

Quote from: LouisIX on April 22, 2014, 08:50:13 PM
Out of curiosity, CF, why have you changed your avatar to the Rockefeller Atlas statue (which curiously was built directly across the street, facing St. Patrick's Cathedral)?

The Atlas statue is often used to signify Objectivism (Atlas Shrugged).  I wanted  to change things up a bit, and used an Objectivist holiday as a time to so just that.  Today is the Objectivist holiday 'Exploit the Earth Day.'  By the way, Happy Exploit the Earth Day.

Just a slight digression, Crimson Flyboy, to say that I think this new avatar is a cut above your old one, which was an awful eyesore IMO; its colors and design were putrid.  This one is a little more aesthetically pleasing, and I think it communicates your libertarianism and Ayn Randism more artistically.  First of all, the statue is of a god in human form: the classical pagan expression of humanism.  That he holds the world on his shoulders signifies determination and brute strength: a fine symbol for a creed of dominance and power.  And the fact that it's placed in a modern urban setting, with cold steel and concrete rising up all around him, conveys the libertarian love for progress and industrialization, and its hatred of the natural world.  Altogether a definite improvement.

Thank you.  I think the skyscraper behind him is very fitting.  Miss Rand was once asked if she enjoyed looking at the stars, she said no, I love looking at skyscrapers.  The statue has also become a symbol for Miss Rand's best known novel, Atlas Shrugged.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: rbjmartin on April 23, 2014, 04:11:51 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 23, 2014, 03:19:56 PM
Every man must choose his own path.  There is an important difference between not violating the rights of others and choosing a proper path in life.  If a man violates the rights of others, he must be stopped.  If he merely makes poor decisions with regard to his own life, it may be sad, but it is his life and no one may use force to prevent him from doing stupid things.

You are moralizing and placing limits on others. What gives you this right? You have no authority. You don't have the authority of truth or reality, because you haven't proven the objective existence of rights or morality.

Say I am a hedonist. I take pleasure in your pain. I see no rational reason for me to prohibit myself from seeking this pleasure, because I see no proof of any objective morality existing.

Say I regard humanity as just another species. Materially, our consciousness is just an assortment of chemical reactions. So I see little reason to assume we are somehow set apart from the animals. I will feed my appetites at all costs, like an animal. There are no rights or morality in the animal kingdom. Why should I assume we are any different?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 23, 2014, 04:37:05 PM

Quote from: rbjmartin on April 23, 2014, 04:11:51 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 23, 2014, 03:19:56 PM
Every man must choose his own path.  There is an important difference between not violating the rights of others and choosing a proper path in life.  If a man violates the rights of others, he must be stopped.  If he merely makes poor decisions with regard to his own life, it may be sad, but it is his life and no one may use force to prevent him from doing stupid things.

You are moralizing and placing limits on others. What gives you this right? You have no authority. You don't have the authority of truth or reality, because you haven't proven the objective existence of rights or morality.

Say I am a hedonist. I take pleasure in your pain. I see no rational reason for me to prohibit myself from seeking this pleasure, because I see no proof of any objective morality existing.

Say I regard humanity as just another species. Materially, our consciousness is just an assortment of chemical reactions. So I see little reason to assume we are somehow set apart from the animals. I will feed my appetites at all costs, like an animal. There are no rights or morality in the animal kingdom. Why should I assume we are any different?

You are a broken record and are very tiring.  You seem to recognize no difference between obtaining what you want by producing it, and by taking it by force.  I have explained individual rights to you, and I have given you a basis for these rights.  You reject this, as you cannot accept anything but God.  I suppose your whole world revolves around God.  I suppose God is your explanation for everything.

I place no limits on other men, save that they not violate the rights of others.  This in no way limits a man's rights, as a man never has the right to violate another's rights.  Rights do not come from any man, they instead come from the basic facts of reality.

Ayn Rand said, "No one can think or perceive for another man.  If reality, without your help, does not convince a person of the self evident, he has abdicated reason, and cannot be dealt with any further."  Until you have something new to add, I will not waste any more time with you.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: rbjmartin on April 23, 2014, 04:43:48 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 23, 2014, 04:37:05 PM
You are a broken record and are very tiring.  You seem to recognize no difference between obtaining what you want by producing it, and by taking it by force.  I have explained individual rights to you, and I have given you a basis for these rights.  You reject this, as you cannot accept anything but God.  I suppose your whole world revolves around God.  I suppose God is your explanation for everything.

I place no limits on other men, save that they not violate the rights of others.  This in no way limits a man's rights, as a man never has the right to violate another's rights.  Rights do not come from any man, they instead come from the basic facts of reality.

Ayn Rand said, "No one can think or perceive for another man.  If reality, without your help, does not convince a person of the self evident, he has abdicated reason, and cannot be dealt with any further."  Until you have something new to add, I will not waste any more time with you.

Look, you're the one who has adopted a hypocritical and self-contradicting system of belief. You ask people to acknowledge some magical fairy tale theory of rights and morality, which are immaterial concepts that don't objectively exist outside of your brain, while embracing a dogmatic materialism. You are a materialist who is attached to immaterial fantasies. It's quite ludicrous.

You have no logical basis for your theory of rights. Your argument goes, "Rights exist because...they just do." That is the essence of your argument. You beg the question and avoid the real work of reasoning it out by saying, "It's self-evident." It's not.

Go ask the smartest and most sincere atheist you know if "man has a right to live" is a self-evident proposition. It is a value statement based on your own subjective perspective, and you need to come to terms with that and stop pretending to be a sincere thinker.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: ResRev on April 23, 2014, 04:58:36 PM
Hi, CF. Interesting conversation. Could you give me a list of man's rights and how the list is compiled? Many thanks!
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 23, 2014, 05:22:14 PM

Quote from: ResRev on April 23, 2014, 04:58:36 PM
Hi, CF. Interesting conversation. Could you give me a list of man's rights and how the list is compiled? Many thanks!

The one fundamental right is the right to live, all other rights are derived from this right.  As a man has the right to live, he has a right to pursue values to further his life.  This would include things like water, food, and shelter.  These things satisfy the most basic needs of man.  He also has a right to make decisions for his own life.  This is because he must seek out the things he needs in order to live, and he must use his reason in order to obtain those things.  No one will obtain these life serving values for him, it is up to him alone.  Therefore he has the right to liberty.  And, as he has the right to pursue values which further his life, he has a right to the pursuit of happiness.  He also has the right to the production of his mind and hands, that is whatever he produces.  He put his own effort into producing something, it is his.  Therefore he has the right to property.

Therefore, man has the following rights:
1. The right to live.
2. The right to liberty.
3. The right to property.
4. The right to the pursuit of happiness.

This is not a comprehensive list, but all other rights can be derived from this short list.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on April 23, 2014, 06:24:54 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 23, 2014, 05:22:14 PM

Quote from: ResRev on April 23, 2014, 04:58:36 PM
Hi, CF. Interesting conversation. Could you give me a list of man's rights and how the list is compiled? Many thanks!

The one fundamental right is the right to live, all other rights are derived from this right.  As a man has the right to live, he has a right to pursue values to further his life.  This would include things like water, food, and shelter.  These things satisfy the most basic needs of man.  He also has a right to make decisions for his own life.  This is because he must seek out the things he needs in order to live, and he must use his reason in order to obtain those things.  No one will obtain these life serving values for him, it is up to him alone.  Therefore he has the right to liberty.  And, as he has the right to pursue values which further his life, he has a right to the pursuit of happiness.  He also has the right to the production of his mind and hands, that is whatever he produces.  He put his own effort into producing something, it is his.  Therefore he has the right to property.

Therefore, man has the following rights:
1. The right to live.
2. The right to liberty.
3. The right to property.
4. The right to the pursuit of happiness.

This is not a comprehensive list, but all other rights can be derived from this short list.
And from what authority do you claim this to be true.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: ResRev on April 23, 2014, 06:26:42 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 23, 2014, 05:22:14 PM

Quote from: ResRev on April 23, 2014, 04:58:36 PM
Hi, CF. Interesting conversation. Could you give me a list of man's rights and how the list is compiled? Many thanks!

The one fundamental right is the right to live, all other rights are derived from this right.  As a man has the right to live, he has a right to pursue values to further his life.  This would include things like water, food, and shelter.  These things satisfy the most basic needs of man.  He also has a right to make decisions for his own life.  This is because he must seek out the things he needs in order to live, and he must use his reason in order to obtain those things.  No one will obtain these life serving values for him, it is up to him alone.  Therefore he has the right to liberty.  And, as he has the right to pursue values which further his life, he has a right to the pursuit of happiness.  He also has the right to the production of his mind and hands, that is whatever he produces.  He put his own effort into producing something, it is his.  Therefore he has the right to property.

Therefore, man has the following rights:
1. The right to live.
2. The right to liberty.
3. The right to property.
4. The right to the pursuit of happiness.

This is not a comprehensive list, but all other rights can be derived from this short list.
Okay, so mostly what the Founders proposed. I tend to agree, the libertarian in me hasn't quite been beaten out of me yet :lol:. What about people who replace property with something like healthcare or replace pursuit of healthcare or pursuit of water or shelter with just say, shelter. How do you prove that your list is self evident vis a vis their list?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 23, 2014, 06:49:34 PM

Quote from: ResRev on April 23, 2014, 06:26:42 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 23, 2014, 05:22:14 PM

Quote from: ResRev on April 23, 2014, 04:58:36 PM
Hi, CF. Interesting conversation. Could you give me a list of man's rights and how the list is compiled? Many thanks!

The one fundamental right is the right to live, all other rights are derived from this right.  As a man has the right to live, he has a right to pursue values to further his life.  This would include things like water, food, and shelter.  These things satisfy the most basic needs of man.  He also has a right to make decisions for his own life.  This is because he must seek out the things he needs in order to live, and he must use his reason in order to obtain those things.  No one will obtain these life serving values for him, it is up to him alone.  Therefore he has the right to liberty.  And, as he has the right to pursue values which further his life, he has a right to the pursuit of happiness.  He also has the right to the production of his mind and hands, that is whatever he produces.  He put his own effort into producing something, it is his.  Therefore he has the right to property.

Therefore, man has the following rights:
1. The right to live.
2. The right to liberty.
3. The right to property.
4. The right to the pursuit of happiness.

This is not a comprehensive list, but all other rights can be derived from this short list.
Okay, so mostly what the Founders proposed. I tend to agree, the libertarian in me hasn't quite been beaten out of me yet :lol:. What about people who replace property with something like healthcare or replace pursuit of healthcare or pursuit of water or shelter with just say, shelter. How do you prove that your list is self evident vis a vis their list?

To have a right to healthcare is to have a claim upon the production of another's hands or mind, and this claim is false.  It makes no sense to say that another man owes me anything.  If I want healthcare, I must be willing to exchange value for value, I must pay for any healthcare I want.  This works with any good or service.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: ResRev on April 23, 2014, 07:02:31 PM
I just think of it as positive rights vs negative rights. The simpler, the better, IMO. As in, you have the "right" to be left alone to pursue. Left alone, left alone. I used to argue these "rights" too, and then I realized they don't really mean a hill of beans because (1) I made them up because (2) I liked them and (3) they spoke to my intellect (still do). There's a lot to back them up. They fit my values and my intellect. Therefore they must be true. But... Other people just propose different values and say their intellect made them decide you owe them "healthcare". They'll also use those values and intellect to decide what "healthcare" means. It's only "self-evident" to some of us. Other things are evident to me, but not to you. Where does it end? It's a rabbit hole. It makes my head hurt, to be honest.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 23, 2014, 07:25:39 PM

Quote from: ResRev on April 23, 2014, 07:02:31 PM
I just think of it as positive rights vs negative rights. The simpler, the better, IMO. As in, you have the "right" to be left alone to pursue. Left alone, left alone. I used to argue these "rights" too, and then I realized they don't really mean a hill of beans because (1) I made them up because (2) I liked them and (3) they spoke to my intellect (still do). There's a lot to back them up. They fit my values and my intellect. Therefore they must be true. But... Other people just propose different values and say their intellect made them decide you owe them "healthcare". They'll also use those values and intellect to decide what "healthcare" means. It's only "self-evident" to some of us. Other things are evident to me, but not to you. Where does it end? It's a rabbit hole. It makes my head hurt, to be honest.

Yes, positive vs negative rights is a good way of looking at it.  The US constitution deals with negative rights, what the government cannot do to us.  This is meant to protect us from the government.  Listing all positive rights, what we can do, would be problematic as it would entail an incredibly long list which would still leave some rights out.  It would also wrongly imply that the government gives us rights.

It would be an error to say that because not everyone agrees, there can be no truth, or that we cannot know truth.  If someone makes a claim to a good or service without paying for it, we can show that he is wrong by use of reason.  The solution is not to give up.  Will you not right for your rights?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Kaesekopf on April 23, 2014, 08:54:16 PM
CF:  if man had a right to live, wouldn't he then be the agent by which is he created?  (By which I mean, wouldn't he alone decide when he comes into being?)

And associated with that, why does man not have power over death?  If he has a right to live, he alone should decide when his time is over on this earth? 
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Kaesekopf on April 23, 2014, 09:05:39 PM
What confers your rights onto a man?  Must he be able bodied?  Etc

If I have a right to life but am stricken I'll with a curable disease, how do I enact my right to life and get health care if I can't afford it? 

What use is an unexercisable right?

Also if my rights are violated who would I appeal to?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Non Nobis on April 23, 2014, 09:22:58 PM
I think that it is evident (not self-evident) that men have a right to live.  It is part of the natural law. We are not to take the most precious thing we know naturally away from others (note we have here not just a right but a duty).  I think atheists can know this; can know "rights";can accept the part of the natural law and "rights" that suit their taste; can hear their conscience which is "just a fact".  They just don't want to reason about where these real things come from. They bizarrely think they just came out of thin air. They are not (at least CF) entirely a materialist; "rights" and "ideas" and even "truth" aren't material.  But they can't explain these immaterial things; they just "are". And they (again bizarrely) have lost touch with the obvious sense that something/someone is TELLING them what to DO (respect rights). 
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: ResRev on April 23, 2014, 09:47:04 PM
Quote from: Non Nobis on April 23, 2014, 09:22:58 PM
I think that it is evident (not self-evident) that men have a right to live.  It is part of the natural law. We are not to take the most precious thing we know naturally away from others (note we have here not just a right but a duty).  I think atheists can know this; can know "rights";can accept the part of the natural law and "rights" that suit their taste; can hear their conscience which is "just a fact".  They just don't want to reason about where these real things come from. They bizarrely think they just came out of thin air. They are not (at least CF) entirely a materialist; "rights" and "ideas" and even "truth" aren't material.  But they can't explain these immaterial things; they just "are". And they (again bizarrely) have lost touch with the obvious sense that something/someone is TELLING them what to DO (respect rights).
Well put.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 23, 2014, 09:55:09 PM

Quote from: Kaesekopf on April 23, 2014, 09:05:39 PM
What confers your rights onto a man?  Must he be able bodied?  Etc

If I have a right to life but am stricken I'll with a curable disease, how do I enact my right to life and get health care if I can't afford it? 

What use is an unexercisable right?

Also if my rights are violated who would I appeal to?

I said nothing of a right to life, I am speaking of a right to live.  I have explained this above.  I know the two sound very similar, and that I might be splitting hairs, but I assure you that the difference is very important.  In saying that a man has a right to live, I am saying a man has the right to pursue life, but it is up to him as to whether he obtains life or not.

All men have the ability to pursue life, to live.  There is no such thing as an un-exercisable right.

If you need healthcare, you must pay for it.  In order to obtain value from another, you must provide value to the other.  You must exchange value for value.  Doctors, nurses, and healthcare administrators are providing value, they cannot be expected to work for free.  They deserve to be rewarded for their effort and time.  You have no right to steal from others in order to obtain your healthcare.  If John steals from Bill, John has violated Bill's rights regardless of what John plans on doing with the money after stealing it.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 23, 2014, 09:58:35 PM

Quote from: Kaesekopf on April 23, 2014, 08:54:16 PM
CF:  if man had a right to live, wouldn't he then be the agent by which is he created?  (By which I mean, wouldn't he alone decide when he comes into being?)

And associated with that, why does man not have power over death?  If he has a right to live, he alone should decide when his time is over on this earth?

Man is created by his parents.  Man can avoid death through his efforts, but not forever.  Man can decide when his time on earth is up, but it will certainly end eventually.  And not all men make the decision to leave life, sometimes accidents happen or men just die of old age.  Usually men do not decide when their time is up, we are in fact subject to nature.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Miriam_M on April 24, 2014, 12:02:21 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 23, 2014, 09:58:35 PM

Quote from: Kaesekopf on April 23, 2014, 08:54:16 PM
CF:  if man had a right to live, wouldn't he then be the agent by which is he created?  (By which I mean, wouldn't he alone decide when he comes into being?)

And associated with that, why does man not have power over death?  If he has a right to live, he alone should decide when his time is over on this earth?

Man is created by his parents.  Man can avoid death through his efforts, but not forever.  Man can decide when his time on earth is up, but it will certainly end eventually.  And not all men make the decision to leave life, sometimes accidents happen or men just die of old age.  Usually men do not decide when their time is up, we are in fact subject to nature.

It's very difficult to take seriously the arguments of someone whose statements lack logical coherence.  Man can only "decide when his time on earth is up" if that involves suicide (or otherwise creating life-threatening situations which then allow passive surrender to them). Assuming men have survival instincts intact, God will decide when an individual's time is up.  Otherwise, man is omnipotent and there are 5 billion or so gods.

Also, man is procreated by his parents, but created by God.  The parents would have zip power to procreate without an original design by God such that life reproduces itself.  As of yet, there are no bio-tech artificial sperm and ova.  They still derive from the traditional locations, even when extracted from there and reunited in laboratories
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on April 24, 2014, 08:09:10 AM
QuoteYour only argument seems to be, if God, then rights, and if not God, then not rights.

Actually this is the argument of serious atheists like Dennett and Rosenberg.

You say your first principle is that men have a right to live.  That is actually TWO principle in one sentence:
1.  Men can live.
2.  Rights exist.

So which is your first principle?  How can protons, neutrons, and electrons "live"?  Does baking soda have a right to react with vinegar?  Same material process of particles banging around. 

And "rights" are immaterial.

So which one is your first principle, 1 or 2?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on April 24, 2014, 08:11:19 AM
QuoteI think atheists can know this; can know "rights";can accept the part of the natural law and "rights" that suit their taste; can hear their conscience which is "just a fact".  They just don't want to reason about where these real things come from. 
Absolutely correct.  They know in their soul that life exists, that their soul exists, and that there are rights.  That is why they go to hell. 
Title: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 24, 2014, 08:15:13 AM
Quote from: james03 on April 24, 2014, 08:09:10 AM
QuoteYour only argument seems to be, if God, then rights, and if not God, then not rights.

Actually this is the argument of serious atheists like Dennett and Rosenberg.

You say your first principle is that men have a right to live.  That is actually TWO principle in one sentence:
1.  Men can live.
2.  Rights exist.

So which is your first principle?  How can protons, neutrons, and electrons "live"?  Does baking soda have a right to react with vinegar?  Same material process of particles banging around. 

And "rights" are immaterial.

So which one is your first principle, 1 or 2?

I was speaking here of ethics, not metaphysics.  I am claiming the right to live as a corollary axiom (to be more precise) to begin ethics.  In metaphysics I would begin with Miss Rand's famous axiom, existence exists.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 24, 2014, 08:17:36 AM

Quote from: james03 on April 24, 2014, 08:11:19 AM
QuoteI think atheists can know this; can know "rights";can accept the part of the natural law and "rights" that suit their taste; can hear their conscience which is "just a fact".  They just don't want to reason about where these real things come from. 
Absolutely correct.  They know in their soul that life exists, that their soul exists, and that there are rights.  That is why they go to hell.

You can not prove that a soul exists, nor can you prove that hell exists.  Everything that the soul is claimed to do can be explained by the brain.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on April 24, 2014, 08:22:00 AM
You are completely dense.  Actually willfully dense.

IF you posit that there is no soul, and it all can be explained by chemical/electrical processes, then YOU just destroyed any notion of "rights".

As far as proving the soul exists, intentionality proves that the soul exists.  You never responded to intentionality, instead posting a video by a piker who refers to an "agent" and says "we are making progress".

QuoteIn metaphysics I would begin with Miss Rand's famous axiom, existence exists.
So your first principle is that existence exists.  We agree.  Proceed.  Now prove 1 and 2 from that principle.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 24, 2014, 09:46:13 AM
Quote from: james03 on April 24, 2014, 08:22:00 AM
You are completely dense.  Actually willfully dense.

IF you posit that there is no soul, and it all can be explained by chemical/electrical processes, then YOU just destroyed any notion of "rights".

As far as proving the soul exists, intentionality proves that the soul exists.  You never responded to intentionality, instead posting a video by a piker who refers to an "agent" and says "we are making progress".

QuoteIn metaphysics I would begin with Miss Rand's famous axiom, existence exists.
So your first principle is that existence exists.  We agree.  Proceed.  Now prove 1 and 2 from that principle.

The video was meant to show that Dennett does not deny the mind, and that he does in fact view the mind in a materialistic manner, which had been denied.

Intentionality proves that free will exists, not that the soul exists.  You are making a jump.  The soul is your explanation for free will.

You want me to prove that men can live?  What do you think the two of us are doing right now?  And, that rights exists derives from the right to live, not the other way around.  The right to live comes before the existence of rights chronologically.

We are not getting anywhere with ethics, how about we start with existence exists and move from there?  Existence exists which implies two corollary axioms.  That something is which is being perceived, and that one exists possessing consciousness.  Existence implies consciousness and identity.  To be is to be something.  Identity implies causality.  A is A, a thing is what it is.  Action is action of an entity, action always comes from an entity.  An entity has a nature, a specific nature, and must act according to its nature.  An entity cannot act apart from or against its nature.  To do so would destroy the law of causality, but as causality is a law, it cannot be broken.  Therefore, existence exists leads us to the law of causality, are we good up until this point?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on April 24, 2014, 10:10:29 AM
No.  You struck out.

Quoteand that one exists possessing consciousness.
There can be no such thing as "consciousness" in a purely material world.  Dennett states that, and he is a consistent atheist.  That is not axiomatic.  There is an alternative.  Protons, neutrons, and electrons banging around (I don't deny your premise of existence) setting off chemical and electrical interactions which in the end are meaningless.  The atheist's credo.  There is no difference between the chemical/electrical reactions in a brain, and the reaction of baking soda and water.  Thus no consciousness.

Quoteaction always comes from an entity.
Big problem for you.  If action always comes from an entity, then you are left with the necessary condition that there is an entity that is pure act that is the first cause.  You can't just hitch hike on Aristotle and ignore the necessary conclusion that goes with his logic.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on April 24, 2014, 10:12:19 AM
QuoteThe video was meant to show that Dennett does not deny the mind, and that he does in fact view the mind in a materialistic manner, which had been denied.
Watch your own video again, but this time pay attention.  What do you think he means when he says: "There's nothing else."?  Rosenberg says the same thing.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on April 24, 2014, 10:19:29 AM
Cf...one cannot find "laws" and then deny a lawgiver.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 24, 2014, 10:20:39 AM
Quote from: james03 on April 24, 2014, 10:10:29 AM

QuoteThere can be no such thing as "consciousness" in a purely material world.  Dennett states that, and he is a consistent atheist.  That is not axiomatic.  There is an alternative.  Protons, neutrons, and electrons banging around (I don't deny your premise of existence) setting off chemical and electrical interactions which in the end are meaningless.  The atheist's credo.  There is no difference between the chemical/electrical reactions in a brain, and the reaction of baking soda and water.  Thus no consciousness.

Consciousness is a material process, so there is no contradiction with materialism.

Quote
Big problem for you.  If action always comes from an entity, then you are left with the necessary condition that there is an entity that is pure act that is the first cause.  You can't just hitch hike on Aristotle and ignore the necessary conclusion that goes with his logic.

False.  Action comes from an entity, action never comes from action.  If there is an action, there must be an entity which acted.  Act is not a floating abstraction which exists on its own, it is something done by an entity.


Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 24, 2014, 10:22:16 AM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on April 24, 2014, 10:19:29 AM
Cf...one cannot find "laws" and then deny a lawgiver.

Laws cannot have a lawgiver, otherwise the lawgiver would have existed before the laws, which would mean the laws would not be laws.  Laws are necessary and must always exist in all places and all times.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 24, 2014, 10:24:25 AM
Quote from: james03 on April 24, 2014, 10:12:19 AM
QuoteThe video was meant to show that Dennett does not deny the mind, and that he does in fact view the mind in a materialistic manner, which had been denied.
Watch your own video again, but this time pay attention.  What do you think he means when he says: "There's nothing else."?  Rosenberg says the same thing.

The very fact that he is speaking of the mind means that he doesn't deny it.  Just because he doesn't turn consciousness into something non-material and mystical, like you would want him to, doesn't mean that he denies it.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on April 24, 2014, 10:27:15 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 24, 2014, 10:22:16 AM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on April 24, 2014, 10:19:29 AM
Cf...one cannot find "laws" and then deny a lawgiver.

Laws cannot have a lawgiver, otherwise the lawgiver would have existed before the laws, which would mean the laws would not be laws.  Laws are necessary and must always exist in all places and all times.
whaaaaat???
You smoken the kronik?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 24, 2014, 10:29:44 AM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on April 24, 2014, 10:27:15 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 24, 2014, 10:22:16 AM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on April 24, 2014, 10:19:29 AM
Cf...one cannot find "laws" and then deny a lawgiver.

Laws cannot have a lawgiver, otherwise the lawgiver would have existed before the laws, which would mean the laws would not be laws.  Laws are necessary and must always exist in all places and all times.
whaaaaat???
You smoken the kronik?

Not yet...

What is your objection?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on April 24, 2014, 10:32:33 AM
QuoteConsciousness is a material process, so there is no contradiction with materialism.
Are you seriously positing that baking soda and vinegar think about themselves and are aware?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on April 24, 2014, 10:35:18 AM
QuoteFalse.  Action comes from an entity, action never comes from action.  If there is an action, there must be an entity which acted.  Act is not a floating abstraction which exists on its own, it is something done by an entity.
You are dense.

The entity is God.  You are correct, action is done by an entity.  Which means existence has to be cause by an entity that is pure action.  He can not have potential and be acted on because that necessitates a previous entity.  Therefore the first CAUSE is an entity that is pure action.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 24, 2014, 10:37:40 AM

Quote from: james03 on April 24, 2014, 10:32:33 AM
QuoteConsciousness is a material process, so there is no contradiction with materialism.
Are you seriously positing that baking soda and vinegar think about themselves and are aware?

You are the dense one.  Obviously not all material is conscious, but some is.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on April 24, 2014, 10:38:10 AM
QuoteThe very fact that he is speaking of the mind means that he doesn't deny it. 
He considers it an illusion. Did you watch the video?  Are you that dense?  When he says "there is nothing else", he is saying that the brain is just like baking soda and vinegar, and there is nothing else.  No mind, no consciousness.  Just material reactions.  Which means no rights, values, beauty, Truth, love, or Justice.  All illusions.  Remember?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on April 24, 2014, 10:40:10 AM
QuoteYou are the dense one.  Obviously not all material is conscious, but some is.
If the brain is just reactions like vinegar and baking soda, then either both are conscious or nothing is conscious.  Didn't you say you believe in non-contradiction?  A is A?

A is material reactions.  Material reactions are not conscious.  A is A.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 24, 2014, 10:57:47 AM
Quote from: james03 on April 24, 2014, 10:40:10 AM
QuoteYou are the dense one.  Obviously not all material is conscious, but some is.
If the brain is just reactions like vinegar and baking soda, then either both are conscious or nothing is conscious.  Didn't you say you believe in non-contradiction?  A is A?

A is material reactions.  Material reactions are not conscious.  A is A.

The brain and baking soda are two different things, they cannot be compared.  The brain is not a reaction like baking soda and vinegar, and I can't imagine why you are using this as an example.  The brain is what it is, and it is in its nature to be conscious as long as it is alive.  Consciousness is an action which pertains to men, not to inanimate objects.  It is not in the nature of baking soda or vinegar to be conscious.  What is it with you and the baking soda/vinegar thing?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on April 24, 2014, 11:09:40 AM
QuoteWhat is it with you and the baking soda/vinegar thing?
That is Dennett, and you.  If the brain is just matter, then it is just a bunch of chemical reactions.  "That's all that there is".

QuoteThe brain is not a reaction like baking soda and vinegar,
Then what is it, and how can it be concious and intentional?  Oh yeah, that's right, "We're making progress".

QuoteThe brain is what it is, and it is in its nature to be conscious as long as it is alive.
Wait, "alive"?  What the heck is that?  More assumptions on your part.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 24, 2014, 11:16:47 AM
Quote from: james03 on April 24, 2014, 11:09:40 AM
QuoteWhat is it with you and the baking soda/vinegar thing?
That is Dennett, and you.  If the brain is just matter, then it is just a bunch of chemical reactions.  "That's all that there is".

QuoteThe brain is not a reaction like baking soda and vinegar,
Then what is it, and how can it be concious and intentional?  Oh yeah, that's right, "We're making progress".

QuoteThe brain is what it is, and it is in its nature to be conscious as long as it is alive.
Wait, "alive"?  What the heck is that?  More assumptions on your part.

Not all chemical reactions are alike, each chemical reaction has its own nature.  Life, as a chemical reaction, is different than other chemical reactions, such as your baking soda and vinegar example.  Alive is word to indicate something which is in the process of living.  A thing must be alive in order to to be conscious, this is rather elementary.  The science still has a way to go to understand what creates consciousness, but we can know what things are conscious, and we can know that thinking involves the brain and only the brain.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on April 24, 2014, 11:57:16 AM
Alive is what is living?  You have to be sh!tting me.  Do you know what a tautology is?
QuoteLife, as a chemical reaction, is different than other chemical reactions, such as your baking soda and vinegar example.
Have you established this difference?  The expert you posted says there is no difference.  Any difference is an illusion.

We started with  existence exists.  We now have two options.  The atheist universe where all existence is material only.  And the Catholic universe where there also exists the immaterial.

You have chosen the atheist view.  I can ask you about immaterial things (e.g. triangles were discovered, not invented), so your selection is merely an irrational assumption, but for the sake of argument, we'll go with it.

You have to prove that "man", a material collection of atoms, can "live", and that a acid catalyzed chemical reaction between butylene and isobutane can not (or we can go back to baking soda and vinegar).

Proceed.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 24, 2014, 02:01:19 PM
Quote from: james03 on April 24, 2014, 11:57:16 AM
Alive is what is living?  You have to be sh!tting me.  Do you know what a tautology is?
QuoteLife, as a chemical reaction, is different than other chemical reactions, such as your baking soda and vinegar example.
Have you established this difference?  The expert you posted says there is no difference.  Any difference is an illusion.

We started with  existence exists.  We now have two options.  The atheist universe where all existence is material only.  And the Catholic universe where there also exists the immaterial.

You have chosen the atheist view.  I can ask you about immaterial things (e.g. triangles were discovered, not invented), so your selection is merely an irrational assumption, but for the sake of argument, we'll go with it.

You have to prove that "man", a material collection of atoms, can "live", and that a acid catalyzed chemical reaction between butylene and isobutane can not (or we can go back to baking soda and vinegar).

Proceed.

Just because I don't accept immaterial things, does not mean I don't accept ideas.  This is pure sophistry.  It is akin to saying, God cannot be seen, but neither can love, therefore if you don't accept God, you cannot accept love.  Blah, blah, blah, ridiculous.  This is silly and is never accepted outside of the lobbies of churches where believers congregate to reinforce their beliefs.

By perceiving the world around me I know that man can live, as I am a man who is living.  To deny this would be akin to denying the nose on your face.  A man was once very worried about his son, and took him to the local priest.  You see, the son had become convinced that he was dead.  The doctor asked the son, "do dead people bleed?"  The son replied, "no, of course not, every one knows this."  So the doctor took the boy's hand and pricked it with a needle, and the boy bled.  The son was very confused, and said to the doctor, "what do you know, I guess dead people do bleed."  Only an insane person would not be able to recognize that he is in fact alive.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on April 24, 2014, 02:23:21 PM
QuoteJust because I don't accept immaterial things, does not mean I don't accept ideas.  This is pure sophistry.
What a hoot.  I don't think you can comprehend this sentence.  This sentence is absolutely correct as written.  You condemn yourself.
QuoteBy perceiving the world around me I know that man can live, as I am a man who is living.
Which is why you are going to hell.  And your eternal whine: "It's not my fault, I didn't see it" will only condemn you more.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 24, 2014, 04:11:01 PM

Quote from: james03 on April 24, 2014, 02:23:21 PM
QuoteJust because I don't accept immaterial things, does not mean I don't accept ideas.  This is pure sophistry.
What a hoot.  I don't think you can comprehend this sentence.  This sentence is absolutely correct as written.  You condemn yourself.
QuoteBy perceiving the world around me I know that man can live, as I am a man who is living.
Which is why you are going to hell.  And your eternal whine: "It's not my fault, I didn't see it" will only condemn you more.

Your threats of hell have no force.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on April 24, 2014, 05:55:15 PM
I don't threaten.  I'm just announcing.

But why are you here if not to save yourself from hell?  To whine?  We can try to save you, but you have to ditch the pride, which is effeminate in a man.  Start by admitting when you are wrong, or learn something about the Faith.  You were obviously wrong about humility, as you were using an erroneous definition (self-loathing).

You said one of the big problems you had with the Faith was the perceived (or perhaps actually observed) leftism.  I gave you a book which addresses the errors of leftists in the Church.  Here's the link again.:

Link to Book (http://www.scribd.com/doc/76085375/Anthem-2012-The-Catholic-Libertarian-Manifesto)

This book is online and free to read.  Take some time off and read the book.  Then report back.  Besides that, I'm done.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 24, 2014, 06:51:02 PM
James03, which do you think has primacy, existence or consciousness?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on April 24, 2014, 07:42:45 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 24, 2014, 10:29:44 AM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on April 24, 2014, 10:27:15 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 24, 2014, 10:22:16 AM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on April 24, 2014, 10:19:29 AM
Cf...one cannot find "laws" and then deny a lawgiver.

Laws cannot have a lawgiver, otherwise the lawgiver would have existed before the laws, which would mean the laws would not be laws.  Laws are necessary and must always exist in all places and all times.
whaaaaat???
You smoken the kronik?

Not yet...

What is your objection?
The objection is that you cant see how completely contradictory all your thoughts are.
I have different question for you since you and james have come to an impass because you refuse to acknowledge your contradictions.
Answer me this...is there such a thing as evil?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 24, 2014, 07:59:05 PM

Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on April 24, 2014, 07:42:45 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 24, 2014, 10:29:44 AM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on April 24, 2014, 10:27:15 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 24, 2014, 10:22:16 AM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on April 24, 2014, 10:19:29 AM
Cf...one cannot find "laws" and then deny a lawgiver.

Laws cannot have a lawgiver, otherwise the lawgiver would have existed before the laws, which would mean the laws would not be laws.  Laws are necessary and must always exist in all places and all times.
whaaaaat???
You smoken the kronik?

Not yet...

What is your objection?
The objection is that you cant see how completely contradictory all your thoughts are.
I have different question for you since you and james have come to an impass because you refuse to acknowledge your contradictions.
Answer me this...is there such a thing as evil?

Acts are evil if they violate man's rights, but evil is not a thing which exists, it is not a noun.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 24, 2014, 07:59:56 PM
Voxx, would you like to answer my question?  Which has primacy, existence or consciousness?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on April 24, 2014, 08:09:50 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 24, 2014, 07:59:56 PM
Voxx, would you like to answer my question?  Which has primacy, existence or consciousness?
No because you you refuse to acknowledge contradictions in your writings.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on April 24, 2014, 08:12:33 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 24, 2014, 07:59:05 PM

Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on April 24, 2014, 07:42:45 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 24, 2014, 10:29:44 AM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on April 24, 2014, 10:27:15 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 24, 2014, 10:22:16 AM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on April 24, 2014, 10:19:29 AM
Cf...one cannot find "laws" and then deny a lawgiver.

Laws cannot have a lawgiver, otherwise the lawgiver would have existed before the laws, which would mean the laws would not be laws.  Laws are necessary and must always exist in all places and all times.
whaaaaat???
You smoken the kronik?

Not yet...

What is your objection?
The objection is that you cant see how completely contradictory all your thoughts are.
I have different question for you since you and james have come to an impass because you refuse to acknowledge your contradictions.
Answer me this...is there such a thing as evil?

Acts are evil if they violate man's rights, but evil is not a thing which exists, it is not a noun.
So you use it as an adjective to describe an act...in this case violating a mans rights.
By what standard do you distinguish between an evil and a good.....by what  or by whoms authority do you decalare it "evil" to violate a persons rights?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 24, 2014, 08:15:41 PM
If you really want to understand my views, stop it with the authority thing.  I am an atheist and an anarchist, I recognize no authority.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on April 24, 2014, 08:17:57 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 24, 2014, 08:15:41 PM
If you really want to understand my views, stop it with the authority thing.  I am an atheist and an anarchist, I recognize no authority.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So then if you were here I would have no problem violating any of your rights I see fit...and it wouldnt be wrong because you recognise no authoruty to judge my actions as evil or wrong...screw you and your so called rights...you have none and if I had the power Id crush them all because...hey who cares?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 24, 2014, 08:22:38 PM
I recognize reality, your authority cannot change reality.  A is A, existence holds primacy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on April 24, 2014, 08:26:34 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 24, 2014, 08:22:38 PM
I recognize reality, your authority cannot change reality.  A is A, existence holds primacy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Im not talking about my authority...to whom would you appeal if I violated your rights....if I crushed your puny skull...(especially since your not using it for anything)..by what would you appeal to say that action was "evil". You said violating your rights was an "evil" act...says who? Kim il jung of N Korea thinks its perfectly "good"
Title: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 25, 2014, 01:24:39 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on April 24, 2014, 08:26:34 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 24, 2014, 08:22:38 PM
I recognize reality, your authority cannot change reality.  A is A, existence holds primacy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Im not talking about my authority...to whom would you appeal if I violated your rights....if I crushed your puny skull...(especially since your not using it for anything)..by what would you appeal to say that action was "evil". You said violating your rights was an "evil" act...says who? Kim il jung of N Korea thinks its perfectly "good"

I'm not talking about you as an authority, I reject your idea of authority.  I reject all authority.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on April 25, 2014, 08:34:53 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 25, 2014, 01:24:39 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on April 24, 2014, 08:26:34 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 24, 2014, 08:22:38 PM
I recognize reality, your authority cannot change reality.  A is A, existence holds primacy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Im not talking about my authority...to whom would you appeal if I violated your rights....if I crushed your puny skull...(especially since your not using it for anything)..by what would you appeal to say that action was "evil". You said violating your rights was an "evil" act...says who? Kim il jung of N Korea thinks its perfectly "good"

I'm not talking about you as an authority, I reject your idea of authority.  I reject all authority.
Then you have no business asserting any thing as good or true...you really are a skull full of jelly.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 25, 2014, 08:38:41 PM
I am a man and not a slave, therefore I reject authority.  Your insults are contrary to the truth, do you not care for the truth?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on April 25, 2014, 08:42:04 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 25, 2014, 08:38:41 PM
I am a man and not a slave, therefore I reject authority.  Your insults are contrary to the truth, do you not care for the truth?
The fact that your insulted about the observations I make about you prove you accept authority of some kind. I have a reason Im leveling insults....the fact your offended proves your theory s wrong.
You are a slave...we are all slaves...slaves to God or Satan...only Satan lets you pretend your free.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 25, 2014, 08:50:49 PM

Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on April 25, 2014, 08:42:04 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 25, 2014, 08:38:41 PM
I am a man and not a slave, therefore I reject authority.  Your insults are contrary to the truth, do you not care for the truth?
The fact that your insulted about the observations I make about you prove you accept authority of some kind. I have a reason Im leveling insults....the fact your offended proves your theory s wrong.
You are a slave...we are all slaves...slaves to God or Satan...only Satan lets you pretend your free.

This is a non-sequitur.  Insults have notng to do with authority.

Authority stands against reason and truth.  Truth is said to be whatever the authority says it is, truth then is not objective, but rather subjective.  This causes man to abdicate his reason, and leave reality.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on April 25, 2014, 09:06:10 PM
Being insulted has everything to do with authority...mush head.,,,you feel insulted because you assume I should know better.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 25, 2014, 09:22:35 PM

Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on April 25, 2014, 09:06:10 PM
Being insulted has everything to do with authority...mush head.,,,you feel insulted because you assume I should know better.

Don't get me wrong, I feel no insult.  This is because I put no stock into the opinions of others.  However, insults and name calling detract from the search for truth.  Instead of tackling ideas, you are more interested in hurling insults.

And no, I don't assume you should know better.  Louis IX knows better, he doesn't insult others, instead he follows the example of your God.  Didn't Jesus say to love your enemy?  Didn't he say to turn the other cheek?  How should a Christian treat an atheist?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Greg on April 26, 2014, 08:37:41 AM
Crimson.  If you are an idiot then how can it be a distraction from the truth to insult you by calling you what you are?

The truth cannot distract from a search for the truth.  That makes no sense.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 26, 2014, 09:50:34 AM
Insults detract from the truth for at least two reasons.  One, they are a waste of time.  Two, they tend to push others away.  This doesn't push me away, but keep in mind that if you hurl insults at others, you will just push them away from The Church.

On a side note, do you care nothing about imitating your Lord?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: lauermar on April 26, 2014, 09:59:35 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 26, 2014, 09:50:34 AM

On a side note, do you care nothing about imitating your Lord?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Apparently neither do you.

:deadhorse:
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Jayne on April 26, 2014, 10:07:35 AM
It would be really great if Catholics behaved better than non-Catholics.  It makes sense that there we should have different standards.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 26, 2014, 10:15:56 AM

Quote from: lauermar on April 26, 2014, 09:59:35 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 26, 2014, 09:50:34 AM

On a side note, do you care nothing about imitating your Lord?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Apparently neither do you.

:deadhorse:

I have no lord.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Greg on April 26, 2014, 12:54:27 PM
Quote from: Jayne on April 26, 2014, 10:07:35 AM
It would be really great if Catholics behaved better than non-Catholics.  It makes sense that there we should have different standards.

So what do most polite liberal non-Catholics say today about transsexuals?

Practicing Catholics do behave better.  We don't sleep around before marriage, we don't have abortions and we don't take it up the bum.

Are you taking about being "nithe" or behaving better?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 26, 2014, 04:12:31 PM

Quote from: Greg on April 26, 2014, 12:54:27 PM
Quote from: Jayne on April 26, 2014, 10:07:35 AM
It would be really great if Catholics behaved better than non-Catholics.  It makes sense that there we should have different standards.

So what do most polite liberal non-Catholics say today about transsexuals?

Practicing Catholics do behave better.  We don't sleep around before marriage, we don't have abortions and we don't take it up the bum.

Are you taking about being "nithe" or behaving better?

I can't speak for Jayne, but I am talking about treating people well.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on April 26, 2014, 05:36:21 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 25, 2014, 09:22:35 PM

Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on April 25, 2014, 09:06:10 PM
Being insulted has everything to do with authority...mush head.,,,you feel insulted because you assume I should know better.

Don't get me wrong, I feel no insult.  This is because I put no stock into the opinions of others.  However, insults and name calling detract from the search for truth.  Instead of tackling ideas, you are more interested in hurling insults.

And no, I don't assume you should know better.  Louis IX knows better, he doesn't insult others, instead he follows the example of your God.  Didn't Jesus say to love your enemy?  Didn't he say to turn the other cheek?  How should a Christian treat an atheist?
Oh please you whine about being insulted...accuse me of not following Christ and then say laughingly that you only wish to avoid distracting from the search for Truth! I would never lend you 10 bucks because you could find a rationel for not paying it back. You have to be the most self decived soul I have yet to encounter...and Ive met ALOT of people.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: m.PR on April 26, 2014, 05:43:13 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 24, 2014, 08:15:41 PM
I recognize no authority.

You obviously recognize the authority of You. Which means what exactly? Your passions? Your reason?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Greg on April 26, 2014, 09:29:50 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 26, 2014, 04:12:31 PM

Quote from: Greg on April 26, 2014, 12:54:27 PM
Quote from: Jayne on April 26, 2014, 10:07:35 AM
It would be really great if Catholics behaved better than non-Catholics.  It makes sense that there we should have different standards.

So what do most polite liberal non-Catholics say today about transsexuals?

Practicing Catholics do behave better.  We don't sleep around before marriage, we don't have abortions and we don't take it up the bum.

Are you taking about being "nithe" or behaving better?

I can't speak for Jayne, but I am talking about treating people well.

I treat people as I find them.

And you are a fool.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Jayne on April 27, 2014, 07:07:27 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 26, 2014, 04:12:31 PM

Quote from: Greg on April 26, 2014, 12:54:27 PM
Quote from: Jayne on April 26, 2014, 10:07:35 AM
It would be really great if Catholics behaved better than non-Catholics.  It makes sense that there we should have different standards.

So what do most polite liberal non-Catholics say today about transsexuals?

Practicing Catholics do behave better.  We don't sleep around before marriage, we don't have abortions and we don't take it up the bum.

Are you taking about being "nithe" or behaving better?

I can't speak for Jayne, but I am talking about treating people well.

Yes.  I agree with your observations about insults.  The outstanding characteristic of Christians is supposed to be charity.  When we fail at that, we fail Christ.  I can't imagine Him excusing us with, "That's OK.  At least you were straight and didn't have an abortion."
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: ResRev on April 27, 2014, 02:19:04 PM
Quote from: Jayne on April 27, 2014, 07:07:27 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 26, 2014, 04:12:31 PM

Quote from: Greg on April 26, 2014, 12:54:27 PM
Quote from: Jayne on April 26, 2014, 10:07:35 AM
It would be really great if Catholics behaved better than non-Catholics.  It makes sense that there we should have different standards.

So what do most polite liberal non-Catholics say today about transsexuals?

Practicing Catholics do behave better.  We don't sleep around before marriage, we don't have abortions and we don't take it up the bum.

Are you taking about being "nithe" or behaving better?

I can't speak for Jayne, but I am talking about treating people well.

Yes.  I agree with your observations about insults.  The outstanding characteristic of Christians is supposed to be charity.  When we fail at that, we fail Christ.  I can't imagine Him excusing us with, "That's OK.  At least you were straight and didn't have an abortion."
I try to understand charity and what is just secular "nice" but not charity (in speech) and get very confused. What is charitable? (I feel like Pilate...anyway...) I read our Lord say,

Quote from: Matthew 23:27Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you are like to whited sepulchres, which outwardly appear to men beautiful, but within are full of dead men's bones, and of all filthiness.
If I said someone was "full of...filthiness" I would most likely be said to be uncharitable. I don't get it. Just thinking out loud here.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 27, 2014, 02:25:23 PM
Would Jesus approve of hurling insults at others, or would he rather a Christian say that someone is wrong and do so in a polite manner?  Do you convince someone of truth by calling that person disgusting names?  Or do you just push them farther from The Church?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: zork on April 27, 2014, 02:49:09 PM
Well Jesus did call the pharisees "vipers" and took an "aggressive" tone in rebuking them.

As far as punishing people further from the Church--Would that even matter when dealing with those who have no inclination to be open to conversion or reversion or repentance? The chaff who stubbornly refuse to come to God, be it due to pride or enmity towards God, will persist in not truly listening no matter how 'kind' they're being spoken to by their opponents.

(Crimson Flyboy, please note I am not referring to you as one of the 'chaff'. You seem earnest and respectful, and I pray you return to the Faith at some point. By chaff, I mean those nonbelievers who will ultimately be damned for persisting in their willful hostility towards God and arrogance.)
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: ResRev on April 27, 2014, 03:06:12 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 27, 2014, 02:25:23 PM
Would Jesus approve of hurling insults at others, or would he rather a Christian say that someone is wrong and do so in a polite manner?  Do you convince someone of truth by calling that person disgusting names?  Or do you just push them farther from The Church?
I understand where you're coming from. I haven't quite gotten the whole charitable/uncharitable thing figured out yet, but I do agree with you in principle. But I'm so confused about how you come to the decision to chastise anyone about this (I'm not being passive-agressive here, I'm truly, honestly confused). Your stated position earlier was that you should not judge others' behaviors (what we call sins) unless your own rights were being infringed upon. Other than that, hands off. Are your rights more expanded than what you listed? Is one of them not to be insulted? Do you consider it harassment of some sort and that violates your rights? It seems like you think the behavior is not healthy or good and that's what you object to. We're not supposed to remark on behaviors that we believe aren't healthy, why should you? Totally honest question, here, I like you, you seem like a good guy.
Title: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 27, 2014, 03:22:19 PM
Quote from: ResRev on April 27, 2014, 03:06:12 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 27, 2014, 02:25:23 PM
Would Jesus approve of hurling insults at others, or would he rather a Christian say that someone is wrong and do so in a polite manner?  Do you convince someone of truth by calling that person disgusting names?  Or do you just push them farther from The Church?
I understand where you're coming from. I haven't quite gotten the whole charitable/uncharitable thing figured out yet, but I do agree with you in principle. But I'm so confused about how you come to the decision to chastise anyone about this (I'm not being passive-agressive here, I'm truly, honestly confused). Your stated position earlier was that you should not judge others' behaviors (what we call sins) unless your own rights were being infringed upon. Other than that, hands off. Are your rights more expanded than what you listed? Is one of them not to be insulted? Do you consider it harassment of some sort and that violates your rights? It seems like you think the behavior is not healthy or good and that's what you object to. We're not supposed to remark on behaviors that we believe aren't healthy, why should you? Totally honest question, here, I like you, you seem like a good guy.

Thanks, I can clear this up.  There is a difference between morality and the law.  Morality deals with how a man should best live a life, law deals with protecting the rights of men.  I may judge an action to be bad, but if it doesn't violate the rights of others, it should not be illegal.  The non-aggression principle is at work here.  The non-aggression principle states that no man may initiate force against another man.  (N.B. Self defense is not an initiation of force). If a man is doing something that hurts himself, there is nothing wrong with stating the evil of his action, but no one has the right to use force to stop him.  If I see a man destroying his life with a heroine addiction, I do not have the right to use force to get him into a rehab clinic, the ends never justify the means.  I can help him if he asks, but he must ask.  Now, I will judge his actions, but I will not judge him.  Drugs should be treated as a health problem, and not moralized.  I also will not tell this man he is a piece of dirt, or that he should just die.  I will tell him that his actions are killing him, and that help is available when he decides to get better.  Do you understand?

Edit: Insults do not deal with rights.  No one has the right to not be insulted, but that doesn't mean insulting others is good.  When I insult someone else, I only hurt myself, and I hurt the chances of fruitful debate, which detracts from the truth.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: ResRev on April 27, 2014, 03:30:36 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 27, 2014, 03:22:19 PM

Quote from: ResRev on April 27, 2014, 03:06:12 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 27, 2014, 02:25:23 PM
Would Jesus approve of hurling insults at others, or would he rather a Christian say that someone is wrong and do so in a polite manner?  Do you convince someone of truth by calling that person disgusting names?  Or do you just push them farther from The Church?
I understand where you're coming from. I haven't quite gotten the whole charitable/uncharitable thing figured out yet, but I do agree with you in principle. But I'm so confused about how you come to the decision to chastise anyone about this (I'm not being passive-agressive here, I'm truly, honestly confused). Your stated position earlier was that you should not judge others' behaviors (what we call sins) unless your own rights were being infringed upon. Other than that, hands off. Are your rights more expanded than what you listed? Is one of them not to be insulted? Do you consider it harassment of some sort and that violates your rights? It seems like you think the behavior is not healthy or good and that's what you object to. We're not supposed to remark on behaviors that we believe aren't healthy, why should you? Totally honest question, here, I like you, you seem like a good guy.

Thanks, I can clear this up.  There is a difference between morality and the law.  Morality deals with how a man should best live a life, law deals with protecting the rights of men.  I may judge an action to be bad, but if it doesn't violate the rights of others, it should not be illegal.  The non-aggression principle is at work here.  The non-aggression principle states that no man may initiate force against another man.  (N.B. Self defense is not an initiation of force). If a man is doing something that hurts himself, there is nothing wrong with stating the evil of his action, but no one has the right to use force to stop him.  If I see a man destroying his life with a heroine addiction, I do not have the right to use force to get him into a rehab clinic, the ends never justify the means.  I can help him if he asks, but he must ask.  Now, I will judge his actions, but I will not judge him.  Drugs should be treated as a health problem, and not moralized.  I also will not tell this man he is a piece of dirt, or that he should just die.  I will tell him that his actions are killing him, and that help is available when he decides to get better.  Do you understand?
Yes. Thank you for the explanation. I see where the confusion is. I thought I've seen comments from you that take the Church and her members to task for judging some behaviors as sinful (unhealthy, unhelpful, etc) You didn't seem to include legislating them in your assessment. I see that I was mistaken and you would only have a problem with the Church trying to force people to not engage in sinful behavior but not judging said behavior? I'll try to find some quotes from you and post them here to give a fuller picture of what I saw as a double-standard.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: ResRev on April 27, 2014, 03:37:01 PM
CF, found the one statement I had in mind

QuoteThe Church imposes rules on men.  These rules deal with nearly everything including a man's thoughts.  I say to you that any man who looks upon a woman with lust, has already commit adultery in his heart.

You seemed to disapprove when the Church has rules for men, but not when you do. Or did you think that the Church looks to legislate "a man who looks at a woman with lust"? I don't think that's ever been a Church objective, unless someone can set me straight.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Jayne on April 27, 2014, 03:40:40 PM
Quote from: ResRev on April 27, 2014, 02:19:04 PM
I try to understand charity and what is just secular "nice" but not charity (in speech) and get very confused. What is charitable? (I feel like Pilate...anyway...) I read our Lord say,

Quote from: Matthew 23:27Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you are like to whited sepulchres, which outwardly appear to men beautiful, but within are full of dead men's bones, and of all filthiness.
If I said someone was "full of...filthiness" I would most likely be said to be uncharitable. I don't get it. Just thinking out loud here.

This is how I understand the difference.  "Nice" is about avoiding confrontation and getting along.  Charity is about speaking the truth in love, even when the loving truth makes people uncomfortable.  Our Lord was telling people something important that they needed to know about their spiritual state.  He was not insulting them because he was annoyed and wanted to vent.
Title: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 27, 2014, 03:43:45 PM
Quote from: ResRev on April 27, 2014, 03:37:01 PM
CF, found the one statement I had in mind

QuoteThe Church imposes rules on men.  These rules deal with nearly everything including a man's thoughts.  I say to you that any man who looks upon a woman with lust, has already commit adultery in his heart.

You seemed to disapprove when the Church has rules for men, but not when you do. Or did you think that the Church looks to legislate "a man who looks at a woman with lust"? I don't think that's ever been a Church objective, unless someone can set me straight.

I don't think The Church ever made laws with regard to lust, they would be almost impossible to enforce anyway.  So, I recognize this had nothing to do with law, and is about morality.  Here I am disagreeing with The Church on a moral issue.  I think she is wrong in her view here, as I do not believe something which is only in the mind can be considered immoral.  I am giving you my opinion here.  If The Church wants to call certain thoughts immoral, legally she has every right to do so.  I do not have the right to use force to stop her, but I do have the right to criticize her for doing so.  I criticize her action, but not her.  Does this make sense?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: ResRev on April 27, 2014, 03:48:03 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 27, 2014, 03:43:45 PM

Quote from: ResRev on April 27, 2014, 03:37:01 PM
CF, found the one statement I had in mind

QuoteThe Church imposes rules on men.  These rules deal with nearly everything including a man's thoughts.  I say to you that any man who looks upon a woman with lust, has already commit adultery in his heart.

You seemed to disapprove when the Church has rules for men, but not when you do. Or did you think that the Church looks to legislate "a man who looks at a woman with lust"? I don't think that's ever been a Church objective, unless someone can set me straight.

I don't think The Church ever made laws with regard to lust, they would be almost impossible to enforce anyway.  So, I recognize this had nothing to do with law, and is about morality.  Here I am disagreeing with The Church on a moral issue.  I think she is wrong in her view here, as I do not believe something which is only in the mind can be considered immoral.  I am giving you my opinion here.  If The Church wants to call certain thoughts immoral, legally she has every right to.  I do not have the right to use force to stop her, but I do have the right to criticize her for doing so.  I criticize her action, but not her.  Does this make sense?
No. It really doesn't. Sorry, we have to agree to disagree. To me you sound like someone skirting around the issue of being hypocritical so that it sounds moral to you. Eh, you have your sins, I have mine...we both should maybe work on that. Peace.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: ResRev on April 27, 2014, 03:50:19 PM
Quote from: Jayne on April 27, 2014, 03:40:40 PM
Quote from: ResRev on April 27, 2014, 02:19:04 PM
I try to understand charity and what is just secular "nice" but not charity (in speech) and get very confused. What is charitable? (I feel like Pilate...anyway...) I read our Lord say,

Quote from: Matthew 23:27Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you are like to whited sepulchres, which outwardly appear to men beautiful, but within are full of dead men's bones, and of all filthiness.
If I said someone was "full of...filthiness" I would most likely be said to be uncharitable. I don't get it. Just thinking out loud here.

This is how I understand the difference.  "Nice" is about avoiding confrontation and getting along.  Charity is about speaking the truth in love, even when the loving truth makes people uncomfortable.  Our Lord was telling people something important that they needed to know about their spiritual state.  He was not insulting them because he was annoyed and wanted to vent.
I agree, Jayne. Thanks. I just have to keep working on that in practice and not theory. I'm not very good at it yet.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 27, 2014, 03:50:56 PM

Quote from: ResRev on April 27, 2014, 03:48:03 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 27, 2014, 03:43:45 PM

Quote from: ResRev on April 27, 2014, 03:37:01 PM
CF, found the one statement I had in mind

QuoteThe Church imposes rules on men.  These rules deal with nearly everything including a man's thoughts.  I say to you that any man who looks upon a woman with lust, has already commit adultery in his heart.

You seemed to disapprove when the Church has rules for men, but not when you do. Or did you think that the Church looks to legislate "a man who looks at a woman with lust"? I don't think that's ever been a Church objective, unless someone can set me straight.

I don't think The Church ever made laws with regard to lust, they would be almost impossible to enforce anyway.  So, I recognize this had nothing to do with law, and is about morality.  Here I am disagreeing with The Church on a moral issue.  I think she is wrong in her view here, as I do not believe something which is only in the mind can be considered immoral.  I am giving you my opinion here.  If The Church wants to call certain thoughts immoral, legally she has every right to.  I do not have the right to use force to stop her, but I do have the right to criticize her for doing so.  I criticize her action, but not her.  Does this make sense?
No. It really doesn't. Sorry, we have to agree to disagree. To me you sound like someone skirting around the issue of being hypocritical so that it sounds moral to you. Eh, you have your sins, I have mine...we both should maybe work on that. Peace.

I am not asking you to agree with me, I was just asking you if the difference between morals and the law made sense.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: ResRev on April 27, 2014, 03:54:29 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 27, 2014, 03:50:56 PM

I am not asking you to agree with me, I was just asking you if the difference between morals and the law made sense.
:lol: Yes. I passed the fifth grade. You crack me up.

I like you.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 27, 2014, 03:56:20 PM
Haha, good.  You're alright too.  I have the hardest time getting people to see the difference, and when they do I see their faces light up.  A man's whole worldview changes once he recognizes this.  No longer may a man force his values on others.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: m.PR on April 27, 2014, 10:49:31 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 27, 2014, 03:56:20 PM
No longer may a man force his values on others.

Isn't one's idea of what rights are a "value"?

Heretics were persecuted because they were seen as a threat to people's right (to use a modern concept) to Truth and Salvation. Further, in a world where religion was a great unifying factor (as it is, in general), heretics were a threat to the stability of the community and therefore a threat to the common good.

Yet today people do not think that Truth and Salvation are rights so people are dismayed by the idea of jailing people for spreading heresy. On the other hand, the people of another time would have been dismayed by the things done in the name of what the people of today consider rights, such as exposing children to quasi-pornographic material in the name of freedom of expression.

Your notion of human rights is based on your values. Which you then seek to impose upon other people.

Another illustration. You probably hold the right to private property to be absolute. So then according to you, someone who takes an apple from his neighbor's apple tree without his permission is stealing and could be prosecuted. Yet, according to another understanding of the world, if the man who took the apple was poor and hungry while the neighbor that got his apple taken had an excess of wealth - didn't really need that one apple - then then man who took the apple wasn't really stealing. Therefore, if you prosecute this man, you're actually imposing your values - your opinion on what is stealing and what is not.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Non Nobis on April 27, 2014, 11:36:27 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 27, 2014, 03:43:45 PM
I don't think The Church ever made laws with regard to lust, they would be almost impossible to enforce anyway.  So, I recognize this had nothing to do with law, and is about morality.  Here I am disagreeing with The Church on a moral issue.  I think she is wrong in her view here, as I do not believe something which is only in the mind can be considered immoral.  I am giving you my opinion here.  If The Church wants to call certain thoughts immoral, legally she has every right to do so.  I do not have the right to use force to stop her, but I do have the right to criticize her for doing so.  I criticize her action, but not her.  Does this make sense?

You think pride is important. Isn't pride only in the mind?  Is it perfectly OK (morally) to voluntarily debase oneself (mentally); or for others (morally and legally) to humiliate you to any degree?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on April 28, 2014, 04:04:49 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 27, 2014, 03:43:45 PM
Quote from: ResRev on April 27, 2014, 03:37:01 PM
CF, found the one statement I had in mind

QuoteThe Church imposes rules on men.  These rules deal with nearly everything including a man's thoughts.  I say to you that any man who looks upon a woman with lust, has already commit adultery in his heart.

You seemed to disapprove when the Church has rules for men, but not when you do. Or did you think that the Church looks to legislate "a man who looks at a woman with lust"? I don't think that's ever been a Church objective, unless someone can set me straight.

I don't think The Church ever made laws with regard to lust, they would be almost impossible to enforce anyway.  So, I recognize this had nothing to do with law, and is about morality.  Here I am disagreeing with The Church on a moral issue.  I think she is wrong in her view here, as I do not believe something which is only in the mind can be considered immoral.  I am giving you my opinion here.  If The Church wants to call certain thoughts immoral, legally she has every right to do so.  I do not have the right to use force to stop her, but I do have the right to criticize her for doing so.  I criticize her action, but not her.  Does this make sense?
you have zero right to criticize the Holy Mystical Body of Christ. And by your own admission you have zero authority to do so. And your obviously confusing lust with temptation. Lust is an act of the will done with the imaginatuon...you do not do it automatically with wishing to do so...unless youve become so used to it you forget you can controll it. The only reason you dare criticize Christ is you WANT to sin unencumbered..you want to debauch and run wild anytime you wish..youll have no one dare stop you. You do not hold the high ground..you hold the pit.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Gardener on April 28, 2014, 04:13:05 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 27, 2014, 03:43:45 PM
Quote from: ResRev on April 27, 2014, 03:37:01 PM
CF, found the one statement I had in mind

QuoteThe Church imposes rules on men.  These rules deal with nearly everything including a man's thoughts.  I say to you that any man who looks upon a woman with lust, has already commit adultery in his heart.

You seemed to disapprove when the Church has rules for men, but not when you do. Or did you think that the Church looks to legislate "a man who looks at a woman with lust"? I don't think that's ever been a Church objective, unless someone can set me straight.

I don't think The Church ever made laws with regard to lust, they would be almost impossible to enforce anyway.  So, I recognize this had nothing to do with law, and is about morality.  Here I am disagreeing with The Church on a moral issue.  I think she is wrong in her view here, as I do not believe something which is only in the mind can be considered immoral.  I am giving you my opinion here.  If The Church wants to call certain thoughts immoral, legally she has every right to do so.  I do not have the right to use force to stop her, but I do have the right to criticize her for doing so.  I criticize her action, but not her.  Does this make sense?

But you are not criticizing the Church on this, rather you are telling Christ He is wrong. The Church only teaches on issues of faith and morals that which God has revealed, and when there is a need for clarification She exercises the magisterial powers via the protection of the Holy Ghost.

But this issue is in Sacred Scripture, as recorded by the Apostle Matthew via the very words of Christ, the Word made Flesh.

Lust debases a man, and objectifies the object of his lust, another human being, and so it is not a victimless crime. It also shouldn't be confused with mere sexual desire, which is natural. Nor attraction, which is natural, but rather the disordered use of that which is natural. Thus, it is a privation of form or due measure, and so is evil (De Malo 2:2:, St. Thomas Aquinas).

We can also understand this from the Hebrew wherein the word for wicked is Ra, or resh-ayin are the letters... it means, in the Hebrew to break: no longer serve its intended purpose; dysfunctional. Thus, the bowl breaks and it is "wicked", evil. No longer able to abide by its intended form and cannot serve its due measure of holding something. The bowl-soul, being wicked, cannot hold grace.

Thus, lust is immoral.

Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 28, 2014, 07:49:15 AM
Quote from: m.PR on April 27, 2014, 10:49:31 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 27, 2014, 03:56:20 PM
No longer may a man force his values on others.

Isn't one's idea of what rights are a "value"?

Heretics were persecuted because they were seen as a threat to people's right (to use a modern concept) to Truth and Salvation. Further, in a world where religion was a great unifying factor (as it is, in general), heretics were a threat to the stability of the community and therefore a threat to the common good.

Yet today people do not think that Truth and Salvation are rights so people are dismayed by the idea of jailing people for spreading heresy. On the other hand, the people of another time would have been dismayed by the things done in the name of what the people of today consider rights, such as exposing children to quasi-pornographic material in the name of freedom of expression.

Your notion of human rights is based on your values. Which you then seek to impose upon other people.

Another illustration. You probably hold the right to private property to be absolute. So then according to you, someone who takes an apple from his neighbor's apple tree without his permission is stealing and could be prosecuted. Yet, according to another understanding of the world, if the man who took the apple was poor and hungry while the neighbor that got his apple taken had an excess of wealth - didn't really need that one apple - then then man who took the apple wasn't really stealing. Therefore, if you prosecute this man, you're actually imposing your values - your opinion on what is stealing and what is not.

This is why morality must be based on reality, not whim.  Truth is objective and exists outside of you and what you think.  As Miss Rand liked to say, "wishing won't make it so!"  I own that which I produce, and you cannot take it from me.  As for real estate, as opposed to private property, I own that land which I bought from a previous owner or that land with which I have mingled my labor.  (see John Locke for more)  A man who steals an apple would get a minor fine at most, as it is a minor crime.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: ResRev on April 28, 2014, 07:59:59 AM
Quote from: CFTruth is objective and exists outside of you and what you think.
Excellent. If it exists outside of you, where would it exist, actually?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 28, 2014, 08:00:10 AM
Quote from: Non Nobis on April 27, 2014, 11:36:27 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 27, 2014, 03:43:45 PM
I don't think The Church ever made laws with regard to lust, they would be almost impossible to enforce anyway.  So, I recognize this had nothing to do with law, and is about morality.  Here I am disagreeing with The Church on a moral issue.  I think she is wrong in her view here, as I do not believe something which is only in the mind can be considered immoral.  I am giving you my opinion here.  If The Church wants to call certain thoughts immoral, legally she has every right to do so.  I do not have the right to use force to stop her, but I do have the right to criticize her for doing so.  I criticize her action, but not her.  Does this make sense?

You think pride is important. Isn't pride only in the mind?  Is it perfectly OK (morally) to voluntarily debase oneself (mentally); or for others (morally and legally) to humiliate you to any degree?

It is legal for a man to voluntarily debase himself, it is his life, but it is an awful thing to do.  And for others to humiliate you depends on what you mean by humiliate.  They may legally say nasty things, but they may not physically hurt you or your property.  To speak ill of others is to act immorally, but no illegally.  They also may not slander or libel your character, if these things be lies.  So, they couldn't lie and write a column which states that you stole money when you didn't.  That sort of humiliation is illegal and immoral.

To act immorally is to act in a way which I think is bad, but which violates no rights and therefore cannot be stopped with force.  To act illegally is to act in a way which violates another's rights and can be stopped using force.  Force is a terrible evil and must only be used in defense of one's self or loved ones.  The non-aggression principle is at the heart of all of this.  A man may not initiate force against another.  If you use the law to stop someone from acting immorally, then you have initiated force upon one who has used no force himself.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 28, 2014, 08:04:47 AM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on April 28, 2014, 04:04:49 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 27, 2014, 03:43:45 PM
Quote from: ResRev on April 27, 2014, 03:37:01 PM
CF, found the one statement I had in mind

QuoteThe Church imposes rules on men.  These rules deal with nearly everything including a man's thoughts.  I say to you that any man who looks upon a woman with lust, has already commit adultery in his heart.

You seemed to disapprove when the Church has rules for men, but not when you do. Or did you think that the Church looks to legislate "a man who looks at a woman with lust"? I don't think that's ever been a Church objective, unless someone can set me straight.

I don't think The Church ever made laws with regard to lust, they would be almost impossible to enforce anyway.  So, I recognize this had nothing to do with law, and is about morality.  Here I am disagreeing with The Church on a moral issue.  I think she is wrong in her view here, as I do not believe something which is only in the mind can be considered immoral.  I am giving you my opinion here.  If The Church wants to call certain thoughts immoral, legally she has every right to do so.  I do not have the right to use force to stop her, but I do have the right to criticize her for doing so.  I criticize her action, but not her.  Does this make sense?
you have zero right to criticize the Holy Mystical Body of Christ. And by your own admission you have zero authority to do so. And your obviously confusing lust with temptation. Lust is an act of the will done with the imaginatuon...you do not do it automatically with wishing to do so...unless youve become so used to it you forget you can controll it. The only reason you dare criticize Christ is you WANT to sin unencumbered..you want to debauch and run wild anytime you wish..youll have no one dare stop you. You do not hold the high ground..you hold the pit.

The right to criticize has nothing to do with authority, and I don't believe in authority anyway.

I do recognize the difference between lust and temptation, and I was speaking of lust, not temptation.  But, it is an error to speak of going against one's nature.  To demand a man that he go against his nature is to deny the laws of causality and identity.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 28, 2014, 08:06:56 AM
Quote from: Gardener on April 28, 2014, 04:13:05 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 27, 2014, 03:43:45 PM
Quote from: ResRev on April 27, 2014, 03:37:01 PM
CF, found the one statement I had in mind

QuoteThe Church imposes rules on men.  These rules deal with nearly everything including a man's thoughts.  I say to you that any man who looks upon a woman with lust, has already commit adultery in his heart.

You seemed to disapprove when the Church has rules for men, but not when you do. Or did you think that the Church looks to legislate "a man who looks at a woman with lust"? I don't think that's ever been a Church objective, unless someone can set me straight.

I don't think The Church ever made laws with regard to lust, they would be almost impossible to enforce anyway.  So, I recognize this had nothing to do with law, and is about morality.  Here I am disagreeing with The Church on a moral issue.  I think she is wrong in her view here, as I do not believe something which is only in the mind can be considered immoral.  I am giving you my opinion here.  If The Church wants to call certain thoughts immoral, legally she has every right to do so.  I do not have the right to use force to stop her, but I do have the right to criticize her for doing so.  I criticize her action, but not her.  Does this make sense?

But you are not criticizing the Church on this, rather you are telling Christ He is wrong. The Church only teaches on issues of faith and morals that which God has revealed, and when there is a need for clarification She exercises the magisterial powers via the protection of the Holy Ghost.

But this issue is in Sacred Scripture, as recorded by the Apostle Matthew via the very words of Christ, the Word made Flesh.

Lust debases a man, and objectifies the object of his lust, another human being, and so it is not a victimless crime. It also shouldn't be confused with mere sexual desire, which is natural. Nor attraction, which is natural, but rather the disordered use of that which is natural. Thus, it is a privation of form or due measure, and so is evil (De Malo 2:2:, St. Thomas Aquinas).

We can also understand this from the Hebrew wherein the word for wicked is Ra, or resh-ayin are the letters... it means, in the Hebrew to break: no longer serve its intended purpose; dysfunctional. Thus, the bowl breaks and it is "wicked", evil. No longer able to abide by its intended form and cannot serve its due measure of holding something. The bowl-soul, being wicked, cannot hold grace.

Thus, lust is immoral.

Thoughts do not affect their object, so lust cannot affect the one lusted after.  Further, it is possible to lust after a person whom a man has never met, or one who doesn't exist.

I don't care what the bible says.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 28, 2014, 08:08:19 AM
Quote from: ResRev on April 28, 2014, 07:59:59 AM
Quote from: CFTruth is objective and exists outside of you and what you think.
Excellent. If it exists outside of you, where would it exist, actually?

Truth is a concept and not a physical object, it does not exist in any physical location.  When my thinking about a thing is in accord with that thing, my thinking is true.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: ResRev on April 28, 2014, 08:12:13 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 28, 2014, 08:04:47 AM
The right to criticize has nothing to do with authority, and I don't believe in authority anyway.
If you don't believe in authority, how do you secure rights? On your own? Do you shoot trespassers or detain thieves on your own? Hold your own court? What if someone doesn't accept your authority?

I don't actually understand this one...
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 28, 2014, 08:18:26 AM
Quote from: ResRev on April 28, 2014, 08:12:13 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 28, 2014, 08:04:47 AM
The right to criticize has nothing to do with authority, and I don't believe in authority anyway.
If you don't believe in authority, how do you secure rights? On your own? Do you shoot trespassers or detain thieves on your own? Hold your own court? What if someone doesn't accept your authority?

I don't actually understand this one...

It probably has to do with how we are defining the word 'authority'.  I think of an authority as one whom men must obey because of his position, he decides on his own what is right and what is wrong.  He doesn't merely uphold the law, but he is the law.  Whatever he says, goes.  The United States is supposed to be a country of laws and not men, so we are not supposed to have any authority.  I'm pretty sure the Catholic notion of authority is very different, but I never got understood it.  A priest once told me that the government has the right to make any law that it wants, so long as it did not violate God's law.  That sounds like authority to me, not complete but close.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: ResRev on April 28, 2014, 08:25:12 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 28, 2014, 08:08:19 AM
Quote from: ResRev on April 28, 2014, 07:59:59 AM
Quote from: CFTruth is objective and exists outside of you and what you think.
Excellent. If it exists outside of you, where would it exist, actually?

Truth is a concept and not a physical object, it does not exist in any physical location.
But, you were the one who said it exists "outside" of you. That demands a "where". Doesn't mean it's physical. It still needs a "place". I didn't mean physical and neither did you. I think you should have been able to see that, it sounds disingenuous to say that you thought I meant a physical place. I'm starting to feel like you use that as a debating tactic. If you get a tough question, make the other debater and their argument sound just a little stupid and skirt the actual question. It's very similar to avoiding the question and making fun of their spelling or grammar. Do you find yourself doing that often? Anyway. Back to the topic.

If something "exists" it must have some "plane" (to use a very imperfect description that I cringe a little to use) of existence, physical or otherwise. In what "plane" would truth "exist"? What is your explanation of "where" "things" "exist" that are "outside" of us?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: ResRev on April 28, 2014, 08:26:51 AM
Interesting definition of authority. Where did you get it?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 28, 2014, 08:34:12 AM
Quote from: ResRev on April 28, 2014, 08:25:12 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 28, 2014, 08:08:19 AM
Quote from: ResRev on April 28, 2014, 07:59:59 AM
Quote from: CFTruth is objective and exists outside of you and what you think.
Excellent. If it exists outside of you, where would it exist, actually?

Truth is a concept and not a physical object, it does not exist in any physical location.
But, you were the one who said it exists "outside" of you. That demands a "where". Doesn't mean it's physical. It still needs a "place". I didn't mean physical and neither did you. I think you should have been able to see that, it sounds disingenuous to say that you thought I meant a physical place. I'm starting to feel like you use that as a debating tactic. If you get a tough question, make the other debater and their argument sound just a little stupid and skirt the actual question. It's very similar to avoiding the question and making fun of their spelling or grammar. Do you find yourself doing that often? Anyway. Back to the topic.

If something "exists" it must have some "plane" (to use a very imperfect description that I cringe a little to use) of existence, physical or otherwise. In what "plane" would truth "exist"? What is your explanation of "where" "things" "exist" that are "outside" of us?

Your'e the one who used the term 'where', which clearly implies location.  I didn't mean to use any tactic.  I find your manner of speaking confusing, I don't mean to offend.  What do you mean by 'plane'?  This sounds platonic, am I right?

When I say that truth exists outside of you, I mean that truth is not what whatever man decides it is.  The universe around us exists objectively, and it is our job to conform our minds to it and not the other way around.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 28, 2014, 08:35:48 AM
Quote from: ResRev on April 28, 2014, 08:26:51 AM
Interesting definition of authority. Where did you get it?

From school and my grandmother.  The education I received from my childhood, from both school and family, was basically straight from the enlightenment.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: ResRev on April 28, 2014, 08:40:09 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 28, 2014, 08:34:12 AM
Quote from: ResRev on April 28, 2014, 08:25:12 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 28, 2014, 08:08:19 AM
Quote from: ResRev on April 28, 2014, 07:59:59 AM
Quote from: CFTruth is objective and exists outside of you and what you think.
Excellent. If it exists outside of you, where would it exist, actually?

Truth is a concept and not a physical object, it does not exist in any physical location.
But, you were the one who said it exists "outside" of you. That demands a "where". Doesn't mean it's physical. It still needs a "place". I didn't mean physical and neither did you. I think you should have been able to see that, it sounds disingenuous to say that you thought I meant a physical place. I'm starting to feel like you use that as a debating tactic. If you get a tough question, make the other debater and their argument sound just a little stupid and skirt the actual question. It's very similar to avoiding the question and making fun of their spelling or grammar. Do you find yourself doing that often? Anyway. Back to the topic.

If something "exists" it must have some "plane" (to use a very imperfect description that I cringe a little to use) of existence, physical or otherwise. In what "plane" would truth "exist"? What is your explanation of "where" "things" "exist" that are "outside" of us?

Your'e the one who used the term 'where', which clearly implies location.  I didn't mean to use any tactic.  I find your manner of speaking confusing, I don't mean to offend.  What do you mean by 'plane'?  This sounds platonic, am I right?

When I say that truth exists outside of you, I mean that truth is not what whatever man decides it is.  The universe around us exists objectively, and it is our job to conform our minds to it and not the other way around.
But you started it! :lol:

See, you said "outside". That's a "where". Doesn't mean it's physical. But I'll leave it at that because I feel like I'm getting ready to say nanynanypoopoo and you might yank my pigtails. So undignified.  ;)

And I don't get offended. I'm part vulcan, apparently.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: ResRev on April 28, 2014, 08:45:02 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 28, 2014, 08:35:48 AM
Quote from: ResRev on April 28, 2014, 08:26:51 AM
Interesting definition of authority. Where did you get it?

From school and my grandmother.  The education I received from my childhood, from both school and family, was basically straight from the enlightenment.
I learned in a similar way from my dad, who was atheist. I've learned as I got older, though, that a better way to have a discussion is "straight from Merriam-Webster." Clears up lots of confusion.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 28, 2014, 08:48:59 AM
Quote from: ResRev on April 28, 2014, 08:40:09 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 28, 2014, 08:34:12 AM
Quote from: ResRev on April 28, 2014, 08:25:12 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 28, 2014, 08:08:19 AM
Quote from: ResRev on April 28, 2014, 07:59:59 AM
Quote from: CFTruth is objective and exists outside of you and what you think.
Excellent. If it exists outside of you, where would it exist, actually?

Truth is a concept and not a physical object, it does not exist in any physical location.
But, you were the one who said it exists "outside" of you. That demands a "where". Doesn't mean it's physical. It still needs a "place". I didn't mean physical and neither did you. I think you should have been able to see that, it sounds disingenuous to say that you thought I meant a physical place. I'm starting to feel like you use that as a debating tactic. If you get a tough question, make the other debater and their argument sound just a little stupid and skirt the actual question. It's very similar to avoiding the question and making fun of their spelling or grammar. Do you find yourself doing that often? Anyway. Back to the topic.

If something "exists" it must have some "plane" (to use a very imperfect description that I cringe a little to use) of existence, physical or otherwise. In what "plane" would truth "exist"? What is your explanation of "where" "things" "exist" that are "outside" of us?

Your'e the one who used the term 'where', which clearly implies location.  I didn't mean to use any tactic.  I find your manner of speaking confusing, I don't mean to offend.  What do you mean by 'plane'?  This sounds platonic, am I right?

When I say that truth exists outside of you, I mean that truth is not what whatever man decides it is.  The universe around us exists objectively, and it is our job to conform our minds to it and not the other way around.
But you started it! :lol:

See, you said "outside". That's a "where". Doesn't mean it's physical. But I'll leave it at that because I feel like I'm getting ready to say nanynanypoopoo and you might yank my pigtails. So undignified.  ;)

And I don't get offended. I'm part vulcan, apparently.

I believe I'm part Vulcan as well, I always did like Spoke best.  I can see how using the term "outside" would imply location.  I think of truth as a concept.  A thing is always true, as it just is what it is.  An idea is true only if it corresponds to reality, and that reality is outside of me.  This goes along with Miss Rand's axiom, existence exists.  Existence has primacy over consciousness, the universe exists regardless of what I think.  One place where Traditional Catholics and Objectivists can agree is that we both hate a lot of modern philosophy, including subjectivism.

You have a great sense of humor.  :)  So, here is a joke.

Two Libertarians were walking down a public sidewalk and came upon a vending machine which dispensed heroin to anyone who wanted it.  After a vigorous debate between the two, they came to a firm conclusion.  There shouldn't be any public sidewalks.  ;)
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: ResRev on April 28, 2014, 08:52:09 AM
:lol: Okay, that's only funny 'cause it's true.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 28, 2014, 08:52:22 AM
What my family taught me growing up corresponds most closely with John Locke, Frederick Bastiat, and Ayn Rand.  What about you?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: ResRev on April 28, 2014, 09:10:12 AM
Mine were more proximate and less philosopher. Hazlitt, Rothbard, Hayek, Friedman, the Federalist papers, even haha PJ O'Rourke. I never got into Rand. She seemed abrasive and unnecessarily insulting. Militaristic, almost. Not my style. But even though I think these writers are amazing mini-philosophers for lack of a better term, I don't see them as products of the so-called enlightenment. I'd call it more of the real dark age; despite these men, though, not because of. I'll leave it at that, though. I've got a baby on my chest that wants attention, I feel more like stating than debating.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 28, 2014, 09:55:53 AM

Quote from: ResRev on April 28, 2014, 09:10:12 AM
Mine were more proximate and less philosopher. Hazlitt, Rothbard, Hayek, Friedman, the Federalist papers, even haha PJ O'Rourke. I never got into Rand. She seemed abrasive and unnecessarily insulting. Militaristic, almost. Not my style. But even though I think these writers are amazing mini-philosophers for lack of a better term, I don't see them as products of the so-called enlightenment. I'd call it more of the real dark age; despite these men, though, not because of. I'll leave it at that, though. I've got a baby on my chest that wants attention, I feel more like stating than debating.

I am a big fan of Rothbard, Hayek, and Friedman.  I don't know Hazlitt and PJ O'Rourke.  You're right that Miss Rand wasn't the most cuddly of all philosophers.  I love her ideas, but she could have done a better job of selling them to the public.  Friedman did a great job of this, he was very funny and approachable.  Have a nice day.  :)
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: m.PR on April 28, 2014, 06:36:52 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 28, 2014, 07:49:15 AM
This is why morality must be based on reality, not whim.  Truth is objective and exists outside of you and what you think. 

Sure. But how do arrive at Truth? There are some first principles which you develop in order to get at Truth. Why do you accept them?

I can see you and some people here are speaking right past each other regarding "authority". Your definition is kind of an odd one. People in the United States do have an authority. . . it's themselves, or rather, the majority. That's the Enlightenment concept of popular sovereignty. The people make laws, and these laws, in themselves, have authority. The people also name public officials to make and uphold laws, who in turn may name other public officials; these people too have authority. Even colloquially we call them "the authorities."

But that only scratches the surface of the meaning of authority.

For instance, given that most of us have not observed the stars and made a careful study of our own observations in order to reach conclusions about the movement of the stars - we accept what we know about astronomy on the authority of our teachers.

People have authority over others as a function of their roles. For example, a project leader has the authority to tell his teammates what they may wear at their presentation. He does not, however, have the authority to tell them what TV shows they may watch after they get home from work (unless it's somehow relevant to the project).

Also, as you said, sort of, when a person creates something, he has a certain author-ity over it. It thus follows that God has authority over us all.

You're missing something from your formula. It isn't "I have no authority" but rather "I have no authority but myself." The Enlightenment man believes that he has all the authority over himself when he is born, but that he delegates some of it as he sees fit for his convenience; therefore, only the authorities that he recognizes are the legitimate authorities. The social contract. Of course, it turns out he delegates authority all over the place.

For the Catholic all legitimate authority comes from God. Authority lies beyond each person.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 28, 2014, 07:07:52 PM

Quote from: m.PR on April 28, 2014, 06:36:52 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 28, 2014, 07:49:15 AM
This is why morality must be based on reality, not whim.  Truth is objective and exists outside of you and what you think. 

Sure. But how do arrive at Truth? There are some first principles which you develop in order to get at Truth. Why do you accept them?

I can see you and some people here are speaking right past each other regarding "authority". Your definition is kind of an odd one. People in the United States do have an authority. . . it's themselves, or rather, the majority. That's the Enlightenment concept of popular sovereignty. The people make laws, and these laws, in themselves, have authority. The people also name public officials to make and uphold laws, who in turn may name other public officials; these people too have authority. Even colloquially we call them "the authorities."

But that only scratches the surface of the meaning of authority.

For instance, given that most of us have not observed the stars and made a careful study of our own observations in order to reach conclusions about the movement of the stars - we accept what we know about astronomy on the authority of our teachers.

People have authority over others as a function of their roles. For example, a project leader has the authority to tell his teammates what they may wear at their presentation. He does not, however, have the authority to tell them what TV shows they may watch after they get home from work (unless it's somehow relevant to the project).

Also, as you said, sort of, when a person creates something, he has a certain author-ity over it. It thus follows that God has authority over us all.

You're missing something from your formula. It isn't "I have no authority" but rather "I have no authority but myself." The Enlightenment man believes that he has all the authority over himself when he is born, but that he delegates some of it as he sees fit for his convenience; therefore, only the authorities that he recognizes are the legitimate authorities. The social contract. Of course, it turns out he delegates authority all over the place.

For the Catholic all legitimate authority comes from God. Authority lies beyond each person.

You're defining authority rather broadly and vaguely here.  What I mean by authority is someone else who can use violence to force me to do something against my will.  You can argue about the definition all you want, but what I mean by this is that no man has a rightful claim on my life.  No man may initiate force against me.  And, no man may dictate my life, I make my own decisions.  The government uses force against me, and this is horribly immoral.  Just ask yourself, is there really any difference between the government and the mafia?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on April 28, 2014, 07:41:51 PM
Yes the Mafia is actually effective and less intrusive in the lives of the citizenry.
Title: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 28, 2014, 08:15:14 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on April 28, 2014, 07:41:51 PM
Yes the Mafia is actually effective and less intrusive in the lives of the citizenry.

Haha, yes.  I would rather be ruled over by the mafia than the government, if I have to be ruled over at all.

Hey Voxx, we actually agree on something!  Right on.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: m.PR on April 28, 2014, 08:18:36 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 28, 2014, 07:07:52 PM
what I mean by this is that no man has a rightful claim on my life.  No man may initiate force against me.  And, no man may dictate my life, I make my own decisions.  The government uses force against me, and this is horribly immoral.  Just ask yourself, is there really any difference between the government and the mafia?

You are right that I was talking about authority under a rather broad definition. In my defense I was trying to counter your overly narrow "someone who is the law" à la Louis XIV. Also, it seems to me that some people have asked you about what authority do you accept and then get frustrated when you appear to dodge the question (perhaps because you didn't understand what was being meant by authority).

Here you are talking about Max Weber's concept of the State's monopoly on legitimate violence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence).

An obvious difference between the government and the Mafia is their ends. The Mafia works for the Mafia families. The government is supposed to maintain law and order, enforce contracts, resolve conflicts, defend its people from outside threats, etc., generally defending the common good - for the whole community. We may say that a corrupt government works very much like the Mafia in that public officials start working for themselves only. But that does not mean we should get rid of government or render it powerless. I have a feeling this has been discussed here before. Sorry if I'm repeating what others have said.

What I don't understand is how you can both assert that there are Laws which are based on Reality which stands outside of you and that nobody should "dictate your life" as you put it. What if you break the Laws? What if you don't know what the Laws are because your use of reason is deficient or you just haven't thought about a particular subject? Shouldn't somebody tell you -- and shouldn't somebody stop you from breaking Laws -- and shouldn't there be a mechanism to stop people from breaking Laws without the situation devolving into family feuds at best or absolute chaos at worst? I honestly do not know what you mean. I thought you were a libertarian, not an anarchist. . .
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on April 28, 2014, 08:24:30 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 28, 2014, 08:15:14 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on April 28, 2014, 07:41:51 PM
Yes the Mafia is actually effective and less intrusive in the lives of the citizenry.

Haha, yes.  I would rather be ruled over by the mafia than the government, if I have to be ruled over at all.

Hey Voxx, we actually agree on something!  Right on.
We agree on alot...unfortunately none of it will save you from hell.
Title: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 28, 2014, 08:37:48 PM
Quote from: m.PR on April 28, 2014, 08:18:36 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 28, 2014, 07:07:52 PM
what I mean by this is that no man has a rightful claim on my life.  No man may initiate force against me.  And, no man may dictate my life, I make my own decisions.  The government uses force against me, and this is horribly immoral.  Just ask yourself, is there really any difference between the government and the mafia?

You are right that I was talking about authority under a rather broad definition. In my defense I was trying to counter your overly narrow "someone who is the law" à la Louis XIV. Also, it seems to me that some people have asked you about what authority do you accept and then get frustrated when you appear to dodge the question (perhaps because you didn't understand what was being meant by authority).

Here you are talking about Max Weber's concept of the State's monopoly on legitimate violence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence).

An obvious difference between the government and the Mafia is their ends. The Mafia works for the Mafia families. The government is supposed to maintain law and order, enforce contracts, resolve conflicts, defend its people from outside threats, etc., generally defending the common good - for the whole community. We may say that a corrupt government works very much like the Mafia in that public officials start working for themselves only. But that does not mean we should get rid of government or render it powerless. I have a feeling this has been discussed here before. Sorry if I'm repeating what others have said.

What I don't understand is how you can both assert that there are Laws which are based on Reality which stands outside of you and that nobody should "dictate your life" as you put it. What if you break the Laws? What if you don't know what the Laws are because your use of reason is deficient or you just haven't thought about a particular subject? Shouldn't somebody tell you -- and shouldn't somebody stop you from breaking Laws -- and shouldn't there be a mechanism to stop people from breaking Laws without the situation devolving into family feuds at best or absolute chaos at worst? I honestly do not know what you mean. I thought you were a libertarian, not an anarchist. . .

There are a lot of anarchists in the Libertarian party.  I know a few other anarchists in the local Libertarian party.  Anarcho-Capitalism is one strain among many in libertarianism.  I have mentioned the non-aggression principle here, but not yet anarchy.  The non-aggression principle states that no man may initiate force against another man.  If a man uses aggression against another man, aggression may be used against him to stop him.  A man may use aggression in self defense, or aggression may be used in bringing about justice.  Neither of these acts are initiating force.

The government does state that its end is proper, but even if this were true it wouldn't matter, as the ends never justify the means.  The government uses force to achieve its ends, which cannot be deemed acceptable.  I haven't heard of Max Weber, I was speaking of Murray Rothbard.  Stephan Molyneaux has some good things to say on anarchy as well, and he is brave enough to call himself an anarchist.  I find that inspirational.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Non Nobis on April 28, 2014, 09:47:47 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 28, 2014, 08:00:10 AM
Quote from: Non Nobis on April 27, 2014, 11:36:27 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on April 27, 2014, 03:43:45 PM
...
I do not believe something which is only in the mind can be considered immoral.  I am giving you my opinion here.  If The Church wants to call certain thoughts immoral, legally she has every right to do so.  I do not have the right to use force to stop her, but I do have the right to criticize her for doing so.  I criticize her action, but not her.  Does this make sense?

You think pride is important. Isn't pride only in the mind?  Is it perfectly OK (morally) to voluntarily debase oneself (mentally); or for others (morally and legally) to humiliate you to any degree?

It is legal for a man to voluntarily debase himself, it is his life, but it is an awful thing to do.  And for others to humiliate you depends on what you mean by humiliate.  They may legally say nasty things, but they may not physically hurt you or your property.  To speak ill of others is to act immorally, but no illegally.  They also may not slander or libel your character, if these things be lies.  So, they couldn't lie and write a column which states that you stole money when you didn't.  That sort of humiliation is illegal and immoral.

To act immorally is to act in a way which I think is bad, but which violates no rights and therefore cannot be stopped with force.  To act illegally is to act in a way which violates another's rights and can be stopped using force.  Force is a terrible evil and must only be used in defense of one's self or loved ones.  The non-aggression principle is at the heart of all of this.  A man may not initiate force against another.  If you use the law to stop someone from acting immorally, then you have initiated force upon one who has used no force himself.

You say it is "awful" to voluntarily debase oneself (mentally).  Doesn't that qualify for immoral action, or is "awful" different than "bad"?  Aren't these things only in the mind?  Isn't it possible to have immoral thoughts, as the Church teaches?

Of course 'bad' is whatever you want it to be, so you have an easy out.  Atheism does give you easy ways out of moral problems. At least it feels easy.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 28, 2014, 09:52:49 PM
If a man debases himself mentally, he lessens his self esteem.  It is not a matter of morality in the Christian sense, I don't say he is a bad man for doing so, I don't judge him.  His self debasement will not lead to happiness, which is man's purpose in life.

I may be up late tonight as there is a tornado moving through town.  Stupid nature.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on April 28, 2014, 10:11:41 PM
Yesterday was the two year anniversary of the 2011 tornado that did so much damage, how ironic.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 03, 2014, 01:42:49 PM
I was discussing materialism earlier (I forget where) and I have read some more on this topic.  I stated that materialism wouldn't necessarily deny the mind.  Well, I was wrong, materialism does deny the mind.  So, clearly I must reject materialism, as it leads to absurdity.  I don't always like admitting when I'm wrong, but I must in this case.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Gardener on May 03, 2014, 03:25:18 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 03, 2014, 01:42:49 PM
I was discussing materialism earlier (I forget where) and I have read some more on this topic.  I stated that materialism wouldn't necessarily deny the mind.  Well, I was wrong, materialism does deny the mind.  So, clearly I must reject materialism, as it leads to absurdity.  I don't always like admitting when I'm wrong, but I must in this case.

So I guess that answers the thread title.  ;D

Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on May 03, 2014, 04:11:01 PM
QuoteI was discussing materialism earlier (I forget where) and I have read some more on this topic.  I stated that materialism wouldn't necessarily deny the mind.  Well, I was wrong, materialism does deny the mind.  So, clearly I must reject materialism, as it leads to absurdity.  I don't always like admitting when I'm wrong, but I must in this case.
Humility is admitting you are wrong when you know you are wrong.  Without humility you fail, since you'll never learn anything and people will start to blow you off.

So you rejected materialism.  That's a big step.  Note that Catholic Realism keeps the good parts of materialism that agree with Aristotle.  So you keep Identity, non-contradiction, and causality.

Next, you mentioned previously that your perceived leftism in Catholicism was a big problem for you.  Go read my book.  Even better, read 2 pages where I list what the Popes have taught, quoting them directly.  It's on about page 5.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Gardener on May 03, 2014, 04:12:29 PM
Quote from: james03 on May 03, 2014, 04:11:01 PM
QuoteI was discussing materialism earlier (I forget where) and I have read some more on this topic.  I stated that materialism wouldn't necessarily deny the mind.  Well, I was wrong, materialism does deny the mind.  So, clearly I must reject materialism, as it leads to absurdity.  I don't always like admitting when I'm wrong, but I must in this case.
Humility is admitting you are wrong when you know you are wrong.  Without humility you fail, since you'll never learn anything and people will start to blow you off.

So you rejected materialism.  That's a big step.  Note that Catholic Realism keeps the good parts of materialism that agree with Aristotle.  So you keep Identity, non-contradiction, and causality.

Next, you mentioned previously that your perceived leftism in Catholicism was a big problem for you.  Go read my book.  Even better, read 2 pages where I list what the Popes have taught, quoting them directly.  It's on about page 5.

Link? I had it before but don't have it bookmarked on the new computer.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on May 03, 2014, 04:15:22 PM
Link to Book (http://www.scribd.com/doc/76085375/Anthem-2012-The-Catholic-Libertarian-Manifesto)

Pages 7 and 8 have the papal quotes.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 03, 2014, 04:16:39 PM

Quote from: james03 on May 03, 2014, 04:11:01 PM
QuoteI was discussing materialism earlier (I forget where) and I have read some more on this topic.  I stated that materialism wouldn't necessarily deny the mind.  Well, I was wrong, materialism does deny the mind.  So, clearly I must reject materialism, as it leads to absurdity.  I don't always like admitting when I'm wrong, but I must in this case.
Humility is admitting you are wrong when you know you are wrong.  Without humility you fail, since you'll never learn anything and people will start to blow you off.

So you rejected materialism.  That's a big step.  Note that Catholic Realism keeps the good parts of materialism that agree with Aristotle.  So you keep Identity, non-contradiction, and causality.

Next, you mentioned previously that your perceived leftism in Catholicism was a big problem for you.  Go read my book.  Even better, read 2 pages where I list what the Popes have taught, quoting them directly.  It's on about page 5.

Leftism is only a modern problem within The Church, starting with John XXIII.  The Church has changes dramatically since Vatican II, but y'all know that.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Gardener on May 03, 2014, 04:21:13 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 03, 2014, 04:16:39 PM

Quote from: james03 on May 03, 2014, 04:11:01 PM
QuoteI was discussing materialism earlier (I forget where) and I have read some more on this topic.  I stated that materialism wouldn't necessarily deny the mind.  Well, I was wrong, materialism does deny the mind.  So, clearly I must reject materialism, as it leads to absurdity.  I don't always like admitting when I'm wrong, but I must in this case.
Humility is admitting you are wrong when you know you are wrong.  Without humility you fail, since you'll never learn anything and people will start to blow you off.

So you rejected materialism.  That's a big step.  Note that Catholic Realism keeps the good parts of materialism that agree with Aristotle.  So you keep Identity, non-contradiction, and causality.

Next, you mentioned previously that your perceived leftism in Catholicism was a big problem for you.  Go read my book.  Even better, read 2 pages where I list what the Popes have taught, quoting them directly.  It's on about page 5.

Leftism is only a modern problem within The Church, starting with John XXIII.  The Church has changes dramatically since Vatican II, but y'all know that.

Far before John XXIII, actually.

At least in "modern" times since the "Enlightenment".
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 03, 2014, 04:23:07 PM

Quote from: Gardener on May 03, 2014, 04:21:13 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 03, 2014, 04:16:39 PM

Quote from: james03 on May 03, 2014, 04:11:01 PM
QuoteI was discussing materialism earlier (I forget where) and I have read some more on this topic.  I stated that materialism wouldn't necessarily deny the mind.  Well, I was wrong, materialism does deny the mind.  So, clearly I must reject materialism, as it leads to absurdity.  I don't always like admitting when I'm wrong, but I must in this case.
Humility is admitting you are wrong when you know you are wrong.  Without humility you fail, since you'll never learn anything and people will start to blow you off.

So you rejected materialism.  That's a big step.  Note that Catholic Realism keeps the good parts of materialism that agree with Aristotle.  So you keep Identity, non-contradiction, and causality.

Next, you mentioned previously that your perceived leftism in Catholicism was a big problem for you.  Go read my book.  Even better, read 2 pages where I list what the Popes have taught, quoting them directly.  It's on about page 5.

Leftism is only a modern problem within The Church, starting with John XXIII.  The Church has changes dramatically since Vatican II, but y'all know that.

Far before John XXIII, actually.

At least in "modern" times since the "Enlightenment".

Good point, John XXIII was just the first leftist pope.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 03, 2014, 04:27:35 PM

Quote from: james03 on May 03, 2014, 04:11:01 PM
QuoteI was discussing materialism earlier (I forget where) and I have read some more on this topic.  I stated that materialism wouldn't necessarily deny the mind.  Well, I was wrong, materialism does deny the mind.  So, clearly I must reject materialism, as it leads to absurdity.  I don't always like admitting when I'm wrong, but I must in this case.
Humility is admitting you are wrong when you know you are wrong.  Without humility you fail, since you'll never learn anything and people will start to blow you off.

So you rejected materialism.  That's a big step.  Note that Catholic Realism keeps the good parts of materialism that agree with Aristotle.  So you keep Identity, non-contradiction, and causality.

Next, you mentioned previously that your perceived leftism in Catholicism was a big problem for you.  Go read my book.  Even better, read 2 pages where I list what the Popes have taught, quoting them directly.  It's on about page 5.

I have many other  problems with Catholicism.  Miracles seem to violate the law of identity, for one.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on May 03, 2014, 04:32:43 PM
Don't know about that, but they definitely break physical laws.  But that's a bad place to start.  If you believe in God, then miracles can happen, if you don't, it's a moot point.  If you believe in reality, and the various laws, plus ethics and morals, then you have to have the honesty of studying the major proponent of this and follow his conclusions.  If you do that and conclude "God", then miracles become possible.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 03, 2014, 04:38:25 PM
I don't know that a belief in God necessarily leads to a belief in miracles.  It is Catholic doctrine that God cannot contradict himself.  Wouldn't that mean that God cannot contradict the laws of nature or axioms, because to do so would be to contradict himself? 
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on May 03, 2014, 08:37:00 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 03, 2014, 04:38:25 PM
I don't know that a belief in God necessarily leads to a belief in miracles.  It is Catholic doctrine that God cannot contradict himself.  Wouldn't that mean that God cannot contradict the laws of nature or axioms, because to do so would be to contradict himself?
No
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on May 03, 2014, 08:53:20 PM
No.  Because the "laws" are Him in a sense, since He is the cause of all order and Truth.  So if one of His truths is that miracles exist, then they exist.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 03, 2014, 09:01:57 PM

Quote from: james03 on May 03, 2014, 08:53:20 PM
No.  Because the "laws" are Him in a sense, since He is the cause of all order and Truth.  So if one of His truths is that miracles exist, then they exist.

But, God cannot contradict himself.  If God is the natural law, then his breaking the natural law would contradict himself.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Gardener on May 03, 2014, 11:28:53 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 03, 2014, 09:01:57 PM

Quote from: james03 on May 03, 2014, 08:53:20 PM
No.  Because the "laws" are Him in a sense, since He is the cause of all order and Truth.  So if one of His truths is that miracles exist, then they exist.

But, God cannot contradict himself.  If God is the natural law, then his breaking the natural law would contradict himself.

Here's the new advent entry on Miracle:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10338a.htm

From paragraph 6 onward is probably the sort of explanation you are seeking.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on May 04, 2014, 07:02:35 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 03, 2014, 09:01:57 PM

Quote from: james03 on May 03, 2014, 08:53:20 PM
No.  Because the "laws" are Him in a sense, since He is the cause of all order and Truth.  So if one of His truths is that miracles exist, then they exist.

But, God cannot contradict himself.  If God is the natural law, then his breaking the natural law would contradict himself.
If you owned a pizzeria and you had a rule that you would serve only coke no pepsi...but one day you saw you could save money by switching to pepsi...you would not be contradicting yourself by switching.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 04, 2014, 08:40:56 AM

Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on May 04, 2014, 07:02:35 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 03, 2014, 09:01:57 PM

Quote from: james03 on May 03, 2014, 08:53:20 PM
No.  Because the "laws" are Him in a sense, since He is the cause of all order and Truth.  So if one of His truths is that miracles exist, then they exist.

But, God cannot contradict himself.  If God is the natural law, then his breaking the natural law would contradict himself.
If you owned a pizzeria and you had a rule that you would serve only coke no pepsi...but one day you saw you could save money by switching to pepsi...you would not be contradicting yourself by switching.

You're confusing the metaphysical from the man made.  Put in other terms, you are confusing natural laws from man made laws.  Man made laws can be changed on a whim, they are not eternal.  Natural laws are eternal and couldn't possibly be any other way, gravity for instance.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on May 04, 2014, 12:08:40 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 04, 2014, 08:40:56 AM

Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on May 04, 2014, 07:02:35 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 03, 2014, 09:01:57 PM

Quote from: james03 on May 03, 2014, 08:53:20 PM
No.  Because the "laws" are Him in a sense, since He is the cause of all order and Truth.  So if one of His truths is that miracles exist, then they exist.

But, God cannot contradict himself.  If God is the natural law, then his breaking the natural law would contradict himself.
If you owned a pizzeria and you had a rule that you would serve only coke no pepsi...but one day you saw you could save money by switching to pepsi...you would not be contradicting yourself by switching.

You're confusing the metaphysical from the man made.  Put in other terms, you are confusing natural laws from man made laws.  Man made laws can be changed on a whim, they are not eternal.  Natural laws are eternal and couldn't possibly be any other way, gravity for instance.
No I am speaking of eternal verities of authority....which you ridiculously reject while at the same time appealing to them within your own person. The Pizzeria owner has the AUTHORITY to change the coke/pepsi rule because he is the AUTHOR of the rule. God is the AUTHOR of nature therefore nature can be changed by Him with zero contradiction. And last I checked the natural world as we Know it is provably finite and non eternal.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 04, 2014, 12:24:08 PM

Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on May 04, 2014, 12:08:40 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 04, 2014, 08:40:56 AM

Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on May 04, 2014, 07:02:35 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 03, 2014, 09:01:57 PM

Quote from: james03 on May 03, 2014, 08:53:20 PM
No.  Because the "laws" are Him in a sense, since He is the cause of all order and Truth.  So if one of His truths is that miracles exist, then they exist.

But, God cannot contradict himself.  If God is the natural law, then his breaking the natural law would contradict himself.
If you owned a pizzeria and you had a rule that you would serve only coke no pepsi...but one day you saw you could save money by switching to pepsi...you would not be contradicting yourself by switching.

You're confusing the metaphysical from the man made.  Put in other terms, you are confusing natural laws from man made laws.  Man made laws can be changed on a whim, they are not eternal.  Natural laws are eternal and couldn't possibly be any other way, gravity for instance.
No I am speaking of eternal verities of authority....which you ridiculously reject while at the same time appealing to them within your own person. The Pizzeria owner has the AUTHORITY to change the coke/pepsi rule because he is the AUTHOR of the rule. God is the AUTHOR of nature therefore nature can be changed by Him with zero contradiction. And last I checked the natural world as we Know it is provably finite and non eternal.

Authority over your own person is vastly different from authority over others.  You have no right to rule over another man, as you are not his superior.

You're still doing the same thing.  The pizzeria owner can change his rule, he could sell Coke today and Pepsi at some future date.  Natural laws are true laws in that they cannot be changed; if they could, they would not be laws.  Gravity is a law; every time I drop an object, it will fall.  The object will never go flying into the air, because gravity will never cease to be.  This is true no matter where in the universe we go.  Even if we traveled to the farthest ends of the universe, the natural laws would still be the same.  This is because we live in a logical world governed by natural laws; which are immutable, uncreated, and eternal.  They are necessary metaphysical facts of the universe and they cannot change.  Natural laws are fundamentally different than human laws.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on May 04, 2014, 04:26:59 PM
The author of the laws have authority over the laws
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on May 04, 2014, 05:19:44 PM
QuoteNatural laws are fundamentally different than human laws.
Correct, because God authored them.  He therefore has the authority to change them or suspend them.  When He suspends them, we call that a miracle.  As far as we know, He has never changed them, but maybe He has.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: JuniorCouncilor on May 04, 2014, 05:59:00 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 04, 2014, 12:24:08 PM
You're still doing the same thing.  The pizzeria owner can change his rule, he could sell Coke today and Pepsi at some future date.  Natural laws are true laws in that they cannot be changed; if they could, they would not be laws.  Gravity is a law; every time I drop an object, it will fall.  The object will never go flying into the air, because gravity will never cease to be. 

Yet any time we wish, human beings can cause objects to "defy gravity" by picking them up, throwing them, kicking them, etc.  In a similar way, God can cause objects to "defy gravity."

I think perhaps the confusion is that you are assuming that we understand all "natural" laws à fond.  That is not true, and probably never will be true-- we will always be able to understand them more perfectly.  At any rate, we will never understand them anywhere near perfectly if we do not first understand that most fundamental of all laws, that God is the Ruler of Nature.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 04, 2014, 06:18:19 PM
When you throw a rock into the air, your action does not cause gravity to disappear, nor does it cause gravity to cease acting upon the rock.  The rock is still being acted upon by gravity, and when the rock loses the forward momentum from your throw, it will fall.  One might even claim that an airplane defies gravity, yet we know this to not be true.  The airplane uses lift and thrust to stay in the air, all the while gravity still exists and acts upon the airplane.  If the plane pulls up sharply, it will lose lift and the nose will drop.  For a few seconds the plane has ceased to fly, this is a stall.  Once the nose falls, the plane picks up speed and lift, and returns to flying.  The plane also needs fuel to remain airborne, once the fuel runs out, it will cease flying.  Gravity never ceases acting upon objects.  If God can only defy the natural laws in this manner, he is not really defying them.

I am speaking of metaphysics here, not epistemology.  Things are what they are, and natural laws are what they are.  If men don't understand a natural law completely, it is man's knowledge which is insufficient and not the law.  Natural law does not change when our knowledge of it changes.  If a miracle involves a natural law that is not known to men, then it is not a miracle.  This would mean the phenomenon is being governed by a law men don't yet understand, not that it has broken the natural law.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Non Nobis on May 04, 2014, 08:47:13 PM
It seems that natural (physical) law is like God for you - eternal, unchangeable, the cause  of all physical things; this is a dogma for you.  But I think natural law is the ordinary course of physical affairs, the usual causality that God planned for the physical world.  But God is the author of the usual causality, and can work outside and beyond it.

God is not natural (physical) law, and could have changed it at creation (come on; does gravity have  to be eternal?)  But  God has (is) various attributes:  e.g. goodness and truth. Moral (natural) law is rooted in an unchanging God.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on May 04, 2014, 10:00:07 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 04, 2014, 06:18:19 PM
When you throw a rock into the air, your action does not cause gravity to disappear, nor does it cause gravity to cease acting upon the rock.  The rock is still being acted upon by gravity, and when the rock loses the forward momentum from your throw, it will fall.  One might even claim that an airplane defies gravity, yet we know this to not be true.  The airplane uses lift and thrust to stay in the air, all the while gravity still exists and acts upon the airplane.  If the plane pulls up sharply, it will lose lift and the nose will drop.  For a few seconds the plane has ceased to fly, this is a stall.  Once the nose falls, the plane picks up speed and lift, and returns to flying.  The plane also needs fuel to remain airborne, once the fuel runs out, it will cease flying.  Gravity never ceases acting upon objects.  If God can only defy the natural laws in this manner, he is not really defying them.

I am speaking of metaphysics here, not epistemology.  Things are what they are, and natural laws are what they are.  If men don't understand a natural law completely, it is man's knowledge which is insufficient and not the law.  Natural law does not change when our knowledge of it changes.  If a miracle involves a natural law that is not known to men, then it is not a miracle.  This would mean the phenomenon is being governed by a law men don't yet understand, not that it has broken the natural law.
You remind me of the jungle tribe who saw an airplane once and made a god out of it.

(https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.crackedcdn.com%2Fphpimages%2Farticle%2F8%2F1%2F6%2F40816.jpg%3Fv%3D1&hash=181f7a47299234f07b79cde81ab3e679b0a5416a)
Title: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 04, 2014, 10:03:56 PM
"Nature, i.e., the universe as a whole, cannot be created or annihilated . . . it cannot come into or go out of existence. Whether its basic constituent elements are atoms, or subatomic particles, or some yet undiscovered forms of energy, it is not ruled by a consciousness or by will or by chance, but by the law of identity. All the countless forms, motions, combinations and dissolutions of elements within the universe—from a floating speck of dust to the formation of a galaxy to the emergence of life—are caused and determined by the identities of the elements involved. Nature is the metaphysically given—i.e., the nature of nature is outside the power of any volition."  - Ayn Rand

I love this quote by Ayn Rand, it sums up beautifully her metaphysics.  The universe is explained adequately by the law of identity, it is what it is.  The universe also cannot be what it is not.  As Miss Rand explains, the law of causality is the law of identity in action.  Everything that is has an identity and acts according to its nature.  For a thing to act against its nature would violate the law of causality, and thus the law of identity.  To act against its nature is to be what it is not.  If a natural law was broken, it would not be a natural law, it would only be a tendency.  As Francis Bacon said, "nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."

I don't accept dogma, I only accept reality.  The truth is the one thing that really matters, and that is based upon reality.  I do think of nature in a similar manner as you think of God, except nature has no volition and cannot change its laws.  Nature in itself is neither true nor false, it simply is.  My idea of nature can be either true or false depending on how my ideas conform to nature.  In order to come to truth, I must accept nature as it is.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on May 04, 2014, 10:07:34 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 04, 2014, 10:03:56 PM
"Nature, i.e., the universe as a whole, cannot be created or annihilated . . . it cannot come into or go out of existence. Whether its basic constituent elements are atoms, or subatomic particles, or some yet undiscovered forms of energy, it is not ruled by a consciousness or by will or by chance, but by the law of identity. All the countless forms, motions, combinations and dissolutions of elements within the universe—from a floating speck of dust to the formation of a galaxy to the emergence of life—are caused and determined by the identities of the elements involved. Nature is the metaphysically given—i.e., the nature of nature is outside the power of any volition."

I love this quote by Ayn Rand, it sums up beautifully her metaphysics.  The universe is explained adequately by the law of identity, it is what it is.  The universe also cannot be what it is not.  As Miss Rand explains, the law of causality is the law of identity in action.  Everything that is has an identity and acts according to its nature.  For a thing to act against its nature would violate the law of causality, and thus the law of identity.  To act against its nature is to be what it is not.  If a natural law was broken, it would not be a natural law, it would only be a tendency.  As Francis Bacon said, "nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."

I don't accept dogma, I only accept reality.  The truth is the one thing that really matters, and that is based upon reality.  I do think of nature in a similar manner as you think of God, except nature has no volition and cannot change its laws.  Nature in itself is neither true nor false, it simply is.  My idea of nature can be either true or false depending on how my ideas conform to nature.  In order to come to truth, I must accept nature as it is.
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5iqYuFmzqg[/yt]
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 05, 2014, 07:47:22 AM
Voxx, your replies add nothing to what has otherwise been an interesting discussion.  Have you anything new to add?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: red solo cup on May 05, 2014, 08:22:54 AM
Have you ever read anything about Rand's personal life CF ?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 05, 2014, 09:00:30 AM
Quote from: red solo cup on May 05, 2014, 08:22:54 AM
Have you ever read anything about Rand's personal life CF ?

I have read a little about Ayn Rand's personal life.  She didn't live the best life, and didn't always follow her own philosophy.  Miss Rand was born in St. Petersburg, Russia in 1905.  She lied to the Soviet government in 1926 in order to get into the US.  She told the Soviet government that she wanted to be a director and make propaganda films for the Communist Party.  The Soviet government gave her a 6 month visa to study films in the US, she spent this 6 months in Chicago watching films for free in a theater owned by her cousins.  After her visa ran up she moved to Hollywood to be an extra in movies.  Shortly after arriving in Hollywood she met Cecil B. Demill and became involved in the industry.  Around this time she met Frank O'Conner, whom she would marry.  This marriage lasted over 50 years until his death in 1979.  Sometime in the late '40's Miss Rand met Nathaniel Branden and began a long lasting affair with him, until he ran out on her with a younger woman.  This somehow didn't end her marriage with Frank O'Conner.  She never had children, but I have never read anything as to why not.  She died in 1982 and was buried next to her husband Frank.  She lived a good life for the most part, though the long affair with Nathaniel went against her own philosophy.  She had to have felt guilty about that.  That's about all I know.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Kaesekopf on May 05, 2014, 09:59:44 AM
She sounds like a lying mooch.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 05, 2014, 01:10:29 PM
Quote from: Kaesekopf on May 05, 2014, 09:59:44 AM
She sounds like a lying mooch.

She made a mistake, it happens.  I don't know why you use the term 'mooch', Ayn Rand was in no way a mooch.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on May 05, 2014, 09:05:16 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 05, 2014, 07:47:22 AM
Voxx, your replies add nothing to what has otherwise been an interesting discussion.  Have you anything new to add?
Your replies have added nothing either I was just following suit as you seem incapable of actually comprehending the points I am making. I showed very clearly with an example how the author of a law has the authority to change said law without contradiction. YOUR non responsive reply? A trip to the farthest reaches of the galaxy and some kind of quasi GIA nature worshipping panygeric of Natures eternal laws. In other words you completely bypassed the point to discuss irrelevancys, So my posts have just been following your lead...if you wish to actually discuss THE point ...then yes we could continue.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 05, 2014, 09:44:13 PM

Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on May 05, 2014, 09:05:16 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 05, 2014, 07:47:22 AM
Voxx, your replies add nothing to what has otherwise been an interesting discussion.  Have you anything new to add?
Your replies have added nothing either I was just following suit as you seem incapable of actually comprehending the points I am making. I showed very clearly with an example how the author of a law has the authority to change said law without contradiction. YOUR non responsive reply? A trip to the farthest reaches of the galaxy and some kind of quasi GIA nature worshipping panygeric of Natures eternal laws. In other words you completely bypassed the point to discuss irrelevancys, So my posts have just been following your lead...if you wish to actually discuss THE point ...then yes we could continue.

I already answered that, and then you just repeated it.  Man made laws are not the same as natural laws.  To say that natural laws can change is to break the law of identity.  Natural laws are what they are, they are not what they are not.  Your argument comes from the primacy of consciousness, entities are not what they are, they are only what a consciousness determines they are.  This is a form of idealism.  Instead existence has primacy, entities exist outside the mind.  It is our job to conform our minds to reality, not the other way around.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Non Nobis on May 05, 2014, 10:50:53 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 05, 2014, 09:44:13 PM
  To say that natural laws can change is to break the law of identity.  Natural laws are what they are, they are not what they are not.

It seems natural (physical) law is god for you.  A is A but A can change; only our God is changeless.  That A can change is not breaking the law of identity; that is absurd.

It is absurd to say that the law of gravity could not have been otherwise, or that it couldn't be overridden.  It is only sensible if you give up God for nature; and then what you have is a god made of parts (natural laws), one of which is gravity.  What an absurd changeless god.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on May 06, 2014, 04:59:22 AM
Quote from: Non Nobis on May 05, 2014, 10:50:53 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 05, 2014, 09:44:13 PM
  To say that natural laws can change is to break the law of identity.  Natural laws are what they are, they are not what they are not.

It seems natural (physical) law is god for you.  A is A btut A can change; only our God is changeless.  That A can change is not breaking the law of identity; that is absurd.

It is absurd to say that the law of gravity could not have been otherwise, or that it couldn't be overridden.  It is only sensible if you give up God for nature; and then what you have is a god made of parts (natural laws), one of which is gravity.  What an absurd changeless god.
what crimson is deliberatly avoiding answering is WHERE did these laws he worships came from. This is fourth or fifth post in which he swearves around the sailient point. What a dysfunctional thought process he must have if this isnt deliberate on his part.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 06, 2014, 06:04:23 AM

Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on May 06, 2014, 04:59:22 AM
Quote from: Non Nobis on May 05, 2014, 10:50:53 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 05, 2014, 09:44:13 PM
  To say that natural laws can change is to break the law of identity.  Natural laws are what they are, they are not what they are not.

It seems natural (physical) law is god for you.  A is A btut A can change; only our God is changeless.  That A can change is not breaking the law of identity; that is absurd.

It is absurd to say that the law of gravity could not have been otherwise, or that it couldn't be overridden.  It is only sensible if you give up God for nature; and then what you have is a god made of parts (natural laws), one of which is gravity.  What an absurd changeless god.
what crimson is deliberatly avoiding answering is WHERE did these laws he worships came from. This is fourth or fifth post in which he swearves around the sailient point. What a dysfunctional thought process he must have if this isnt deliberate on his part.

I've told you, they didn't come from anywhere, they just are.  I might as well ask where God came from.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on May 06, 2014, 07:11:29 AM
They just are!?.And your satisfied with that answer? Yup...dysfunctional thinking.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 06, 2014, 07:27:17 AM
God just is?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 06, 2014, 08:07:26 AM
I'm sorry, I don't mean to be obtuse, but I don't think you see the problem here.  This is a serious philosophical problem, and you seem to write it off.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: red solo cup on May 06, 2014, 08:36:56 AM
Wouldn't you agree that everything happens for a reason? I'm sitting at my window and I just saw a dead leaf blow down the pavement. It happened for a reason. It had a
cause.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 06, 2014, 08:46:34 AM
Quote from: red solo cup on May 06, 2014, 08:36:56 AM
Wouldn't you agree that everything happens for a reason? I'm sitting at my window and I just saw a dead leaf blow down the pavement. It happened for a reason. It had a
cause.

Let's make a distinction.  There are causes and there are reasons, but these two things are not the same.  The action of the leaf blowing down the street has a cause, which is the wind.  The leaf has a cause, which is the tree.  But, there is no reason as to why the leaf blew down the street.  The wind blows because of uneven heating of the Earth's surface, no one decides that it should blow.  If there was a reason, then we would have to point to some end in which the action was directed.  But, what is the end?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: red solo cup on May 06, 2014, 08:54:30 AM
Why does there have to be an end? I think it's the beginning that's more important...a first cause if you will. Do you think your here on this earth for a reason Crimson?
Beyond having been begat by your parents?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 06, 2014, 09:00:26 AM
Quote from: red solo cup on May 06, 2014, 08:54:30 AM
Why does there have to be an end? I think it's the beginning that's more important...a first cause if you will. Do you think your here on this earth for a reason Crimson?
Beyond having been begat by your parents?

Reason implies an end.  A man does not act with reason without having some end in mind.  I do not think that I am on this Earth for a reason.  That I am is a metaphysical fact, there is no reason needed.  In this sense, I take the Universe as it is, and not how I want it.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: ResRev on May 06, 2014, 11:25:33 AM
If I may, I would assume RSC did indeed mean cause instead of reason. As I'm sure you already know, CF, what many people reason back to is called the "first cause". Yes there are weather patterns that can "cause" objects to move, and yes they are caused by temperature differences, and yes, etc, etc, etc, this cause, that cause, until one asks, What's the first cause? The unmoved mover, in other words? I'm not familiar with the atheist argument for the "first cause". I'd be interested to hear.

But he could have meant reason, so...
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 06, 2014, 12:19:25 PM
Quote from: ResRev on May 06, 2014, 11:25:33 AM
If I may, I would assume RSC did indeed mean cause instead of reason. As I'm sure you already know, CF, what many people reason back to is called the "first cause". Yes there are weather patterns that can "cause" objects to move, and yes they are caused by temperature differences, and yes, etc, etc, etc, this cause, that cause, until one asks, What's the first cause? The unmoved mover, in other words? I'm not familiar with the atheist argument for the "first cause". I'd be interested to hear.

But he could have meant reason, so...

Thank you, I did misunderstand him.  There is no one argument from atheists.  This is because atheism is not a philosophical school, it doesn't say anything about what one actually believes, but rather what one doesn't believe.  It would be very difficult to form a group based on atheism.  I have also found that most atheists avoid philosophy, this is probably because most of the population does.  I have chosen to accept the philosophy of Objectivism, because it is based on objective reality, and seems to make the most sense out of the world.

Individual things need a cause, the leaf was caused by the tree, the tree by the seed, the seed by another tree, etc.  This does not mean, however, that the Universe needs a cause.  To say so would be the fallacy of composition.  The Universe is, it is a metaphysical given.  This comes from the axiom 'existence exists.'  One doesn't speak of when the Universe came into being, because to do so would mean there was a time in which the Universe wasn't.  But, this would violate the axiom.

I am having a little trouble with the prime mover argument.  To be honest, I don't quite understand it just yet.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 06, 2014, 02:31:43 PM
I think this will help, here is Ayn Rand on the metaphysically given:

"The metaphysically given cannot be true or false, it simply is, and man determines the truth or falsehood of his judgments by whether they correspond to or contradict the facts of reality.  The metaphysically given cannot be right or wrong, it is the standard of right or wrong by which a rational man judges his goals, his values, his choices.  The metaphysically given is, was, will be, and had to be.  Nothing made by man had to be, it was made by choice.  To rebel against the metaphysically given is to engage in a futile attempt to negate existence, to accept the man made as beyond challenge, and to engage in a successful attempt to negate one's own consciousness.  Serenity comes from the ability to say yes to existence, courage comes from the ability to say no to the wrong choices made by others." – Ayn Rand
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Non Nobis on May 06, 2014, 06:59:11 PM
Saying yes to reality (existence) means saying yes to God "I am who am".  Atheists in effect deny reality when they deny the one and only being that MUST be: they say "A is A" but deny an "A" who IS His own existence and is the only being that stands alone. Denying A is A is denying the  principle of  self-contradiction.  That is metaphysically given; but the one being that is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY in every sense is God; all metaphysically given truths derive from Him.

You say individuals have causes, but not the universe. Why? Composites have causes too.  You also accept causes until you run off the end of the universe (or from infinity) into nothingness which is the unclaimed cause of your universe. 
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 06, 2014, 09:26:12 PM
I don't think there is any progress to be made here.  You have accepted God as your absolute, and I have accepted the Universe as mine.  Your argument comes from a primacy of consciousness, which has dominated philosophy for over two thousand years.  If you want to stay on this discussion it really needs to focus on primacy of consciousness versus primacy of existence.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on May 06, 2014, 09:53:24 PM
Its time to ditch the pyscho Ayn Rand. Zionist and total wackjob. You have been sold a bill of goods:
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uHSv1asFvU#t=48[/yt]
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on May 06, 2014, 09:54:51 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 06, 2014, 09:26:12 PM
I don't think there is any progress to be made here.  You have accepted God as your absolute, and I have accepted the Universe as mine.  Your argument comes from a primacy of consciousness, which has dominated philosophy for over two thousand years.  If you want to stay on this discussion it really needs to focus on primacy of consciousness versus primacy of existence.
Lol you are barely conscious and you demand to discuss consciousness. Snap out of it dude
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Non Nobis on May 06, 2014, 10:59:31 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 06, 2014, 09:26:12 PM
I don't think there is any progress to be made here.  You have accepted God as your absolute, and I have accepted the Universe as mine.  Your argument comes from a primacy of consciousness, which has dominated philosophy for over two thousand years.  If you want to stay on this discussion it really needs to focus on primacy of consciousness versus primacy of existence.

Quote from: Ayn Rand - for reference
Primacy of Existence vs. Primacy of Consciousness

The basic metaphysical issue that lies at the root of any system of philosophy [is] the primacy of existence or the primacy of consciousness.

The primacy of existence (of reality) is the axiom that existence exists, i.e., that the universe exists independent of consciousness (of any consciousness), that things are what they are, that they possess a specific nature, an identity. The epistemological corollary is the axiom that consciousness is the faculty of perceiving that which exists—and that man gains knowledge of reality by looking outward. The rejection of these axioms represents a reversal: the primacy of consciousness—the notion that the universe has no independent existence, that it is the product of a consciousness (either human or divine or both). The epistemological corollary is the notion that man gains knowledge of reality by looking inward (either at his own consciousness or at the revelations it receives from another, superior consciousness).

The source of this reversal is the inability or unwillingness fully to grasp the difference between one's inner state and the outer world, i.e., between the perceiver and the perceived (thus blending consciousness and existence into one indeterminate package-deal). This crucial distinction is not given to man automatically; it has to be learned. It is implicit in any awareness, but it has to be grasped conceptually and held as an absolute.

The extreme "existence == consciousness" problems I've seen include Berkeley's idea that all of reality was only in his mind (there might be nothing out there);  a similar problem exists when we ever so often confuse what is subjective with what is objective.  But that A=A and "reality is what it is" and things have an identity is something any sane person recognizes.

But you are conflating God with man by assuming that because man's consciousness is not needed for reality, therefore not even God's consciousness is needed. God's knowledge of things doesn't change their identity.  It is their cause.  Causing something doesn't change its identity; even upholding something doesn't change its identity.  God made creatures OTHER than Himself, even though they depend on Him.  He GAVE them their identity which is other than He is, but cannot exist without Him. HE does not confuse the reality He created from Himself; He knows it is outside Himself but dependent.

But you speak from your principles and I speak from mine.  From my point of view "there is no God" is your (Rand's) axiom; that false axiom plus philosophical common sense result in an "Objectivism" that of course makes God unnecessary.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 07, 2014, 10:51:04 AM
Quote from: Non Nobis on May 06, 2014, 10:59:31 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 06, 2014, 09:26:12 PM
I don't think there is any progress to be made here.  You have accepted God as your absolute, and I have accepted the Universe as mine.  Your argument comes from a primacy of consciousness, which has dominated philosophy for over two thousand years.  If you want to stay on this discussion it really needs to focus on primacy of consciousness versus primacy of existence.

Quote from: Ayn Rand - for reference
Primacy of Existence vs. Primacy of Consciousness

The basic metaphysical issue that lies at the root of any system of philosophy [is] the primacy of existence or the primacy of consciousness.

The primacy of existence (of reality) is the axiom that existence exists, i.e., that the universe exists independent of consciousness (of any consciousness), that things are what they are, that they possess a specific nature, an identity. The epistemological corollary is the axiom that consciousness is the faculty of perceiving that which exists—and that man gains knowledge of reality by looking outward. The rejection of these axioms represents a reversal: the primacy of consciousness—the notion that the universe has no independent existence, that it is the product of a consciousness (either human or divine or both). The epistemological corollary is the notion that man gains knowledge of reality by looking inward (either at his own consciousness or at the revelations it receives from another, superior consciousness).

The source of this reversal is the inability or unwillingness fully to grasp the difference between one's inner state and the outer world, i.e., between the perceiver and the perceived (thus blending consciousness and existence into one indeterminate package-deal). This crucial distinction is not given to man automatically; it has to be learned. It is implicit in any awareness, but it has to be grasped conceptually and held as an absolute.

The extreme "existence == consciousness" problems I've seen include Berkeley's idea that all of reality was only in his mind (there might be nothing out there);  a similar problem exists when we ever so often confuse what is subjective with what is objective.  But that A=A and "reality is what it is" and things have an identity is something any sane person recognizes.

But you are conflating God with man by assuming that because man's consciousness is not needed for reality, therefore not even God's consciousness is needed. God's knowledge of things doesn't change their identity.  It is their cause.  Causing something doesn't change its identity; even upholding something doesn't change its identity.  God made creatures OTHER than Himself, even though they depend on Him.  He GAVE them their identity which is other than He is, but cannot exist without Him. HE does not confuse the reality He created from Himself; He knows it is outside Himself but dependent.

But you speak from your principles and I speak from mine.  From my point of view "there is no God" is your (Rand's) axiom; that false axiom plus philosophical common sense result in an "Objectivism" that of course makes God unnecessary.

So, you are making a primacy of consciousness argument.  It is impossible to have consciousness without existence, existence must be primary.  To say that this isn't true for God is to commit the fallacy of begging the question.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 07, 2014, 02:42:49 PM

Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on May 06, 2014, 09:53:24 PM
Its time to ditch the pyscho Ayn Rand. Zionist and total wackjob. You have been sold a bill of goods:
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uHSv1asFvU#t=48[/yt]

Thanks, this is a great clip.  She was right, the Jews are much more civilized than the Arabs.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Non Nobis on May 07, 2014, 07:24:11 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 07, 2014, 10:51:04 AM
Quote from: Non Nobis on May 06, 2014, 10:59:31 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 06, 2014, 09:26:12 PM
I don't think there is any progress to be made here.  You have accepted God as your absolute, and I have accepted the Universe as mine.  Your argument comes from a primacy of consciousness, which has dominated philosophy for over two thousand years.  If you want to stay on this discussion it really needs to focus on primacy of consciousness versus primacy of existence.

Quote from: Ayn Rand - for reference
Primacy of Existence vs. Primacy of Consciousness

The basic metaphysical issue that lies at the root of any system of philosophy [is] the primacy of existence or the primacy of consciousness.

The primacy of existence (of reality) is the axiom that existence exists, i.e., that the universe exists independent of consciousness (of any consciousness), that things are what they are, that they possess a specific nature, an identity. The epistemological corollary is the axiom that consciousness is the faculty of perceiving that which exists—and that man gains knowledge of reality by looking outward. The rejection of these axioms represents a reversal: the primacy of consciousness—the notion that the universe has no independent existence, that it is the product of a consciousness (either human or divine or both). The epistemological corollary is the notion that man gains knowledge of reality by looking inward (either at his own consciousness or at the revelations it receives from another, superior consciousness).

The source of this reversal is the inability or unwillingness fully to grasp the difference between one's inner state and the outer world, i.e., between the perceiver and the perceived (thus blending consciousness and existence into one indeterminate package-deal). This crucial distinction is not given to man automatically; it has to be learned. It is implicit in any awareness, but it has to be grasped conceptually and held as an absolute.

The extreme "existence == consciousness" problems I've seen include Berkeley's idea that all of reality was only in his mind (there might be nothing out there);  a similar problem exists when we ever so often confuse what is subjective with what is objective.  But that A=A and "reality is what it is" and things have an identity is something any sane person recognizes.

But you are conflating God with man by assuming that because man's consciousness is not needed for reality, therefore not even God's consciousness is needed. God's knowledge of things doesn't change their identity.  It is their cause.  Causing something doesn't change its identity; even upholding something doesn't change its identity.  God made creatures OTHER than Himself, even though they depend on Him.  He GAVE them their identity which is other than He is, but cannot exist without Him. HE does not confuse the reality He created from Himself; He knows it is outside Himself but dependent.

But you speak from your principles and I speak from mine.  From my point of view "there is no God" is your (Rand's) axiom; that false axiom plus philosophical common sense result in an "Objectivism" that of course makes God unnecessary.

So, you are making a primacy of consciousness argument.  It is impossible to have consciousness without existence, existence must be primary.  To say that this isn't true for God is to commit the fallacy of begging the question.

In God neither existence nor consciousness has primacy, because in Him they are one (all goodness in Him is one). "I Am Who Am", He knows Himself as pure being.

I'm describing what little I (think I) understand about God, explaining our view vs yours.  It's not begging the question to say that God is vastly different than creation; that rules such as "existence has primacy over consciousness" are not so absolute that they must include God.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on May 07, 2014, 10:31:23 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 07, 2014, 02:42:49 PM

Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on May 06, 2014, 09:53:24 PM
Its time to ditch the pyscho Ayn Rand. Zionist and total wackjob. You have been sold a bill of goods:
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uHSv1asFvU#t=48[/yt]

Thanks, this is a great clip.  She was right, the Jews are much more civilized than the Arabs.
and Christians are more civilized than both.
BTW you have shown yourself to not truly believe in protection of peoples natural rights if you side with the Jews over the PALESTINIANS (not arabs)
Title: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 08, 2014, 08:17:40 AM
Do you really want to get into THAT?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Michael Wilson on May 08, 2014, 12:06:25 PM
Oh my goodness: "technologically advanced vs. almost primitive savages"; Miss Rand sounds like a NAZI here, where might makes right.  This woman does not have very sound ideas.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 08, 2014, 12:29:14 PM

Quote from: Michael Wilson on May 08, 2014, 12:06:25 PM
Oh my goodness: "technologically advanced vs. almost primitive savages"; Miss Rand sounds like a NAZI here, where might makes right.  This woman does not have very sound ideas.

There is no need for hyperbole.  Miss Rand simply made a statement about Arabs, which is true, she did not call on the murder of millions of people.  The Jews are a free nation and very technologically advanced, the Arabs are a backward nation dedicated to keeping their civilization in the 7th century.  The Arabs do not accept freedom.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Gardener on May 08, 2014, 01:51:45 PM
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvvvomANbRo[/yt]

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AT031csTNcE[/yt]

Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 08, 2014, 05:22:40 PM
Those are fascinating videos Gardener, thanks.  Let's try and stay on philosophy though.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on May 08, 2014, 05:53:03 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 08, 2014, 12:29:14 PM

Quote from: Michael Wilson on May 08, 2014, 12:06:25 PM
Oh my goodness: "technologically advanced vs. almost primitive savages"; Miss Rand sounds like a NAZI here, where might makes right.  This woman does not have very sound ideas.

There is no need for hyperbole.  Miss Rand simply made a statement about Arabs, which is true, she did not call on the murder of millions of people.  The Jews are a free nation and very technologically advanced, the Arabs are a backward nation dedicated to keeping their civilization in the 7th century.  The Arabs do not accept freedom.
neither do the jews. And it was Palestinians..NOT ARABS. And according to you......what the jews have done to them is a positive evil...and yet you defend them because of technology....total blatent hypocrisy on your part.The Jews are the oppressors not the Palestinians.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on May 08, 2014, 05:55:16 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 08, 2014, 05:22:40 PM
Those are fascinating videos Gardener, thanks.  Let's try and stay on philosophy though.
why so you can avoid your blatant hypocrisy in a fog of vaugeries
Title: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 08, 2014, 06:06:02 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on May 08, 2014, 05:53:03 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 08, 2014, 12:29:14 PM

Quote from: Michael Wilson on May 08, 2014, 12:06:25 PM
Oh my goodness: "technologically advanced vs. almost primitive savages"; Miss Rand sounds like a NAZI here, where might makes right.  This woman does not have very sound ideas.

There is no need for hyperbole.  Miss Rand simply made a statement about Arabs, which is true, she did not call on the murder of millions of people.  The Jews are a free nation and very technologically advanced, the Arabs are a backward nation dedicated to keeping their civilization in the 7th century.  The Arabs do not accept freedom.
neither do the jews. And it was Palestinians..NOT ARABS. And according to you......what the jews have done to them is a positive evil...and yet you defend them because of technology....total blatent hypocrisy on your part.The Jews are the oppressors not the Palestinians.

If the Jews attack anyone outside of self defense, I will denounce them for it.  I haven't seen it yet.  There is no such thing as a Palestinian, Palestine is an invented state.  The Jews are under attack from from all of Arabia, not just the so-called Palestinians.  This has noting to do with technology, it has everything to do with morality.  Technology is merely an effect of a moral and free society.  A society is moral when it is free, and that freedom leads to technological innovation and prosperity.

If you want to continue the Jewish/Arab thing, please start a new thread.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 08, 2014, 06:28:55 PM
So, back to philosophy.  It has occurred to me that if a man is attached to anything, he will not make a good philosopher.  In order to be a true philosopher a man must be able to go wherever the facts lead him.  Yet if he is attached to anything, he will be biased and will cut himself off from some possibilities.  Thoughts?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on May 08, 2014, 06:36:32 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 08, 2014, 06:06:02 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on May 08, 2014, 05:53:03 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 08, 2014, 12:29:14 PM

Quote from: Michael Wilson on May 08, 2014, 12:06:25 PM
Oh my goodness: "technologically advanced vs. almost primitive savages"; Miss Rand sounds like a NAZI here, where might makes right.  This woman does not have very sound ideas.

There is no need for hyperbole.  Miss Rand simply made a statement about Arabs, which is true, she did not call on the murder of millions of people.  The Jews are a free nation and very technologically advanced, the Arabs are a backward nation dedicated to keeping their civilization in the 7th century.  The Arabs do not accept freedom.
neither do the jews. And it was Palestinians..NOT ARABS. And according to you......what the jews have done to them is a positive evil...and yet you defend them because of technology....total blatent hypocrisy on your part.The Jews are the oppressors not the Palestinians.

If the Jews attack anyone outside of self defense, I will denounce them for it.  I haven't seen it yet.  There is no such thing as a Palestinian, Palestine is an invented state.  The Jews are under attack from from all of Arabia, not just the so-called Palestinians.  This has noting to do with technology, it has everything to do with morality.  Technology is merely an effect of a moral and free society.  A society is moral when it is free, and that freedom leads to technological innovation and prosperity.

If you want to continue the Jewish/Arab thing, please start a new thread.
Nope...this is salient to your point...besides showing yourself to be an avowed zionist...and siding with the greatest apartheid racist state that has ever existed...you have revealed the fatal flaw in your philosophy. The Arabs proclaim their actions to be defensive against Israel. Basically you condemn the Arabs without any moral basis to do so except some idiotic jingoism about the Arabs dont accept "freedom" and now your trying to insert "morality". Yup...dysfunctional thinking.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Gardener on May 08, 2014, 06:44:08 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on May 08, 2014, 06:36:32 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 08, 2014, 06:06:02 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on May 08, 2014, 05:53:03 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 08, 2014, 12:29:14 PM

Quote from: Michael Wilson on May 08, 2014, 12:06:25 PM
Oh my goodness: "technologically advanced vs. almost primitive savages"; Miss Rand sounds like a NAZI here, where might makes right.  This woman does not have very sound ideas.

There is no need for hyperbole.  Miss Rand simply made a statement about Arabs, which is true, she did not call on the murder of millions of people.  The Jews are a free nation and very technologically advanced, the Arabs are a backward nation dedicated to keeping their civilization in the 7th century.  The Arabs do not accept freedom.
neither do the jews. And it was Palestinians..NOT ARABS. And according to you......what the jews have done to them is a positive evil...and yet you defend them because of technology....total blatent hypocrisy on your part.The Jews are the oppressors not the Palestinians.

If the Jews attack anyone outside of self defense, I will denounce them for it.  I haven't seen it yet.  There is no such thing as a Palestinian, Palestine is an invented state.  The Jews are under attack from from all of Arabia, not just the so-called Palestinians.  This has noting to do with technology, it has everything to do with morality.  Technology is merely an effect of a moral and free society.  A society is moral when it is free, and that freedom leads to technological innovation and prosperity.

If you want to continue the Jewish/Arab thing, please start a new thread.
Nope...this is salient to your point...besides showing yourself to be an avowed zionist...and siding with the greatest apartheid racist state that has ever existed...you have revealed the fatal flaw in your philosophy. The Arabs proclaim their actions to be defensive against Israel. Basically you condemn the Arabs without any moral basis to do so except some idiotic jingoism about the Arabs dont accept "freedom" and now your trying to insert "morality". Yup...dysfunctional thinking.

The Arab claim is actually one of the Islamizing of the world, and Israel merely serves as a pretense to something already planted in the muslim mind. This is found in a political slant in the PLO and more heavy on the religious aspect in HAMAS. The formation of Israel as a modern nation provides the locus of that which the muslims wish to accomplish at a global level, starting there and branching out.

This claim of Palestinian autonomy is specious, at best, due to the historical realities of Islam. In reality, such a claim is modern and without precedent in Islamic thought.

Think what you will of Israel, Israelis, etc., but at least know what the muslims actually purport to be their position and its reasons.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on May 08, 2014, 06:53:07 PM
Um there are Catholic Palistinians.... ::) it is not a race but a nation that existed before the Govt of AntiChrist was birthed by the British banking syndicates. No Catholics should support Israel over Palestine.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 08, 2014, 06:56:47 PM
Fine, I guess we are doing this.  The Palestinians have never created a single thing, and are completely incapable of handling freedom.  This is because they are immersed in radical Islam and have completely abdicated their reason.  The Jews have produced scores of great thinkers and noble prize winners.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 08, 2014, 07:02:32 PM
Here is an example: http://www.thejidf.org/2010/01/jewish-nobel-prize-winner-vs-islamic.html

There are 1.4 billion Muslims in the world, and they have produced a grand total of 8 noble prize winners.  There are 13.2 million Jews in the world and they have produced 166 noble prize winners.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on May 08, 2014, 08:02:22 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 08, 2014, 07:02:32 PM
Here is an example: http://www.thejidf.org/2010/01/jewish-nobel-prize-winner-vs-islamic.html

There are 1.4 billion Muslims in the world, and they have produced a grand total of 8 noble prize winners.  There are 13.2 million Jews in the world and they have produced 166 noble prize winners.
Maybe its because it is the jews who elect the nobel prize winners...oh yeah BTW Obama...does he count as an Islamist?
As if the NoPrize means a damn thing.
From wiki
n 1948, the Zionists expelled from Palestine 100,000 Christians.

During the 1948 war, Zionists destroyed desecrated and profaned Christian churches, convents and institutions throughout the Occupied area of Palestine.

During the June the June war of 1967 Israeli forces shelled and damaged many churches in the old city of Jerusalem and the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem.

Israeli forces opened the Church of the Holy Sepulchre to Jews who poured into the holiest place in Christendom indecently dressed behaving disrespectfully joking, singing and pouring pharisaic hate and insults against Christianity and against Jesus Christ inside the Holy Sepulchre and next to the tomb of Jesus Christ.

Israeli Authorities censor all films and plays to prevent mentioning the name of Jesus Christ.

The Zionist reflected with their action the deep-felt hatred of everything Christian embedded in the Zionist ideology. Testimony shows that this hatred went so deep that the Zionist authorities removed the international "+" sign from mathematics textbooks because of the resemblance of the plus sign to the Christian Cross.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on May 08, 2014, 08:06:23 PM
Since Post 48 Palastinian hospitals, schools, and Academia have been completely oppressed and undermined by the Israeli government its no shock to me that there are fewer scientists and academics in palestine. And again you are being completely hypocritical....morally according to you previous positions you have no gage to decide which is the more "moral" nation....Israel or Palastine
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 08, 2014, 08:14:01 PM
I can very easily call Israel more moral than Islam.  Israel is a much more free country than any country in Islam.  The Islamic countries are tyrannical and despotic, while Israel is a relatively free country.  Your anti-semitism is astounding.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on May 08, 2014, 08:50:44 PM
Ha ha the antisematism card...gmab. your like central casting for neocon zionist shill.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 08, 2014, 08:52:05 PM
Neo-con?  Did you miss where I declared myself as an anarchist?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on May 08, 2014, 08:56:42 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 08, 2014, 08:52:05 PM
Neo-con?  Did you miss where I declared myself as an anarchist?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
An anarchist who tows the neocon zionist line.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 09, 2014, 12:53:18 PM
Now since that has petered out, here is a great quote from the master herself, Miss Ayn Rand.  "If a man believes that the good is intrinsic in certain actions, he will not hesitate to force others to perform them."  Do you think this is true?  Is there such a thing as intrinsic good in any action?  What do the philosophers have to say?

p.s. The quote is from 'Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.'
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: lauermar on May 09, 2014, 02:16:56 PM
 :topic: :deadhorse:
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on May 09, 2014, 03:14:48 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 09, 2014, 12:53:18 PM
Now since that has petered out, here is a great quote from the master herself, Miss Ayn Rand.  "If a man believes that the good is intrinsic in certain actions, he will not hesitate to force others to perform them."  Do you think this is true?  Is there such a thing as intrinsic good in any action?  What do the philosophers have to say?

p.s. The quote is from 'Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.'
Yes lets discuss the "master" (shouldnt it be mistress?)

http://www.clayjones.net/2011/04/ayn-rand%E2%80%94the-bad/ (http://www.clayjones.net/2011/04/ayn-rand%E2%80%94the-bad/)


Like the communists, Rand rejected the Bible's teaching of "original sin" and declared that "men are born tabula rasa" or blank slates.1 That was a crucial mistake.2 Rand is rejecting the evidence. What follows is at least evidence to falsify a tabula rasa view which the Bible's teaching on "original sin" would confirm.
First, in just the last 100 years humans have tortured and murdered each other at staggering rates. Conservatively, the USSR from 1917 to 1989 killed 20 to 26 million people3; Germany about 13 million (not including war dead), China between 26 to 30 million,4 and the United States has suctioned, scalded and scraped to death over 50 million unborn children.5 It is difficult to choose among all the historical examples of the depth of human depravity, but this one will suffice as evidence for how a tabula rasa view of human persons is disconnected from reality. In 1937 Japanese raped, tortured or murdered 300,000 in Nanking China. Iris Chang wrote about this (warning: graphic violence follows):

The Rape of Nanking should be remembered not only for the number of people slaughtered but for the cruel manner in which many met their deaths. Chinese men were used for bayonet practice and in decapitation contests. An estimated 20,000–80,000 Chinese women were raped. Many soldiers went beyond rape to disembowel women, slice off their breasts, nail them alive to walls. Fathers were forced to rape their daughters, and sons their mothers, as other family members watched. Not only did live burials, castration, the carving of organs, and the roasting of people become routine, but more diabolical tortures were practiced, such as hanging people by their tongues on iron hooks or burying people to their waists and watching them get torn apart by German shepherds. So sickening was the spectacle that even the Nazis in the city were horrified, one proclaiming the massacre to be the work of "bestial machinery."6



So the question better to be asked is...Is  there Intrinsic evil that men should use force to prevent? Its a mindscrew to ask about intrinsic goodness when in the same breath you deny the existence  evil. And none  has been better at the mindscrew then the aynrandian cultists......lets continue....from the same essay:

Rand contorted selfishness into an ultimate good and even entitled a book The Virtue of Selfishness. "The proper method of judging when or whether one should help another person is by reference to one's own rational self-interest and one's own hierarchy of values: the time, the money or effort one gives or the risk one takes should be proportionate to the value of the person in relation to one's own happiness."11 Thus you should only take the chance to save a drowning stranger "when the danger to your own life is minimal; when the danger is great, it would be immoral to attempt it: only a lack of self-esteem" could "permit" it.12 But, by her logic, if there is any danger to your own life, why risk it?
Rand's rejection of God and her ignorance of human sinfulness ultimately led her to believe that man should be worshipped. "If anyone should ask me what it is that I have said to the glory of Man, I will answer only by paraphrasing Howard Roark: I will hold up a copy of Atlas Shrugged and say, 'The explanation rests.'"13 "The man-worshipers, in my sense of the term, are those who see man's highest potential and strive to actualize it.... those dedicated to the exaltation of man's self-esteem and the sacredness of his happiness on earth."14
It is no surprise that Rand would consider Jesus' crucifixion a horrible waste: the "ideal" dying for the "non-ideal." And, indeed, why should Jesus die for people who are, of themselves, glorious? As Rand put it in her interview with Playboy: "according to the Christian mythology, he died on the cross not for his own sins but for the sins of the nonideal people. In other words, a man of perfect virtue was sacrificed for men who are vicious and who are expected or supposed to accept that sacrifice."15 Here Rand is right. Her problem was that she really didn't think people vicious and so she didn't see the reasonableness of sacrifice. If she had, and if she had known her own viciousness—the viciousness that led her to convince her husband and her lover's wife that her affair with self-esteem guru Nathanial Branden should be tolerated—she might have welcomed the "man of perfect virtue" dying for her.
Romans 1:22-23: "Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man...."

Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 09, 2014, 09:51:38 PM
Ayn Rand said that Jesus was the ideal man for Christians, and yet look at how he was treated.  She found it abhorrent that the ideal man would be murdered in such a grotesque way.  I think sometimes Christians get too comfortable by looking at the crucifix so often.  A Christian should cry every time he sees the crucifix.

Ayn Rand adopted the idea of the 'tabula rasa' from John Locke, neither were communists.  Keep in mind that original sin is not the same thing as evil.  Original sin and fallen nature are the Christian way of explaining evil, it is not the only way to explain evil.  To deny original sin is not the same as denying evil.  I, too, deny original sin.  The story of Adam and Eve could not have possibly happened, as the Earth is around 4.5 billion years old.  I don't look at man as evil and fallen either, I see man as a noble animal who uses his mind to shape his world.  Of course evil exists, but it is explained by people making poor choices, or usually by bad philosophy.  It is ignorance that causes evil, if humans were selfish, there would be no evil in the world.  The worst evil that has ever been visited upon mankind is the creed of altruism, and its root is a refusal to use reason.

Miss Rand said it best when she said, "Achievement of your happiness is the only moral purpose of your life, and that happiness, not pain or mindless self-indulgence, is the proof of your moral integrity, since it is the proof and the result of your loyalty to the achievement of your values."
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on May 10, 2014, 09:40:48 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 09, 2014, 09:51:38 PM
Ayn Rand said that Jesus was the ideal man for Christians, and yet look at how he was treated.  She found it abhorrent that the ideal man would be murdered in such a grotesque way.  I think sometimes Christians get too comfortable by looking at the crucifix so often.  A Christian should cry every time he sees the crucifix.

Ayn Rand adopted the idea of the 'tabula rasa' from John Locke, neither were communists.  Keep in mind that original sin is not the same thing as evil.  Original sin and fallen nature are the Christian way of explaining evil, it is not the only way to explain evil.  To deny original sin is not the same as denying evil.  I, too, deny original sin.  The story of Adam and Eve could not have possibly happened, as the Earth is around 4.5 billion years old.  I don't look at man as evil and fallen either, I see man as a noble animal who uses his mind to shape his world.  Of course evil exists, but it is explained by people making poor choices, or usually by bad philosophy.  It is ignorance that causes evil, if humans were selfish, there would be no evil in the world.  The worst evil that has ever been visited upon mankind is the creed of altruism, and its root is a refusal to use reason.

Miss Rand said it best when she said, "Achievement of your happiness is the only moral purpose of your life, and that happiness, not pain or mindless self-indulgence, is the proof of your moral integrity, since it is the proof and the result of your loyalty to the achievement of your values."
utter bullox and tripe.
The evil in the world is caused by selfishness...your mind is screwed.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 10, 2014, 06:52:32 PM
How can it be evil to live your own life?  How can it be evil to work on yourself in order to become something you can be proud of?  Whenever you eat, exercise, sleep, or study you are placing yourself in the center of your life, you are being selfish and that's a good thing.  You have a right to your own life.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Gardener on May 10, 2014, 06:54:58 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 10, 2014, 06:52:32 PM
How can it be evil to live your own life?  How can it be evil to work on yourself in order to become something you can be proud of?  Whenever you eat, exercise, sleep, or study you are placing yourself in the center of your life, you are being selfish and that's a good thing.  You have a right to your own life.

Unless you do so for the end goal of the service of others, realizing that the focus on self is per the deficiency of self to serve -- thus the necessity of focusing on "self".
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 10, 2014, 06:56:36 PM
Why should one focus on others?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on May 10, 2014, 07:03:28 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 10, 2014, 06:56:36 PM
Why should one focus on others?
Love God with all your whole heart and all your strength
and your neighbor as yourself..
You should do so because Jesus Christ your King has said to.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 10, 2014, 07:06:43 PM
You know that doesn't mean anything to me.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on May 10, 2014, 07:07:25 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 10, 2014, 07:06:43 PM
You know that doesn't mean anything to me.
Then truth means nothing to you.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 10, 2014, 07:09:17 PM
The truth means everything to me, reality means everything to me.  Altruism is evil and is against life, egoism is life serving.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on May 10, 2014, 07:10:54 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 10, 2014, 07:09:17 PM
The truth means everything to me, reality means everything to me.  Altruism is evil and is against life, egoism is life serving.
Jesus said:
I am the Truth......
you admit he means nothing to you
ergo
the truth means nothing to you.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 10, 2014, 07:11:43 PM
Buddha said his path was the truth...
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on May 10, 2014, 07:25:56 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 10, 2014, 07:11:43 PM
Buddha said his path was the truth...
Yeah....but he didnt say he WAS the Truth.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 10, 2014, 07:30:14 PM
People and objects are neither true nor false, they just are.  Statements are either true or false depending on how they correspond to reality.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on May 10, 2014, 07:40:09 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 10, 2014, 07:30:14 PM
People and objects are neither true nor false, they just are.  Statements are either true or false depending on how they correspond to reality.
Jesus IS Truth there is nothing outside of truth...truth is the measure of all things...truth is the goal of all humanity...unless they wish to hide certain things about themselves. Without truth nothing can exist....and if truth is diminished or obscured death ensues. Deny Christ and you can never really know anything to be true.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Non Nobis on May 10, 2014, 08:10:43 PM
CF, tell me what you think about firemen risking their lives to save others from burning buildings, others who may have nothing to offer them at all.   What about a man who is not a fireman doing so?

Rarely is a man who is sacrificing himself for another a "slave to self-sacrifice"  (as you might say).  He sees in another man a value that all men share, because they are men.  He sees that he is not alone in the world, and that "love your neighbor as yourself" is not just a mushy saying by a strange historical figure, but a saying that expresses a deep mutual relationship between men.

Because we are ourselves and not another, it is natural and normal for our attention to be first directed to ourselves. But good men grow out of their childish selfishness when they see that the next man is in a meaningful way "another I".
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 10, 2014, 08:45:40 PM
To sacrifice is to give something up and in return to receive either less than what one gave up or nothing.  If the fireman's action is a sacrifice, them that would mean that the fireman saw little to no value in the person he saved.  The fireman also does not mean to sacrifice himself, as he does not intend to die.

I'll tackle this form a different angle.  The Catholic axiom says nemo dat quod non habet, nobody gives what he does not have.  Ayn Rand put it this way, before a man can say I love you, he must first be able to say I.  A relationship must be a two way street, neither may take advantage of the other.  If you want love, you must give love.  If you want companionship, you must give companionship.  This is the other side of the coin.  If you want to receive something from another, you must be willing to trade for it.  A one way relationship is no relationship.

Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Non Nobis on May 10, 2014, 10:15:06 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 10, 2014, 08:45:40 PM
To sacrifice is to give something up and in return to receive either less than what one gave up or nothing.  If the fireman's action is a sacrifice, them that would mean that the fireman saw little to no value in the person he saved.  The fireman also does not mean to sacrifice himself, as he does not intend to die.

Typically a fireman would not know a person he saved in advance.  But he knows that everyone has great value.  He is willing to RISK sacrificing himself for another.  The mother sacrificing herself for her children does not intend to die, either. Only a sick mind would seek self-sacrifice as an end. It is a means to help others out of love. 

Love does not just mean mutual enrichment.  It can be one way, when you recognize another human like yourself ('another I') is in need of help.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 10, 2014, 10:24:49 PM
If you love someone, there is something in that person that you love.  You see something of value in that person's virtues.  You are enjoying that person's virtues, and that person is enjoying your virtues.  Love is the emotional price paid for the enjoyment of another's virtue.  If love is not mutual enrichment, then only one person is being enriched.  But, how does a man love a woman whom does not love him back?  How is this man being enriched when the woman ignores him and pays him no love?  If love is not mutually enriching, it is not love.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: rbjmartin on May 10, 2014, 10:35:01 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 10, 2014, 10:24:49 PM
If you love someone, there is something in that person that you love.  You see something of value in that person's virtues.  You are enjoying that person's virtues, and that person is enjoying your virtues.  Love is the emotional price paid for the enjoyment of another's virtue.  If love is not mutual enrichment, then only one person is being enriched.  But, how does a man love a woman whom does not love him back?  How is this man being enriched when the woman ignores him and pays him no love?  If love is not mutually enriching, it is not love.

What of a mother's love for her newborn? The child has not had the chance to develop any virtue. By your definition, a mother's love for her infant is not real love.

Yours is a very narrow (and convenient) definition of love.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 10, 2014, 10:48:51 PM

Quote from: rbjmartin on May 10, 2014, 10:35:01 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 10, 2014, 10:24:49 PM
If you love someone, there is something in that person that you love.  You see something of value in that person's virtues.  You are enjoying that person's virtues, and that person is enjoying your virtues.  Love is the emotional price paid for the enjoyment of another's virtue.  If love is not mutual enrichment, then only one person is being enriched.  But, how does a man love a woman whom does not love him back?  How is this man being enriched when the woman ignores him and pays him no love?  If love is not mutually enriching, it is not love.

What of a mother's love for her newborn? The child has not had the chance to develop any virtue. By your definition, a mother's love for her infant is not real love.

Yours is a very narrow (and convenient) definition of love.

The mother loves the child because it is in her nature.  The child is a piece of the parents, a beautiful product of their love.  The parents are overwhelmed with love when the baby comes, and it is this joy which they seek in having a child.  A woman once decided to have a baby because of a sense of duty which had been placed on her by society.  Has she had not made this choice freely, she never loved the child.  She saw her time as a mother as an obligation which drained her life away slowly.  The child never felt loved and grew up to be a psychologically dysfunctional adult.  The child never knew how to love another person, because she had never been loved.  The mother had a child for the wrong reason.  She allowed others to make the decision, instead of making the decision on her own.  She chose altruism, and both her child and she suffered as a result.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Michael Wilson on May 11, 2014, 12:03:29 AM
Crimson,
what you are describing as "love", is what the scholastics would call "love of concupiscence"; ei. a interested love: we love someone because we see some good in them which we desired to obtain, such as knowledge, or prestige, or their affection. There is a second kind of love called "love of benevolence" where we love someone else, as another self, because of the good that we perceive in them, without even expecting a recompense.   Here is a nice article that I found on the internet on this subject:
http://www41.homepage.villanova.edu/donald.burt/god/28.htm
Here is the begining of the article:
QuoteLoving A Hidden God

THE NATURE OF LOVE

    The weight of a body drives it towards its own proper place. But a thing's weight does not necessarily seek the lowest place but rather that place that is appropriate for it. Thus, fire rises and stones fall. Oil poured over water remains on the surface of the water; water poured over oil sinks below the oil. Their weight causes them to seek their proper place. When things are out of place, they move. Once they find their proper place they are at rest. And so it is that my love is my weight; it is the force that moves me wheresoever I go.

    Confessions, 13.9.10.

There are various ways in which we can be related to other human beings and to God. In the order in which they advance or arrest progress towards loving union, they are:

    1. Hatred

    2. Indifference

    3. The "love of concupiscence" (amor concupiscentia)

    4. The unilateral "love of benevolence" (amor benevolentia)

    5. Friendship (the mutual love benevolence)

A convenient way of differentiating and understanding each stage is to examine how they respond to the mandate of the so-called "Do No Harm Principle" which commands:

    1. You should not bring unnecessary harm to others as you pursue your own good.

    2. You should rescue others from harm (whatever the source), unless you are reasonably excused.

Obviously if my relationship to another human being is hatred, I not only ignore both commands but even act against them. The virulence of my hatred would drive me to cause as much harm to them as I could. If perchance I was moved to rescue them from some impending harm, it would only be so that they might suffer greater harm later on. My goal is not union but separation. Indeed, if possible, I would seek their annihilation out of revenge for the harm that I imagine they have done to me.

If my attitude towards others is pure indifference, my goal is not to harm them but just not to be bothered by them. If I recognize their existence at all, my attitude can be best described as absolute neutrality. I would be neither for them nor against them. For example if someone asked me how I felt about God, I would say:

    Well, he may or may not exist, but in either case it has nothing to do with me.

If I am indifferent towards human beings, this does not mean that I have no interaction with them. Unless I live the life of a hermit, I must deal with others every day. But, although I am quite award of the stream of humanity passing by in all its sizes and shapes, I "could care less" about them unless they began to encroach on my space. Like the anonymous drivers speeding past me on the thruway, others become a "problem to be addressed" only when they "crash" into my life and disrupt it. There is no interest in making them friends or loving them or continuing any connection with them once my suit for damages is concluded.

This state of indifference is not the same as leading a solitary anonymous life where I neither know nor am known. If I live as a solitary and have no one to love as a friend, I could at least be open to a love that I have not yet discovered. I could love those still hidden "others" so that they might become my friends if the occasion arises. (83 Diverse Questions, 71.6) Even if I have been forever a solitary on a desert island not even knowing if someone else existed, my attitude could be:

    Well, if there is something beyond myself out there, I would like to know about it. If there is someone other than myself in the universe, I would be interested in knowing about them.

With such an attitude, I am not indifferent to others. I am just alone.

Neither hatred nor indifference can bring me closer to union with others. The only force powerful enough to do this is love. This is so because love is a complex act. At its foundation is an act of choice, a decision to seek some good with the goal of becoming one with it. A wave of emotion whereby I feel good may be part of the attractiveness of the object, but only choice can move me towards it. Such choice depends on two preconditions: knowledge and delight. I cannot choose something I do not know and I do not choose everything that I do know. Without knowledge of and delight in the object I will not come to love it and, not loving it, I will not be drawn to become one with it.

To love means to desire. Through desire I am drawn towards some object with a view to uniting with it in some way, of becoming one with it, of making it one with me or making myself one with it. To love someone or something means to wish to be united with it, to make it my own and (perhaps) to have it consume my "own-ness". When I love something it is like coming upon a pool of deliciously cool water on a hot day and wishing to jump in and be immersed in its delight.

The union between knower and thing known in the act of knowledge is quite different from the union of fulfilled love. Thinking about my past and present loves, I am indeed increased. My life has been enriched by knowing them but my knowledge does not make me become like them. Love for them has a quite different effect. When I love them and in some sense "choose" them, I do become like them. My life changes. To use Augustine's image, the objects of my affection become stuck to me with the glue of love. They leave in me "footprints" so that wherever I go they are always with me. (Trinity, 10.8.11) Without losing my identity or destroying theirs, I am raised or lowered to their level.

Knowing what is below me does not make me any less, but loving it does. Examining the lives of beasts does not make me a beast but loving a beastly life, desiring to live that life reduces me to the status of a beast. As Augustine says:

    Through the act of love we dwell with our heart. It is for this reason that we call those "the world" who live in the world and love it. Those who love the world live in the world with their heart. For those who do not love the world may live bodily in the world, but in their heart they already live in heaven.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Recovering NOer on May 11, 2014, 02:11:22 PM
Quote from: lauermar on May 09, 2014, 02:16:56 PM
:topic: :deadhorse:

It's amazing more people haven't realized this even several months ago.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on May 11, 2014, 02:34:45 PM
Quote from: Recovering NOer on May 11, 2014, 02:11:22 PM
Quote from: lauermar on May 09, 2014, 02:16:56 PM
:topic: :deadhorse:

It's amazing more people haven't realized this even several months ago.
why?
This is very good training....its good to see how the mindscrewed think and reason so as to be prepared when you find it in others. Further I dont remember seeing you two on the moderators list?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: rbjmartin on May 11, 2014, 04:28:54 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 10, 2014, 10:48:51 PM

Quote from: rbjmartin on May 10, 2014, 10:35:01 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 10, 2014, 10:24:49 PM
If you love someone, there is something in that person that you love.  You see something of value in that person's virtues.  You are enjoying that person's virtues, and that person is enjoying your virtues.  Love is the emotional price paid for the enjoyment of another's virtue.  If love is not mutual enrichment, then only one person is being enriched.  But, how does a man love a woman whom does not love him back?  How is this man being enriched when the woman ignores him and pays him no love?  If love is not mutually enriching, it is not love.

What of a mother's love for her newborn? The child has not had the chance to develop any virtue. By your definition, a mother's love for her infant is not real love.

Yours is a very narrow (and convenient) definition of love.

The mother loves the child because it is in her nature.  The child is a piece of the parents, a beautiful product of their love.  The parents are overwhelmed with love when the baby comes, and it is this joy which they seek in having a child.  A woman once decided to have a baby because of a sense of duty which had been placed on her by society.  Has she had not made this choice freely, she never loved the child.  She saw her time as a mother as an obligation which drained her life away slowly.  The child never felt loved and grew up to be a psychologically dysfunctional adult.  The child never knew how to love another person, because she had never been loved.  The mother had a child for the wrong reason.  She allowed others to make the decision, instead of making the decision on her own.  She chose altruism, and both her child and she suffered as a result.

Your view of love is very mechanical and fatalistic. I have hundreds of anecdotes that blow your perception of love out of the water.

I have no children who are my own (biologically). My wife had them prior to our marriage. That didn't stop me from loving them as my own pretty much the moment we started dating. There was no biological incentive for me to love them. But according to Rand, what I did was despicable and "weak."
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on May 11, 2014, 05:05:53 PM
QuoteLove is the emotional price paid for the enjoyment of another's virtue

Love is not an emotion.  It causes an array of emotions. 

Love can not be defined.  Though we know it exists as one of the most powerful forces in the world.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 11, 2014, 05:35:48 PM
This appears to be a false distinction.  If you love a woman, it is because there is is something of value you see in this woman, you are seeing her virtues.  To pursue a relationship with her is to make a statement that she has value, that she is worth your time.  There is a cost-benefit analysis to be done.  Every time you spend time doing one thing, you forego many other things you could have done with that time.  This is why I like to say that I spend time, because time is really spent.  Now, people obviously don't think in these terms, but this is what's going on.  When a man goes on a date with a woman or goes to a ballgame with a friend, he is enjoying the other's company.  This doesn't mean that he is trying to 'get over' on the other.  A man goes on a date with a woman, they have a great time, he takes her to bed, then he steals her purse and never calls her again.  This is how most people view a 'selfish' man.  But, this man does not act in his own self interest.  He cuts himself off from this woman, he will never have a relationship with her.  He makes himself into a man he cannot be proud of.  He has to hide who he really is, lest his friends will leave him, or worse, they won't.  To truly seek out a relationship means that he will benefit from the relationship, and the woman does the same.  The man and the woman both seek to benefit, to be made better, from the relationship.  I know when a man has found the woman he will marry, because this woman makes him better.  I have seen a few of my friends made into better men because they found the right woman.  In a proper relationship, both the man and the woman are made better, they both benefit.  When I speak of benefiting, I mean being made better, and not just obtaining cheap pleasure.

I'm watching 'Good Will Hunting' right now, I love this movie.  Will is the main character, and he develops a friendship with two professors.  The first really wants a friendship with Will and the two are made better.  The second doesn't really care about Will, but only what Will can so for him.  The second man is living vicariously through Will, because Will can do things in math that the professor never could.  The first professor seeks a true friendship with Will, which is two sided.  The second seeks a one way friendship, which is not a real friendship.  In order for a relationship to be real, it must be two sided, both must benefit in some way.  Both must be made better off because of the relationship.

Recovering NOer & lauremar, if you don't like this thread, ignore it.  I have benefited from this conversation, and have learned much.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Recovering NOer on May 11, 2014, 08:27:03 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on May 11, 2014, 02:34:45 PMwhy?
This is very good training....its good to see how the mindscrewed think and reason so as to be prepared when you find it in others. Further I dont remember seeing you two on the moderators list?

That's funny because I don't remember where I claimed to BE on the moderators list.

On second thought, anyway, I do admit that stuff like this can actually have some value to others who see it (though not necessarily the one being targeted) so I won't say it's completely useless.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Non Nobis on May 11, 2014, 10:02:26 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 11, 2014, 05:35:48 PM
This appears to be a false distinction.  If you love a woman, it is because there is is something of value you see in this woman, you are seeing her virtues.  To pursue a relationship with her is to make a statement that she has value, that she is worth your time.  There is a cost-benefit analysis to be done.  Every time you spend time doing one thing, you forego many other things you could have done with that time.  This is why I like to say that I spend time, because time is really spent.  Now, people obviously don't think in these terms, but this is what's going on.  When a man goes on a date with a woman or goes to a ballgame with a friend, he is enjoying the other's company.  This doesn't mean that he is trying to 'get over' on the other.  A man goes on a date with a woman, they have a great time, he takes her to bed, then he steals her purse and never calls her again.  This is how most people view a 'selfish' man.  But, this man does not act in his own self interest.  He cuts himself off from this woman, he will never have a relationship with her.  He makes himself into a man he cannot be proud of.  He has to hide who he really is, lest his friends will leave him, or worse, they won't.  To truly seek out a relationship means that he will benefit from the relationship, and the woman does the same.  The man and the woman both seek to benefit, to be made better, from the relationship.  I know when a man has found the woman he will marry, because this woman makes him better.  I have seen a few of my friends made into better men because they found the right woman.  In a proper relationship, both the man and the woman are made better, they both benefit.  When I speak of benefiting, I mean being made better, and not just obtaining cheap pleasure.

I'm watching 'Good Will Hunting' right now, I love this movie.  Will is the main character, and he develops a friendship with two professors.  The first really wants a friendship with Will and the two are made better.  The second doesn't really care about Will, but only what Will can so for him.  The second man is living vicariously through Will, because Will can do things in math that the professor never could.  The first professor seeks a true friendship with Will, which is two sided.  The second seeks a one way friendship, which is not a real friendship.  In order for a relationship to be real, it must be two sided, both must benefit in some way.  Both must be made better off because of the relationship.

Recovering NOer & lauremar, if you don't like this thread, ignore it.  I have benefited from this conversation, and have learned much.

I  think your advice is good in many respects.  It is called prudence.  You don't seek to harm yourself when you love; you look for happiness in it.

But you make it too mechanical.  Love can grow out of little things, not just a full cost-benefit analysis.  It finds true value in the thing loved that is not seen by others.  It learns to see more over time.  The love for an adopted baby (even if first adopted out of a sense of duty) may start with the innate "cuteness" of the child (as seen in other animals too) and the sense of responsibility and grow as the child grows, because the child is a unique person of worth no matter what "benefit analysis" says.

Love does not stop cold because it is started because of a sense of duty.  Love does not only include deep romantic love, or motherly love, or friendship or the like intimate love.  It also includes the things we do out of duty, including "love your neighbor as yourself". This is focused on the neighbor, but of great benefit to yourself, because EACH man has a relation with ALL other man.  You break yourself if you sever this relationship.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Greg on May 12, 2014, 04:01:21 AM
The second professor actually lines Will up with all kinds of job opportunities and introductions.  So it is incorrect to say he does nothing for him.

Will turns those opportunities down and, in fact, embarasses the professor by sending his friend along to act the clown in the job interview.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 12, 2014, 07:04:12 PM

Quote from: Non Nobis on May 11, 2014, 10:02:26 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 11, 2014, 05:35:48 PM
This appears to be a false distinction.  If you love a woman, it is because there is is something of value you see in this woman, you are seeing her virtues.  To pursue a relationship with her is to make a statement that she has value, that she is worth your time.  There is a cost-benefit analysis to be done.  Every time you spend time doing one thing, you forego many other things you could have done with that time.  This is why I like to say that I spend time, because time is really spent.  Now, people obviously don't think in these terms, but this is what's going on.  When a man goes on a date with a woman or goes to a ballgame with a friend, he is enjoying the other's company.  This doesn't mean that he is trying to 'get over' on the other.  A man goes on a date with a woman, they have a great time, he takes her to bed, then he steals her purse and never calls her again.  This is how most people view a 'selfish' man.  But, this man does not act in his own self interest.  He cuts himself off from this woman, he will never have a relationship with her.  He makes himself into a man he cannot be proud of.  He has to hide who he really is, lest his friends will leave him, or worse, they won't.  To truly seek out a relationship means that he will benefit from the relationship, and the woman does the same.  The man and the woman both seek to benefit, to be made better, from the relationship.  I know when a man has found the woman he will marry, because this woman makes him better.  I have seen a few of my friends made into better men because they found the right woman.  In a proper relationship, both the man and the woman are made better, they both benefit.  When I speak of benefiting, I mean being made better, and not just obtaining cheap pleasure.

I'm watching 'Good Will Hunting' right now, I love this movie.  Will is the main character, and he develops a friendship with two professors.  The first really wants a friendship with Will and the two are made better.  The second doesn't really care about Will, but only what Will can so for him.  The second man is living vicariously through Will, because Will can do things in math that the professor never could.  The first professor seeks a true friendship with Will, which is two sided.  The second seeks a one way friendship, which is not a real friendship.  In order for a relationship to be real, it must be two sided, both must benefit in some way.  Both must be made better off because of the relationship.

Recovering NOer & lauremar, if you don't like this thread, ignore it.  I have benefited from this conversation, and have learned much.

I  think your advice is good in many respects.  It is called prudence.  You don't seek to harm yourself when you love; you look for happiness in it.

But you make it too mechanical.  Love can grow out of little things, not just a full cost-benefit analysis.  It finds true value in the thing loved that is not seen by others.  It learns to see more over time.  The love for an adopted baby (even if first adopted out of a sense of duty) may start with the innate "cuteness" of the child (as seen in other animals too) and the sense of responsibility and grow as the child grows, because the child is a unique person of worth no matter what "benefit analysis" says.

Love does not stop cold because it is started because of a sense of duty.  Love does not only include deep romantic love, or motherly love, or friendship or the like intimate love.  It also includes the things we do out of duty, including "love your neighbor as yourself". This is focused on the neighbor, but of great benefit to yourself, because EACH man has a relation with ALL other man.  You break yourself if you sever this relationship.

A relationship can move from a sense of duty into that of love, but at that time it is no longer a duty.  It may seem to mechanical, but I am just showing what is underneath the act.  I am revealing what is behind the curtain.  There is no need to revel in mystery, a thing is not destroyed because it is explained.  The great works of art are very scientific, the artists who created these works spent tremendous time studying nature in order to get the proportions just right.  Artists like Michelangelo and Leonardo DaVinci put a great deal of geometry behind their works, yet most people look at their master pieces and just see the beauty.  A thing which is undefinable has no identity, which means it does not exist.  If you love someone, there is some reason why.  It is impossible to love someone for no reason.  Just because it is something which no one else sees, does not mean that it is nothing.

Yes, there are different types of love.  A love of duty is not love.  If you are doing something out of a duty, it is because it is something you don't want to do.  If you want to do the thing, it is not a duty.  How would you feel if someone in your family told you that he/she loved you only out of a sense of duty?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 12, 2014, 07:08:53 PM

Quote from: Greg on May 12, 2014, 04:01:21 AM
The second professor actually lines Will up with all kinds of job opportunities and introductions.  So it is incorrect to say he does nothing for him.

Will turns those opportunities down and, in fact, embarasses the professor by sending his friend along to act the clown in the job interview.

He does, but he doesn't really care what Will wants.  The first professor sees Will as a person and not as a mathematician.  He helps Will get through some difficult emotions, and wants him to follow his own path.  This is the character played by Robin Williams.  Damon (Will) and Williams both learn from each other, a true friendship.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on May 12, 2014, 08:21:47 PM
QuoteThere is a cost-benefit analysis to be done.
You don't understand.  What is the BENEFIT?  The deep spiritual benefit, which causes us "to love", when we can't even define what it is?

Take a look at this picture.
(https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi58.tinypic.com%2Fv3zyj6.jpg&hash=a4c7b9b15aad3eba7f5caeae50d5709bd1f47c11)
I sank in the mud.  One phone call and a member of my team says, "I'm on it".  Finds 15 chokers and shackles, puts together this 150' tow string, drives 40 miles, and gets me out, while walking through mud.  Why did he do it?  Love.  Brotherly love.  What is his BENEFIT?  There was nothing material.

The benefit is God.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 12, 2014, 08:31:51 PM
Love can be defined.  This is from the Ayn Rand lexicon: "To love is to value. Only a rationally selfish man, a man of self-esteem, is capable of love—because he is the only man capable of holding firm, consistent, uncompromising, unbetrayed values. The man who does not value himself, cannot value anything or anyone."  Would your friend have done that for a stranger?  He helped you because he values your friendship, he was pursuing a value.  The value need not necessarily be material.

Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on May 12, 2014, 08:40:40 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 12, 2014, 08:31:51 PM
Love can be defined.  This is from the Ayn Rand lexicon: "To love is to value. Only a rationally selfish man, a man of self-esteem, is capable of love—because he is the only man capable of holding firm, consistent, uncompromising, unbetrayed values. The man who does not value himself, cannot value anything or anyone."  Would your friend have done that for a stranger?  He helped you because he values your friendship, he was pursuing a value.  The value need not necessarily be material.
Rand is wrong...prove she is right. All her twaddle is un observed and no better than scientology or jim jones.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Non Nobis on May 12, 2014, 09:05:04 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 12, 2014, 07:04:12 PM
...

A relationship can move from a sense of duty into that of love, but at that time it is no longer a duty. 
...
The great works of art are very scientific, the artists who created these works spent tremendous time studying nature in order to get the proportions just right.  Artists like Michelangelo and Leonardo DaVinci put a great deal of geometry behind their works, yet most people look at their master pieces and just see the beauty.  A thing which is undefinable has no identity, which means it does not exist. 
...
Yes, there are different types of love.  A love of duty is not love.  If you are doing something out of a duty, it is because it is something you don't want to do.  If you want to do the thing, it is not a duty.  How would you feel if someone in your family told you that he/she loved you only out of a sense of duty?

Duty and love can co-exist.  You don't love your children because it is a duty, but it is in fact a duty to care for them.  .

Only God (dare I say God?) knows all the mathematical details behind great art, and understands the depth of the artist (dare I say his soul?).  We don't know the definition of a particular piece of art or music.  We can understand it better (with experience and study); but some people will not appreciate its beauty, or not as well as others.  The beauty of some particular piece of art (or the goodness of a man) can be described, but who is vain enough to say he completely understands it?

What is a mystery to us, is understood by God.  Mystery on earth is NOT unreality.
Do you think beauty does not exist?
Title: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 12, 2014, 09:37:03 PM
The works on Vivaldi are beautiful, I love his Four Seasons, especially the Spring concerto.  Beauty definitely exists.  There is science to the works of Vivaldi, and Vivaldi understood that.  Vivaldi understood all the details behind his works, he had to in order to create them.  Our job is to use our reason to come to an understanding of mysteries, not to wallow in them.  Mystery on Earth isn't unreality, but a mystery which is impossible to understand is.

Between love and duty, and one can be the motivating force.  If love is involved, duty is not motivating your action.  If duty is motivating your action, then love is not involved.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on May 13, 2014, 03:41:26 AM
It is contradictory to say we understand mysterys. And we do not wallow in the Mystery of God we meditate upon it...are infused with it..amazed by it...and embrace and Love it. God is a Mystery most profound. But in Satanic pride some are unwilling to accept God as mystery...some are drunk from the fermented fruit of the tree of knowledge.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 13, 2014, 04:47:24 PM

Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on May 13, 2014, 03:41:26 AM
It is contradictory to say we understand mysterys. And we do not wallow in the Mystery of God we meditate upon it...are infused with it..amazed by it...and embrace and Love it. God is a Mystery most profound. But in Satanic pride some are unwilling to accept God as mystery...some are drunk from the fermented fruit of the tree of knowledge.

Yes, once a mystery is solved it is no longer a mystery.  Things like gravity and magnetic fields used to be mysteries, but then scientists figured out those mysteries.  Mysteries are meant to be solved, they are not meant to remain mysteries.  The reason society dug its way out of the dark ages is that intelligent men sought to discover the solutions to the mysteries, they did not sit back and revel in the mysteries.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on May 13, 2014, 04:51:51 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 13, 2014, 04:47:24 PM

Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on May 13, 2014, 03:41:26 AM
It is contradictory to say we understand mysterys. And we do not wallow in the Mystery of God we meditate upon it...are infused with it..amazed by it...and embrace and Love it. God is a Mystery most profound. But in Satanic pride some are unwilling to accept God as mystery...some are drunk from the fermented fruit of the tree of knowledge.

Yes, once a mystery is solved it is no longer a mystery.  Things like gravity and magnetic fields used to be mysteries, but then scientists figured out those mysteries.  Mysteries are meant to be solved, they are not meant to remain mysteries.  The reason society dug its way out of the dark ages is that intelligent men sought to discover the solutions to the mysteries, they did not sit back and revel in the mysteries.
Those were not mysteries in the sense of the faith...those were scientific questions. The two have no relation. And God is an eternal mystery to us until we die for no man has seen God and lived. You will never experience the mystery of God until you reject your satanic demand to be His equal (or better?)
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 13, 2014, 05:05:51 PM

Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on May 13, 2014, 04:51:51 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 13, 2014, 04:47:24 PM

Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on May 13, 2014, 03:41:26 AM
It is contradictory to say we understand mysterys. And we do not wallow in the Mystery of God we meditate upon it...are infused with it..amazed by it...and embrace and Love it. God is a Mystery most profound. But in Satanic pride some are unwilling to accept God as mystery...some are drunk from the fermented fruit of the tree of knowledge.

Yes, once a mystery is solved it is no longer a mystery.  Things like gravity and magnetic fields used to be mysteries, but then scientists figured out those mysteries.  Mysteries are meant to be solved, they are not meant to remain mysteries.  The reason society dug its way out of the dark ages is that intelligent men sought to discover the solutions to the mysteries, they did not sit back and revel in the mysteries.
Those were not mysteries in the sense of the faith...those were scientific questions. The two have no relation. And God is an eternal mystery to us until we die for no man has seen God and lived. You will never experience the mystery of God until you reject your satanic demand to be His equal (or better?)

What about Moses and Enoch?  The Bible says they both saw God and lived.

When I was in The Church I wanted to know God, it wasn't good enough to just leave it a mystery.

I don't respect Satanists, and I don't understand them either.  Satan was a rebel, if a Satanist really wanted to be like Satan, he wouldn't bow down to Satan, he wouldn't bow to anyone.  I don't think in these sort of terms.  I consider myself to be my own god, and living a good life is my religion.  Ayn Rand's third novel was called 'The Fountainhead', but you might find it interesting that the first title she considered was 'The Prime Mover.'  She decided against it because she said that most people wouldn't understand the Aristotelian reference.  Rand said that every creator is a prime mover.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on May 13, 2014, 05:37:13 PM
QuoteThings like gravity and magnetic fields used to be mysteries, but then scientists figured out those mysteries.
No, science has not figured these out.  At best they can predict things about them.  They haven't figured them out.

As far as love being equivalent to valuing something, completely wrong. I value my truck.  I don't love it.  That's absurd.  You can not define love.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on May 13, 2014, 05:41:59 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 13, 2014, 05:05:51 PM

Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on May 13, 2014, 04:51:51 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 13, 2014, 04:47:24 PM

Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on May 13, 2014, 03:41:26 AM
It is contradictory to say we understand mysterys. And we do not wallow in the Mystery of God we meditate upon it...are infused with it..amazed by it...and embrace and Love it. God is a Mystery most profound. But in Satanic pride some are unwilling to accept God as mystery...some are drunk from the fermented fruit of the tree of knowledge.

Yes, once a mystery is solved it is no longer a mystery.  Things like gravity and magnetic fields used to be mysteries, but then scientists figured out those mysteries.  Mysteries are meant to be solved, they are not meant to remain mysteries.  The reason society dug its way out of the dark ages is that intelligent men sought to discover the solutions to the mysteries, they did not sit back and revel in the mysteries.
Those were not mysteries in the sense of the faith...those were scientific questions. The two have no relation. And God is an eternal mystery to us until we die for no man has seen God and lived. You will never experience the mystery of God until you reject your satanic demand to be His equal (or better?)

What about Moses and Enoch?  The Bible says they both saw God and lived.

When I was in The Church I wanted to know God, it wasn't good enough to just leave it a mystery.

I don't respect Satanists, and I don't understand them either.  Satan was a rebel, if a Satanist really wanted to be like Satan, he wouldn't bow down to Satan, he wouldn't bow to anyone.  I don't think in these sort of terms.  I consider myself to be my own god, and living a good life is my religion.  Ayn Rand's third novel was called 'The Fountainhead', but you might find it interesting that the first title she considered was 'The Prime Mover.'  She decided against it because she said that most people wouldn't understand the Aristotelian reference.  Rand said that every creator is a prime mover.

Enoch was translated (assumed) directly into heaven there is no mention of him seeing God face to face (so to speak)
Moses had to hide in the cleft of the rocks as God passed by in order to survive the encounter,
And you understand satanism very well as you hold satans direct and core faith... which is in essence I WILL NOT SERVE! And to consider yourself your own god is insanity...as I said your mind is screwed.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Non Nobis on May 13, 2014, 05:54:28 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 13, 2014, 04:47:24 PM

Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on May 13, 2014, 03:41:26 AM
It is contradictory to say we understand mysterys. And we do not wallow in the Mystery of God we meditate upon it...are infused with it..amazed by it...and embrace and Love it. God is a Mystery most profound. But in Satanic pride some are unwilling to accept God as mystery...some are drunk from the fermented fruit of the tree of knowledge.

Yes, once a mystery is solved it is no longer a mystery.  Things like gravity and magnetic fields used to be mysteries, but then scientists figured out those mysteries.  Mysteries are meant to be solved, they are not meant to remain mysteries.  The reason society dug its way out of the dark ages is that intelligent men sought to discover the solutions to the mysteries, they did not sit back and revel in the mysteries.

Some things, even on earth, remain a mystery to me because _I_ don't yet understand them myself.  I am very happy to hear that someone does understand, and agree mysteries are not meant to be NEVER understood.  But I stand in awe at the wonders of science that are beyond my understanding (due to a lack of time, or intelligence, or whatever).

If I thought that God could NEVER be understood by ANYONE, even Himself, I wouldn't believe in Him either.  But I am humble (ouch, that word again) enough to accept that I will not be the one to completely understand Him. 
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 13, 2014, 06:03:09 PM
Well, you won't with that attitude. ;)  My goal is to completely understand Objectivism, why wouldn't you try to completely understand Catholicism?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 13, 2014, 06:36:16 PM
Voxx, Enoch was said to have walked with God, how did he not see him?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Non Nobis on May 13, 2014, 07:22:51 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 13, 2014, 06:03:09 PM
My goal is to completely understand Objectivism, why wouldn't you try to completely understand Catholicism?

Objectivism must be a puny thing indeed.  I pity you, rejecting what you cannot fit into your little head, or into the collective heads of those no greater than you. How much you are missing.

Understanding Catholicism more and more is a life long goal.  But Catholicism is about man's relationship with God, and God is infinite. Your goals are amputated by your shortsightedness.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on May 13, 2014, 08:44:00 PM
Quote from: Non Nobis on May 13, 2014, 05:54:28 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 13, 2014, 04:47:24 PM

Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on May 13, 2014, 03:41:26 AM
It is contradictory to say we understand mysterys. And we do not wallow in the Mystery of God we meditate upon it...are infused with it..amazed by it...and embrace and Love it. God is a Mystery most profound. But in Satanic pride some are unwilling to accept God as mystery...some are drunk from the fermented fruit of the tree of knowledge.

Yes, once a mystery is solved it is no longer a mystery.  Things like gravity and magnetic fields used to be mysteries, but then scientists figured out those mysteries.  Mysteries are meant to be solved, they are not meant to remain mysteries.  The reason society dug its way out of the dark ages is that intelligent men sought to discover the solutions to the mysteries, they did not sit back and revel in the mysteries.

Some things, even on earth, remain a mystery to me because _I_ don't yet understand them myself.  I am very happy to hear that someone does understand, and agree mysteries are not meant to be NEVER understood.  But I stand in awe at the wonders of science that are beyond my understanding (due to a lack of time, or intelligence, or whatever).

If I thought that God could NEVER be understood by ANYONE, even Himself, I wouldn't believe in Him either.  But I am humble (ouch, that word again) enough to accept that I will not be the one to completely understand Him.
In eastern spirituality it is considered an act of pride to say we could ever understand or comprehend God fully.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on May 13, 2014, 08:45:53 PM
Cf
Many faithfull walk with God without ever seeing him
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 13, 2014, 08:49:03 PM

Quote from: Non Nobis on May 13, 2014, 07:22:51 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 13, 2014, 06:03:09 PM
My goal is to completely understand Objectivism, why wouldn't you try to completely understand Catholicism?

Objectivism must be a puny thing indeed.  I pity you, rejecting what you cannot fit into your little head, or into the collective heads of those no greater than you. How much you are missing.

Understanding Catholicism more and more is a life long goal.  But Catholicism is about man's relationship with God, and God is infinite. Your goals are amputated by your shortsightedness.

Well, I like hearing that you desire to advance in the faith, instead of staying put.  That's good.  For a man to be happy, he must never stop advancing in knowledge and wisdom.

Objectivism is a very sober philosophy, it stays only in the realm of objective reality.  But, there is a lot to learn.  I'm a natural fit for this philosophy, it's what I was drawn to instinctively.  I was learning the basics of the philosophy long before I had ever heard the name.  I went to business school in college, and I was obsessed with Adam Smith and the idea of Laissez Faire Capitalism.  I had a great macro economics professor, and she taught me all about Laissez Faire.  Ayn Rand just took this idea and applied it to the social realm.  Society is better when millions of people are making their own decisions, rather than when a few are making the decisions for all.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 13, 2014, 08:55:15 PM
Exodus 33:11 "And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend."  Moses saw God face to face.  How did Enoch walk with God without seeing him?  That would be quite a trick.  God walked in the garden of Eden and spoke to Adam and Eve.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on May 14, 2014, 03:51:53 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 13, 2014, 08:55:15 PM
Exodus 33:11 "And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend."  Moses saw God face to face.  How did Enoch walk with God without seeing him?  That would be quite a trick.  God walked in the garden of Eden and spoke to Adam and Eve.
es these are great mysterys. One can assume that the Lord to a circumscribed form..maybe He appeared as Jesus..I dont know...But the context of the quote..No one has seen God and lived...is God in His full majesty and imminence (eminence? ). I walk with God the best I can...it is a spiritual reality. As i point out you are a disabled individual....your spirit is crippled your ability to embrace sublime truths about God is blunted by your pride and materialism. Yours is a closed and circular interior life. Do you even have an interior life?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: red solo cup on May 14, 2014, 05:37:53 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 13, 2014, 08:55:15 PM
Exodus 33:11 "And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend."  Moses saw God face to face.  How did Enoch walk with God without seeing him?  That would be quite a trick.  God walked in the garden of Eden and spoke to Adam and Eve.
Your going to quote the Bible? Srsly?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 14, 2014, 06:47:57 AM
I mentioned earlier that I reject materialism.  Yes, I am quoting the Bible, it clearly states that Moses spoke to God face to face, the way friends speak.  That would indicate as equals, as friends are equals.  That doesn't mean Moses was God's equal, but that God spoke to Jim as if he was.  I have an interior life, it's just not supernatural.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on May 14, 2014, 07:26:43 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 14, 2014, 06:47:57 AM
I mentioned earlier that I reject materialism.  Yes, I am quoting the Bible, it clearly states that Moses spoke to God face to face, the way friends speak.  That would indicate as equals, as friends are equals.  That doesn't mean Moses was God's equal, but that God spoke to Jim as if he was.  I have an interior life, it's just not supernatural.
Then it is horizontal...circular and deficient to handle life. A materialist interior life makes you an autominton...a cipher...a bag of chemicals ...no more significant than a common garden slug. In fact the slug is at least living its true nature. You are not. Question...are you married? Do you have Children. Have you ever experienced a profound tragedy in your life. Are you older than 25?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 14, 2014, 07:32:07 AM

Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on May 14, 2014, 07:26:43 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 14, 2014, 06:47:57 AM
I mentioned earlier that I reject materialism.  Yes, I am quoting the Bible, it clearly states that Moses spoke to God face to face, the way friends speak.  That would indicate as equals, as friends are equals.  That doesn't mean Moses was God's equal, but that God spoke to Jim as if he was.  I have an interior life, it's just not supernatural.
Then it is horizontal...circular and deficient to handle life. A materialist interior life makes you an autominton...a cipher...a bag of chemicals ...no more significant than a common garden slug. In fact the slug is at least living its true nature. You are not. Question...are you married? Do you have Children. Have you ever experienced a profound tragedy in your life. Are you older than 25?

I reject materialism, as I said above.  I am not speaking of a materialist interior life.  I am not married, I do not have children, I have experienced a profound tragedy, I am 33 years old.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on May 14, 2014, 10:27:12 AM
If your interior life isnt supernatural then it must be based soley on matter in motion or biochemistry...ie materialism. Woyld you be willing to share your tragedy? When I was 13 my older brother was killed in a motorcycle accident. He was 16.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 14, 2014, 10:58:22 AM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on May 14, 2014, 10:27:12 AM
If your interior life isnt supernatural then it must be based soley on matter in motion or biochemistry...ie materialism. Woyld you be willing to share your tragedy? When I was 13 my older brother was killed in a motorcycle accident. He was 16.

It would be a mistake to equate naturalism with materialism, they are not the same thing.  I am a naturalist, but I am not a materialist.  I thought I was a materialist for quite a while, but I recently came to the conclusion that it is false.

I'm sorry about your older brother, I know that was a tough loss.  I lost my grandmother 6 1/2 years ago.  She was basically my third parent and was very close to me, I spent much of my childhood at her house.  I stayed at her house a lot while my parents were busy with the family business.  A great deal of my philosophy comes from her, she was very much in the mold of Ayn Rand.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: rbjmartin on May 14, 2014, 12:49:53 PM
So what immaterial things do you believe exist?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 14, 2014, 04:39:36 PM

Quote from: rbjmartin on May 14, 2014, 12:49:53 PM
So what immaterial things do you believe exist?

With regard to the materialism/monism/dualism question, I don't know what the answer is.  I realize now that materialists deny the mind, and that's absurd.  I don't see any evidence for the spiritual, and dualism has a whole host of problems.  This appears to be a manner for science.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: rbjmartin on May 14, 2014, 04:43:33 PM
Do you believe there exist things beyond the grasp of your senses (assisted or not)?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 14, 2014, 04:52:52 PM
There exists things which are beyond our unaided senses.  I cannot directly perceive galaxies which are very far away, yet I can with a big enough telescope.  I cannot directly perceive very small things, yet I can with a microscope.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on May 14, 2014, 08:10:29 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 14, 2014, 04:39:36 PM

Quote from: rbjmartin on May 14, 2014, 12:49:53 PM
So what immaterial things do you believe exist?

With regard to the materialism/monism/dualism question, I don't know what the answer is.  I realize now that materialists deny the mind, and that's absurd.  I don't see any evidence for the spiritual, and dualism has a whole host of problems.  This appears to be a manner for science.
do you feel that since YOU dont see evidence for the spiritual therefore it doesnt exist?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 14, 2014, 08:26:40 PM

Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on May 14, 2014, 08:10:29 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 14, 2014, 04:39:36 PM

Quote from: rbjmartin on May 14, 2014, 12:49:53 PM
So what immaterial things do you believe exist?

With regard to the materialism/monism/dualism question, I don't know what the answer is.  I realize now that materialists deny the mind, and that's absurd.  I don't see any evidence for the spiritual, and dualism has a whole host of problems.  This appears to be a manner for science.
do you feel that since YOU dont see evidence for the spiritual therefore it doesnt exist?

No.  What I am told by all who believe in spirits is that spirits are impossible to detect.  I could understand if a man said that spirits cannot be detected today, but maybe someday it will be possible.  But, to say that spirits will always be beyond detection is to say that they don't exist.

So, do you believe spirits will always be beyond detection, or will science one day be able to detect spirits?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: rbjmartin on May 14, 2014, 10:54:53 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 14, 2014, 04:52:52 PM
There exists things which are beyond our unaided senses.  I cannot directly perceive galaxies which are very far away, yet I can with a big enough telescope.  I cannot directly perceive very small things, yet I can with a microscope.

So, you didn't answer my question. I asked: "Do you believe there exist things beyond the grasp of your senses (assisted or not)?"

Notice the parentheses at the end. I will phrase it another way. Do you believe in the existence of things that cannot be grasped by the senses, regardless of whether your sense are aided? Are there things that exist that could never be physically perceived by man?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 15, 2014, 06:36:54 AM

Quote from: rbjmartin on May 14, 2014, 10:54:53 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 14, 2014, 04:52:52 PM
There exists things which are beyond our unaided senses.  I cannot directly perceive galaxies which are very far away, yet I can with a big enough telescope.  I cannot directly perceive very small things, yet I can with a microscope.

So, you didn't answer my question. I asked: "Do you believe there exist things beyond the grasp of your senses (assisted or not)?"

Notice the parentheses at the end. I will phrase it another way. Do you believe in the existence of things that cannot be grasped by the senses, regardless of whether your sense are aided? Are there things that exist that could never be physically perceived by man?

No, I do not.  Everything which exists either can be detected through use of instruments or will be detected through the use of instruments eventually.  Nothing is beyond the grasp of man.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on May 15, 2014, 07:52:08 AM
Man cannot conquer death...illness? Sometimes...death nope. You will die CF and the question is what of YOU will be left.?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 15, 2014, 08:10:31 AM
Nothing will be left of me, or anybody else.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: ResRev on May 15, 2014, 09:34:45 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 15, 2014, 06:36:54 AM
Nothing is beyond the grasp of man.
Wow! Interesting. Why is nothing beyond the grasp of man? What made you decide that?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 15, 2014, 09:50:55 AM
Quote from: ResRev on May 15, 2014, 09:34:45 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 15, 2014, 06:36:54 AM
Nothing is beyond the grasp of man.
Wow! Interesting. Why is nothing beyond the grasp of man? What made you decide that?

Good question.  Because we live in a rational and orderly universe, everything in it is governed by laws.  Everything in the universe has a nature, and acts according to that nature.  Since everything works according to set laws and behaves according to its own nature, there is no reason to think that man cannot discover everything there is to know about the universe, provided mankind has enough time.  The only thing that might prevent mankind from unlocking all the mysteries of the universe would be if mankind is destroyed too soon and isn't provided enough time.  Scientists can predict exactly where the planets will be at any given time, because planets follow a predictable pattern according to the laws of nature.  Because things obey laws, they are predictable.  Men are different, of course, because men have free will.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on May 15, 2014, 10:14:31 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 15, 2014, 08:10:31 AM
Nothing will be left of me, or anybody else.
So you grandmothers personality and identity were completely useless and of no enduring value. Your very warped person to think this about someone who was so important to you. Ive reported your last couple posts because you are preaching pure dogmatic humanism. You are not here to leatrn the faith but to sermonise a satanic and horrible doctrine.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 15, 2014, 10:28:17 AM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on May 15, 2014, 10:14:31 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 15, 2014, 08:10:31 AM
Nothing will be left of me, or anybody else.
So you grandmothers personality and identity were completely useless and of no enduring value. Your very warped person to think this about someone who was so important to you. Ive reported your last couple posts because you are preaching pure dogmatic humanism. You are not here to leatrn the faith but to sermonise a satanic and horrible doctrine.

You know I don't think that, there is no need for hyperbole.  She was very important to me during her lifetime, now she's gone.  She continues to have an impact on me everyday through my memories of her.  I have many instances in which I am making a decision and her voice will pop into my head and give me useful advice.  I am remembering pearls of wisdom she instilled in me.

If you don't like what I have to say, ignore me.  Just stay away from this thread if you don't want to be offended.  Further more, how many times do I have to say that I do not worship Satan?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on May 15, 2014, 10:38:20 AM
Your the guest here brother...this is a forum for the propogation of the catholic faith. Not the propogation of humanism whixh is satanic wether you acknowledge it or not. And to say the bwautifull personality of you grandmother only exists in YOUR mind and memory is an unsult to her and an affrint to the truth. Whether or not you evee met your grandmothee her personality would still be a unique creation worthy of eternal memoey. You disgrace her name by promoting such codswallop as she and everything she was is no more. She has an eternal soul...as you do.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on May 15, 2014, 10:40:48 AM
Sorry for the poor spellung ...quick post with phone
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: rbjmartin on May 15, 2014, 10:52:11 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 15, 2014, 06:36:54 AM

Quote from: rbjmartin on May 14, 2014, 10:54:53 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 14, 2014, 04:52:52 PM
There exists things which are beyond our unaided senses.  I cannot directly perceive galaxies which are very far away, yet I can with a big enough telescope.  I cannot directly perceive very small things, yet I can with a microscope.

So, you didn't answer my question. I asked: "Do you believe there exist things beyond the grasp of your senses (assisted or not)?"

Notice the parentheses at the end. I will phrase it another way. Do you believe in the existence of things that cannot be grasped by the senses, regardless of whether your sense are aided? Are there things that exist that could never be physically perceived by man?

No, I do not.  Everything which exists either can be detected through use of instruments or will be detected through the use of instruments eventually.  Nothing is beyond the grasp of man.

Then what makes you NOT a materialist?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 15, 2014, 11:14:07 AM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on May 15, 2014, 10:38:20 AM
Your the guest here brother...this is a forum for the propogation of the catholic faith. Not the propogation of humanism whixh is satanic wether you acknowledge it or not. And to say the bwautifull personality of you grandmother only exists in YOUR mind and memory is an unsult to her and an affrint to the truth. Whether or not you evee met your grandmothee her personality would still be a unique creation worthy of eternal memoey. You disgrace her name by promoting such codswallop as she and everything she was is no more. She has an eternal soul...as you do.

Yes, I am a guest, and I appreciate the kindness of the moderators.  No one loved my grandmother more than me, though some did as much.  I believe she now only exists in the memories of those who loved her, which includes her children and other grandchildren, not just me.  I had many intimate and personal conversations with her before she went, and those conversations made a lasting impact on me.  She had been a Baptist earlier in life, but she lost the faith many years before she died.  She told me that she had lost the faith around the early 1970's.  She no longer believed in God at the time of her passing.  At that time I was still Catholic, and I wanted a priest to give her last rites.  She did not want them, and we respected her wishes.  I knew her better than most, and I will pass her memory on as long as I live.  I certainly do not wish to mistreat her memory, and she wouldn't have wanted people thinking she was something she wasn't.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 15, 2014, 11:20:41 AM
Quote from: rbjmartin on May 15, 2014, 10:52:11 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 15, 2014, 06:36:54 AM

Quote from: rbjmartin on May 14, 2014, 10:54:53 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 14, 2014, 04:52:52 PM
There exists things which are beyond our unaided senses.  I cannot directly perceive galaxies which are very far away, yet I can with a big enough telescope.  I cannot directly perceive very small things, yet I can with a microscope.

So, you didn't answer my question. I asked: "Do you believe there exist things beyond the grasp of your senses (assisted or not)?"

Notice the parentheses at the end. I will phrase it another way. Do you believe in the existence of things that cannot be grasped by the senses, regardless of whether your sense are aided? Are there things that exist that could never be physically perceived by man?

No, I do not.  Everything which exists either can be detected through use of instruments or will be detected through the use of instruments eventually.  Nothing is beyond the grasp of man.

Then what makes you NOT a materialist?

A materialist says that only matter exists.  I say that I don't know what makes up the Universe.  Materialism may turn out to be right, I doubt it.  There may be some substance other than matter which exists, and if it does we will be able to detect it.  I just don't know.  I find the entire question perplexing and I haven't the slightest idea what the right answer is.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: rbjmartin on May 15, 2014, 01:07:03 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 15, 2014, 11:20:41 AM
Quote from: rbjmartin on May 15, 2014, 10:52:11 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 15, 2014, 06:36:54 AM

Quote from: rbjmartin on May 14, 2014, 10:54:53 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 14, 2014, 04:52:52 PM
There exists things which are beyond our unaided senses.  I cannot directly perceive galaxies which are very far away, yet I can with a big enough telescope.  I cannot directly perceive very small things, yet I can with a microscope.

So, you didn't answer my question. I asked: "Do you believe there exist things beyond the grasp of your senses (assisted or not)?"

Notice the parentheses at the end. I will phrase it another way. Do you believe in the existence of things that cannot be grasped by the senses, regardless of whether your sense are aided? Are there things that exist that could never be physically perceived by man?

No, I do not.  Everything which exists either can be detected through use of instruments or will be detected through the use of instruments eventually.  Nothing is beyond the grasp of man.

Then what makes you NOT a materialist?

A materialist says that only matter exists.  I say that I don't know what makes up the Universe.  Materialism may turn out to be right, I doubt it.  There may be some substance other than matter which exists, and if it does we will be able to detect it.  I just don't know.  I find the entire question perplexing and I haven't the slightest idea what the right answer is.

But you just said that everything that exists is observable.  Only material things are observable, correct?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: ResRev on May 15, 2014, 02:50:45 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 15, 2014, 11:14:07 AM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on May 15, 2014, 10:38:20 AM
Your the guest here brother...this is a forum for the propogation of the catholic faith. Not the propogation of humanism whixh is satanic wether you acknowledge it or not. And to say the bwautifull personality of you grandmother only exists in YOUR mind and memory is an unsult to her and an affrint to the truth. Whether or not you evee met your grandmothee her personality would still be a unique creation worthy of eternal memoey. You disgrace her name by promoting such codswallop as she and everything she was is no more. She has an eternal soul...as you do.

Yes, I am a guest, and I appreciate the kindness of the moderators.  No one loved my grandmother more than me, though some did as much.  I believe she now only exists in the memories of those who loved her, which includes her children and other grandchildren, not just me.  I had many intimate and personal conversations with her before she went, and those conversations made a lasting impact on me.  She had been a Baptist earlier in life, but she lost the faith many years before she died.  She told me that she had lost the faith around the early 1970's.  She no longer believed in God at the time of her passing.  At that time I was still Catholic, and I wanted a priest to give her last rites.  She did not want them, and we respected her wishes.  I knew her better than most, and I will pass her memory on as long as I live.  I certainly do not wish to mistreat her memory, and she wouldn't have wanted people thinking she was something she wasn't.
I'm sorry for your loss. I never knew my grandparents so I can't really relate, though I did lose my father when I was 16. He was an atheist. That was a hard thing for me to accept, that it appeared that he would be condemned, if what I believed were true. But it doesn't weigh on me like before, I really can't presume to "know" the disposition of anyone's soul short of canonizations. now I just pray for him every day and leave all that to God, who is obviously more just and merciful than I am, perfectly so.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on May 15, 2014, 06:42:48 PM
QuoteNo, I do not.  Everything which exists either can be detected through use of instruments or will be detected through the use of instruments eventually.  Nothing is beyond the grasp of man.

Please show me "3".  And why not "8" while you are at it.  I want to detect and/or measure it with an instrument.

You are slipping back into materialism.  Stick with realism, it is much better because it is true.

Speaking of which, show me where "true" is located so I can measure it with an instrument.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: JuniorCouncilor on May 15, 2014, 07:40:21 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 15, 2014, 06:36:54 AM
Nothing is beyond the grasp of man.

Where does one get such faith in man?

Or perhaps I should say such ?????.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 15, 2014, 08:12:36 PM

Quote from: james03 on May 15, 2014, 06:42:48 PM
QuoteNo, I do not.  Everything which exists either can be detected through use of instruments or will be detected through the use of instruments eventually.  Nothing is beyond the grasp of man.

Please show me "3".  And why not "8" while you are at it.  I want to detect and/or measure it with an instrument.

You are slipping back into materialism.  Stick with realism, it is much better because it is true.

Speaking of which, show me where "true" is located so I can measure it with an instrument.

Numbers are ideas, they are not actual things.  How can you know that something exists if there is no way to detect it?  I like to see philosophy begin with what one perceives from the world around us.  I like philosophers who keep there feet firmly planted on the ground.  'Truth' is an idea, an idea is true when it corresponds to reality.  I don't know what makes up the mind, I do know it involves matter in some way, but whatever it is must be something people can figure out.  Given enough time, scientists will figure it out.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 15, 2014, 08:13:52 PM

Quote from: JuniorCouncilor on May 15, 2014, 07:40:21 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 15, 2014, 06:36:54 AM
Nothing is beyond the grasp of man.

Where does one get such faith in man?

Or perhaps I should say such ?????.

The Universe is rational and orderly, it follows laws of nature.  This makes it predictable and solvable.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: JuniorCouncilor on May 15, 2014, 08:23:05 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 15, 2014, 08:13:52 PM
The Universe is rational and orderly, it follows laws of nature.  This makes it predictable and solvable.

Exactly like women.

:hide:
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Non Nobis on May 16, 2014, 08:35:58 PM
Quote from: JuniorCouncilor on May 15, 2014, 08:23:05 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 15, 2014, 08:13:52 PM
The Universe is rational and orderly, it follows laws of nature.  This makes it predictable and solvable.

Exactly like women.

:hide:

Women are rational and sometimes orderly, but still a mystery - another proof of God's existence.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 17, 2014, 09:35:14 AM
I have some good news, I have been asked to give a speech to a group about religious liberty.  The group is called the Freedom from Religion Foundation.  I don't know much about them, but it feels good to have someone want me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Lydia Purpuraria on May 17, 2014, 09:45:04 AM
Crimson,  have you already posted somewhere on here how you lost your Catholic Faith?  Could you point me to it? 

btw, I think you were saying it tongue in cheek -- but God wants you ... back in His Church, promoting vespers ;), using your God-given intellect for His Glory.  You are so bright, if you could use your intelligence in union with Christ instead of separate from Him -- I can't even imagine the impact for good you could have.  He is the Good Shepherd, He won't abandon you, but Lord how I pray you don't reject Him unto death.

Anyway, I would be interested in your take on religious liberty in light of what trads think about it.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 17, 2014, 10:04:48 AM
Thank you for the compliment. 

Trads think of religious liberty differently than secularists.  Trads are concerned that religious liberty will lead to indifferentism, this is because Trads think religious liberty means treating all religions the same because they are all equal.  This would mean there would be a carelessness about the truth.  I can understand that concern, as I love truth and would hate to see it tossed away like garbage.  However, I see religious liberty as merely eliminating force and violence from the search for truth.  No one is born knowing truth, and must discover it for himself.  That search must be done voluntarily and without coercion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on May 17, 2014, 10:14:32 AM
You do not love THE truth ( which would be Jesus Christ the Son...the Holy Spirit..and the Author of THE truth God the Father)...CF...you love YOUR truths...the ones that support YOUR suppositions. That is a very different thing. And while I agree in spirit with all the complimentary things the previous person said about you...I do not agree you love truth.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Lydia Purpuraria on May 17, 2014, 10:29:13 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 17, 2014, 10:04:48 AM
Thank you for the compliment. 

Trads think of religious liberty differently than secularists.  Trads are concerned that religious liberty will lead to indifferentism, this is because Trads think religious liberty means treating all religions the same because they are all equal.  This would mean there would be a carelessness about the truth.  I can understand that concern, as I love truth and would hate to see it tossed away like garbage.  However, I see religious liberty as merely eliminating force and violence from the search for truth.  No one is born knowing truth, and must discover it for himself.  That search must be done voluntarily and without coercion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You are welcome.

Again, did you already talk about how you went from being a Catholic in the seminary to no longer holding a Catholic Faith?  I am really interested in how this came about.  Please PM me if you would prefer not posting publicly or if you already have a post regarding this and can point me to it, I would really appreciate it.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 17, 2014, 07:28:21 PM

Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on May 17, 2014, 10:14:32 AM
You do not love THE truth ( which would be Jesus Christ the Son...the Holy Spirit..and the Author of THE truth God the Father)...CF...you love YOUR truths...the ones that support YOUR suppositions. That is a very different thing. And while I agree in spirit with all the complimentary things the previous person said about you...I do not agree you love truth.

Voxx, do you think truth is something to be sought out, or is all truth contained in the Bible?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on May 17, 2014, 08:03:40 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 17, 2014, 07:28:21 PM

Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on May 17, 2014, 10:14:32 AM
You do not love THE truth ( which would be Jesus Christ the Son...the Holy Spirit..and the Author of THE truth God the Father)...CF...you love YOUR truths...the ones that support YOUR suppositions. That is a very different thing. And while I agree in spirit with all the complimentary things the previous person said about you...I do not agree you love truth.

Voxx, do you think truth is something to be sought out, or is all truth contained in the Bible?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
God is truth and love. It cannot be contained it is everywhere present and fills all things. The Bible is absolutly true but it cannot be consider the container of all truth...not in the sense of your question. One can find many and enumable truths without the bible...but one cannot understand the bible without truth.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 17, 2014, 08:06:13 PM

Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on May 17, 2014, 08:03:40 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 17, 2014, 07:28:21 PM

Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on May 17, 2014, 10:14:32 AM
You do not love THE truth ( which would be Jesus Christ the Son...the Holy Spirit..and the Author of THE truth God the Father)...CF...you love YOUR truths...the ones that support YOUR suppositions. That is a very different thing. And while I agree in spirit with all the complimentary things the previous person said about you...I do not agree you love truth.

Voxx, do you think truth is something to be sought out, or is all truth contained in the Bible?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
God is truth and love. It cannot be contained it is everywhere present and fills all things. The Bible is absolutly true but it cannot be consider the container of all truth...not in the sense of your question. One can find many and enumable truths without the bible...but one cannot understand the bible without truth.

Where does one attain truth?  Is truth a noun or an adjective?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on May 17, 2014, 09:16:36 PM
QuoteNumbers are ideas, they are not actual things.
Numbers are not ideas.  They were discovered, not thought up.  Same with a triangle.  It was discovered, not thought up.

These things are real, as in realism, but they are not material.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 17, 2014, 11:04:35 PM

Quote from: james03 on May 17, 2014, 09:16:36 PM
QuoteNumbers are ideas, they are not actual things.
Numbers are not ideas.  They were discovered, not thought up.  Same with a triangle.  It was discovered, not thought up.

These things are real, as in realism, but they are not material.

Numbers integrate units into larger units.  A unit is a concept derived from similar concretes.  Units do not exist qua units, only concretes exist in a metaphysical way.  This means that numbers do not exist qua numbers, or in a metaphysical way, but only in an epistemological way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on May 18, 2014, 05:42:34 AM
Truth is a Person. Noun...something that is true is in harmoney with that Person...adjective....one attains truth by acknowledgment and ascent. Truth is a treasury of blessings..the bestower of Life...it dwells within us...it can cleanse us of all that defiles us.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on May 18, 2014, 09:01:14 AM
QuoteA unit is a concept derived from similar concretes.

Numbers were not "derived", they were discovered.  Same as a triangle or a circle.  WE did not set the rule of c = pi*D.  We discovered it.  And yes, they are not concrete (material).  They are immaterial facts.  They exist.  Which is not a problem for a realist, but a big problem for a materialist.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: lauermar on May 19, 2014, 10:09:15 AM
ALL TRUTH IS FOUND IN JESUS CHRIST ALONE. HE IS THE ONLY SOURCE OF TRUTH, NOT MAN. Christ Himself said that pride is a sin. The Holy Church lists it among the 7 deadly sins. It is infallible. It is not debatable.

Moderators, 52 pages is enough please. Clearly the OP's soul is resisting truth and no argument will ever be long enough, or persuasive enough, to convince him to listen to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Prayers and fasting for his conversion will suffice.

Here is my formal request for locking this thread.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 19, 2014, 02:41:56 PM
Quote from: lauermar on May 19, 2014, 10:09:15 AM
ALL TRUTH IS FOUND IN JESUS CHRIST ALONE. HE IS THE ONLY SOURCE OF TRUTH, NOT MAN. Christ Himself said that pride is a sin. The Holy Church lists it among the 7 deadly sins. It is infallible. It is not debatable.

Moderators, 52 pages is enough please. Clearly the OP's soul is resisting truth and no argument will ever be long enough, or persuasive enough, to convince him to listen to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Prayers and fasting for his conversion will suffice.

Here is my formal request for locking this thread.

This thread has gone into much more than just pride, we have discussed many issues here.  I have recently been contemplating a question on numbers from James03.  I have found this thread very helpful.  If the moderators wish to close it, I will understand, it is their option and I am only a guest here.  I have done my best not to insult my hosts, though sometimes I could have done better.  I would appreciate it if this thread were to stay open.  This way the moderators could keep all of the controversial topics here, and they wouldn't 'infect' the rest of the forum.  I'll understand either way though.

James03, I have been thinking about the issue at hand and haven't really come up with a satisfactory answer yet.  It seems to me that numbers are symbols for units, do you agree or disagree?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on May 19, 2014, 06:36:31 PM
No, it is not just a symbol.  It exists, though it is not material.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 19, 2014, 06:55:16 PM

Quote from: james03 on May 19, 2014, 06:36:31 PM
No, it is not just a symbol.  It exists, though it is not material.

That's not quite what I meant.  Things exist in reality, but people have created symbols to represent those things.  If there are three apples on my desk, the apples exist, but the symbol '3' is invented to represent that number of apples.  Any symbol could have been used to represent this number.  There are three concretes, and the number '3' is a symbol used to represent reality, it corresponds to reality.  But, there is no '3' in the world.  Does that make sense?  What do you think of that?

This is stretching my brain.  If the '3' exists in reality, in what manner does it exist?  How are we to classify it?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on May 19, 2014, 09:50:59 PM
While I appreciate luarimars frustration...I think the thread should stay unlocked. For the simple reason that it is good practice in discussing truth with the mindscrewed
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Non Nobis on May 19, 2014, 10:08:12 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 19, 2014, 06:55:16 PM

Quote from: james03 on May 19, 2014, 06:36:31 PM
No, it is not just a symbol.  It exists, though it is not material.

That's not quite what I meant.  Things exist in reality, but people have created symbols to represent those things.  If there are three apples on my desk, the apples exist, but the symbol '3' is invented to represent that number of apples.  Any symbol could have been used to represent this number.  There are three concretes, and the number '3' is a symbol used to represent reality, it corresponds to reality.  But, there is no '3' in the world.  Does that make sense?  What do you think of that?

This is stretching my brain.  If the '3' exists in reality, in what manner does it exist?  How are we to classify it?

I agree that the digit/character '3' is a representation of the number or numeric object "three" (not the word, but the three-ness seen in a number of apples or whatever).  (At some point you have to use common sense).  A particular group of substances has an "accident" (Aristotle) of type quantity, called "number", that exists in the group overall, even if it is not observed.  The idea of a particular number ("three-ness") is mentally abstracted from multiple such groups (e.g. when children learn to count).  So "number" may exist in things, or mentally, but abstracted from things.

My thoughts.

(I don't participate  often, but I think this thread could remain open, unless CF becomes too vicious in attacking the faith.  But moderators, decide for yourselves)
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on May 20, 2014, 05:00:56 AM
He is never vicious ...hes very polite. The only time I reported the thread was when he was dogmatically quoteing the crazy witch Rand.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on May 20, 2014, 07:53:02 AM
QuoteThis is stretching my brain.  If the '3' exists in reality, in what manner does it exist?  How are we to classify it?
Yes, the symbol "3" was invented, same with "III".  They represent the same "thing", which is an immaterial fact.  "philosophy of math" is not my strong point (not that I have any strong point in philosophy), in fact I only know the "problems" involved.   Read up on David Berlinski.

As a bonus,  a non-existent fact would be "the past".  You were born on such-and-such a date.  Does that "exist"?  Is it a "fact"?

An easier thing to discuss is the "triangle".  Which is a form.

The point of all of this is to show you that you made the right decision to go from materialism to realism.  Materialism is a subset of realism, but it is inadequate to describe the real world.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on May 20, 2014, 10:05:46 AM
Realism doesnt explain the universe either if the supernatural is swapped for the supranatural. The fsct that the question about God exists at all proves His existance and that we were created to find him as much as a duck was created to fly and swim.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on May 20, 2014, 10:52:07 AM
Realism leads to "a" God.  That is the necessary conclusion.  It's a start.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 20, 2014, 10:59:40 AM
What is supranatural?  I have heard of supernatural and preternatural, but not supranatural.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on May 20, 2014, 08:50:23 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 20, 2014, 10:59:40 AM
What is supranatural?  I have heard of supernatural and preternatural, but not supranatural.
It is what you support. It is a natural event or effect or substance beyond our understanding but part of nature none the less.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: JuniorCouncilor on May 20, 2014, 09:06:25 PM
Quote from: lauermar on May 19, 2014, 10:09:15 AM
Here is my formal request for locking this thread.

On the other hand, here is my formal request for CrimsonFlyboy to inform me when he has figured out women, since they are clearly predictable and soluble.

:hide:
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 20, 2014, 09:40:00 PM

Quote from: JuniorCouncilor on May 20, 2014, 09:06:25 PM
Quote from: lauermar on May 19, 2014, 10:09:15 AM
Here is my formal request for locking this thread.

On the other hand, here is my formal request for CrimsonFlyboy to inform me when he has figured out women, since they are clearly predictable and soluble.

:hide:

Humans have volition, and therefore cannot be predicted.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on May 20, 2014, 09:54:20 PM
most liberal democrats are extremely predictable.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on May 21, 2014, 05:52:03 AM
QuoteOn the other hand, here is my formal request for CrimsonFlyboy to inform me when he has figured out women, since they are clearly predictable and soluble.

Just follow my 2 basic rules, and you'll be alright:

1.  A woman ain't happy unless she has something to worry about.
2.  God had a reason for making flowers.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 21, 2014, 09:36:46 AM
Quote from: james03 on May 20, 2014, 10:52:07 AM
Realism leads to "a" God.  That is the necessary conclusion.  It's a start.

Please explain to me how realism leads to "a" god. 

(I use the under case because I am not making reference to the Christian God, but rather a non-specific god.)
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on May 21, 2014, 10:07:48 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 21, 2014, 09:36:46 AM
Quote from: james03 on May 20, 2014, 10:52:07 AM
Realism leads to "a" God.  That is the necessary conclusion.  It's a start.

Please explain to me how realism leads to "a" god. 

(I use the under case because I am not making reference to the Christian God, but rather a non-specific god.)
There is God or no god. This is where you are thinking shallow and flawed. Christian God is a redundant statement. Please...be still...clear your mind and really focus on the question
There can be no middle ground.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 21, 2014, 10:11:27 AM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on May 21, 2014, 10:07:48 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 21, 2014, 09:36:46 AM
Quote from: james03 on May 20, 2014, 10:52:07 AM
Realism leads to "a" God.  That is the necessary conclusion.  It's a start.

Please explain to me how realism leads to "a" god. 

(I use the under case because I am not making reference to the Christian God, but rather a non-specific god.)
There is God or no god. This is where you are thinking shallow and flawed. Christian God is a redundant statement. Please...be still...clear your mind and really focus on the question
There can be no middle ground.

James03 said realism leads to "a" God, but he is only referring to "a" god, not a specific god.  That makes the noun an improper noun, not a proper noun, and hence the lower case is used.  That's what he said.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: zork on May 21, 2014, 10:31:23 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 21, 2014, 10:11:27 AM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on May 21, 2014, 10:07:48 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 21, 2014, 09:36:46 AM
Quote from: james03 on May 20, 2014, 10:52:07 AM
Realism leads to "a" God.  That is the necessary conclusion.  It's a start.

Please explain to me how realism leads to "a" god. 

(I use the under case because I am not making reference to the Christian God, but rather a non-specific god.)

There is God or no god. This is where you are thinking shallow and flawed. Christian God is a redundant statement. Please...be still...clear your mind and really focus on the question
There can be no middle ground.

James03 said realism leads to "a" God, but he is only referring to "a" god, not a specific god.  That makes the noun an improper noun, not a proper noun, and hence the lower case is used.  That's what he said.

I noticed that too. Voxx, don't use this tangent as a gratuitous attack on Crimson Flyboy; here he was right to clarify how James03's post sounded by writing it as he did. There can be "a god" (fictionally, of course), but not "a God".
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 21, 2014, 10:51:39 AM
Thanks, zork.  I was making reference to grammatical rules.  So, according to Catholicism, realism leads to "a god", from there faith and revelation must take over.  Do I have it right?  So, the question is; how does realism lead to "a god"?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: zork on May 21, 2014, 11:02:25 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 21, 2014, 10:51:39 AM
Thanks, zork.  I was making reference to grammatical rules.  So, according to Catholicism, realism leads to "a god", from there faith and revelation must take over.  Do I have it right?  So, the question is; how does realism lead to "a god"?

You're welcome.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on May 22, 2014, 08:36:46 AM
Realism leads you to "a god".  He could be the jewish monotheistic god, or the Christian God, or He could be some other god.  He would have to be One, though this does not exclude the Trinitarian God,  He would have to be outside of time, pure spirit, omniscient and omnipotent, He would have to be Good, He would have to be sane, and He would have to be Loving.

Realism, accepting the Natural Law and logic, will take you that far.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on May 22, 2014, 08:42:48 AM
QuotePlease explain to me how realism leads to "a" god.
Are you now a committed Realist?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 22, 2014, 09:22:21 AM
Quote from: james03 on May 22, 2014, 08:42:48 AM
QuotePlease explain to me how realism leads to "a" god.
Are you now a committed Realist?

Yes, between realism, idealism, and nominalism, I am definitely a realist.  I hold that the universe and all in it exists regardless of what I think or wish, and it is my job to discover it, not create it.  As Ayn Rand said, "wishing won't make it so."
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 22, 2014, 09:54:58 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 22, 2014, 09:22:21 AM
Quote from: james03 on May 22, 2014, 08:42:48 AM
QuotePlease explain to me how realism leads to "a" god.
Are you now a committed Realist?

Yes, between realism, idealism, and nominalism, I am definitely a realist.  I hold that the universe and all in it exists regardless of what I think or wish, and it is my job to discover it, not create it.  As Ayn Rand said, "wishing won't make it so."

So, with that being said, how does realism lead to "a god"?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on May 22, 2014, 10:13:36 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 22, 2014, 09:54:58 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 22, 2014, 09:22:21 AM
Quote from: james03 on May 22, 2014, 08:42:48 AM
QuotePlease explain to me how realism leads to "a" god.
Are you now a committed Realist?

Yes, between realism, idealism, and nominalism, I am definitely a realist.  I hold that the universe and all in it exists regardless of what I think or wish, and it is my job to discover it, not create it.  As Ayn Rand said, "wishing won't make it so."

So, with that being said, how does realism lead to "a god"?
So if you found a carved wood rocking chair on mars would you safely assume it was left there by a "creator?"
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 22, 2014, 01:15:15 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on May 22, 2014, 10:13:36 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 22, 2014, 09:54:58 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 22, 2014, 09:22:21 AM
Quote from: james03 on May 22, 2014, 08:42:48 AM
QuotePlease explain to me how realism leads to "a" god.
Are you now a committed Realist?

Yes, between realism, idealism, and nominalism, I am definitely a realist.  I hold that the universe and all in it exists regardless of what I think or wish, and it is my job to discover it, not create it.  As Ayn Rand said, "wishing won't make it so."

So, with that being said, how does realism lead to "a god"?
So if you found a carved wood rocking chair on mars would you safely assume it was left there by a "creator?"

If I saw a carved wooden rocking chair on mars, it would definitely stand out.  The reason would be that there are no humans on Mars, so it would be strange.  I would be surrounded by the metaphysically given, and would have come across a man made object.  It would stand out as the only man made object, other than my space suit, on the planet.  So, yes I would assume that this rocking chair had been left there by a "creator", that is a man.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on May 22, 2014, 06:42:41 PM
Fine...so how much more complex is even the most primatve living organism than a wooden rocking chair? And what natural being is capable of fashioning such a complex object. Further...these organisms are found as far as we can tell on this planet only within billions of miles of observable space. Rwalism leads to God.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 22, 2014, 08:35:02 PM
Even the smallest and most primitive organism is much more complex than a wooden rocking chair.  But, this is actually why I doubt that any living organism was created.  I can see a wooden rocking chair being created by an intelligence, but not something as complex as a living organism.  The more complex something is, the less likely it is that its order was created by an intelligence.  Order doesn't naturally come from the top down, it comes from the bottom up.  The only time order does come from the top, is when it comes from an intelligence, that is from man.  But, this way is imposed and is strictly limited.  A top down method of creating order is much less efficient than a bottom up method of creating order.  The top down method can only do so much, which is a fraction of the bottom up method.  This bottom up method of creating order is called spontaneous order.  Order creates itself.  This is from my view of metaphysics.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Gardener on May 22, 2014, 08:53:43 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 22, 2014, 08:35:02 PM
Even the smallest and most primitive organism is much more complex than a wooden rocking chair.  But, this is actually why I doubt that any living organism was created.  I can see a wooden rocking chair being created by an intelligence, but not something as complex as a living organism.  The more complex something is, the less likely it is that its order was created by an intelligence.  Order doesn't naturally come from the top down, it comes from the bottom up.  The only time order does come from the top, is when it comes from an intelligence, that is from man.  But, this way is imposed and is strictly limited.  A top down method of creating order is much less efficient than a bottom up method of creating order.  The top down method can only do so much, which is a fraction of the bottom up method.  This bottom up method of creating order is called spontaneous order.  Order creates itself.  This is from my view of metaphysics.

But by this method you start with the presupposition of no Intelligent Being higher than man rather than arriving at that conclusion.

God is not some limited being, but rather IS Being; not measured of good but IS Good; etc.

Further, what if God started working from the bottom > middle > top?


Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 22, 2014, 09:49:53 PM
Order which is created by an intelligence is naturally more limited than order which comes about spontaneously.  Man, as an intelligent animal, creates order from the top down, but only on a very small scale.  Much more complex order comes about from the bottom up, and not from a single mind.  When there are many minds working together, they form more complex order from the bottom up.  But, the most complex order comes from no minds at all, but from the natural laws of the Universe.  Take a look at a galaxy, it is very complex, and yet is created by natural laws.  Any order which comes from an intelligent mind, is limited.  How could such complexity come from an intelligent mind?

How can God be being itself?  Can you really get your mind around such a concept?  Things exist, how do you say God is existence itself?  How is God not limited?  I had assumed that the universe was infinite in size, but I was given a very good argument against that.  A thing which is not limited is something which has no defining characteristics, which is something which has no identity, which is something which has no existence.  This is because to be is to be something, existence is identity.  To have an identity is to have characteristics and measurements, which means to be limited.

What I mean by bottom up order is that it does not come from a single intelligent mind.

The crux of the problem here seems to be a tendency to confuse the metaphysically given from the man made.  This is a common mistake.  A wooden rocking chair is man made, a tree is the metaphysically given.  An easy way of looking at it is that anything which is not man made is metaphysically given.  I know that the rocking chair is man made (a creator) because I know how rocking chairs are made.  If I come upon a new rocking chair, I can compare it to other rocking chairs I have seen in the past and conclude it is man made.  The Universe is different, as we know of only one.  I cannot compare it to a universe which was not created.  What is not man made is metaphysically given, it just is.  The problem I have with a created Universe is metaphysical, not epistemological.  Thoughts?

Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on May 23, 2014, 03:58:48 AM
The problem I have is your simply thrusting out your opinion as fact (not in evidence) and using this as the basis for your proof.."I say so...so it is so". Which is consistant since you place yourself as god. Its not just complexity in nature...its complexity that accomplishes a purpose effectively and efficently. DNA is information....information that does predictable and awsome things...information cannot spontainiously develope to such a complex effective degree. The rocking chair as created object is apparent because it has purpose and does something...it fits the tired human ass...it rocks wich soothes the human mind...it doesnt collapse when used ( unless misused). You just make shit up and wizzz straight pass the salient points that defeat your opinion. You are a jelous god and will have no gods before you. The rocking chair proves a creator ...so does the amoeba.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 23, 2014, 09:06:00 AM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on May 23, 2014, 03:58:48 AM
The problem I have is your simply thrusting out your opinion as fact (not in evidence) and using this as the basis for your proof.."I say so...so it is so". Which is consistant since you place yourself as god. Its not just complexity in nature...its complexity that accomplishes a purpose effectively and efficently. DNA is information....information that does predictable and awsome things...information cannot spontainiously develope to such a complex effective degree. The rocking chair as created object is apparent because it has purpose and does something...it fits the tired human ass...it rocks wich soothes the human mind...it doesnt collapse when used ( unless misused). You just make shit up and wizzz straight pass the salient points that defeat your opinion. You are a jelous god and will have no gods before you. The rocking chair proves a creator ...so does the amoeba.

I tried explaining that complex order doesn't come about by an intelligent mind.  This is because minds are naturally limited.  If a thing exists, it has identity.  To be is to be something, to be something is to have identity.  In other words, existence is identity.  If a thing is unbounded or unlimited, it has no identity.  This is because an unlimited thing has no defining measurements, a thing which is nothing in particular, is nothing.  A mind cannot create any kind of complex order, but only a very limited and imposed order.  Truth is stranger than fiction, the wonder of the Universe is much greater than anything man can dream up.  Man has a mind, which is necessarily limited, and cannot create the things which naturally exist in the Universe.  How could a single mind possibly create the entire Universe and all of the wonderful complexity in it?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on May 23, 2014, 09:38:25 AM
QuoteOrder which is created by an intelligence is naturally more limited than order which comes about spontaneously.

So you admit there is order which comes about spontaneously.  However the Second LAW of Thermodynamics states that this is impossible.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on May 23, 2014, 09:42:38 AM
QuoteYes, between realism, idealism, and nominalism, I am definitely a realist.  I hold that the universe and all in it exists regardless of what I think or wish, and it is my job to discover it, not create it.

And you also agree that there are immaterial things that exist?  An example, Justice.  Would you agree that a proper economic  system has to be based on Justice?  That in order for there to be Justice, you must be paid and be able to keep what you are owed, and that only a trade where we exchange value for value is just?  Therefore you believe that "justice" exists?

From there, would you admit "an ability to be owed" as something that exists?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 23, 2014, 09:46:19 AM
Quote from: james03 on May 23, 2014, 09:42:38 AM
QuoteYes, between realism, idealism, and nominalism, I am definitely a realist.  I hold that the universe and all in it exists regardless of what I think or wish, and it is my job to discover it, not create it.

And you also agree that there are immaterial things that exist?  An example, Justice.  Would you agree that a proper economic  system has to be based on Justice?  That in order for there to be Justice, you must be paid and be able to keep what you are owed, and that only a trade where we exchange value for value is just?  Therefore you believe that "justice" exists?

From there, would you admit "an ability to be owed" as something that exists?

As far as materialism, monism, and dualism is concerned; I haven't the slightest idea what is right.  I know that doesn't sound very pleasing, but it is true.

Yes, I do believe in justice.  I base justice on rights, as man has the right to the product of his labor, whether mental or physical.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 23, 2014, 10:01:31 AM
So, I have been informed that I am being banned in a week.  I understand this, as the owners of Suscipe Domine have property rights and are entitled to ban me if they want.  I take no offense, and have enjoyed the ride.  I have enjoyed y'all's hospitality, and wish to leave on a positive note.  I have learned a lot from y'all, and hope you can say the same.  If y'all want to contact me, you may do so at crimsonflyboy@yahoo.com.  I also post on the forum ObjectivistLiving.com under the name The Outsider.

P.S. james03, Newton's second law of thermodynamics deals with isolated systems, the Universe is not an isolated system.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on May 23, 2014, 12:08:30 PM
QuoteYes, I do believe in justice.

What about the underlying premise, that there exists this ability to be owed?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 23, 2014, 12:12:26 PM

Quote from: james03 on May 23, 2014, 12:08:30 PM
QuoteYes, I do believe in justice.

What about the underlying premise, that there exists this ability to be owed?

Yes, there exists a right to be owed.  But, be careful here, no one is inherently owed, or owed by his/her existence.  I'm sure you don't mean that, but care is needed as that is a popular sentiment today.  One is owed what one earns.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on May 23, 2014, 12:14:54 PM
Where does this "ability to be owed" come from?  To use an example, a man  does a job, but is not paid.  We both agree that this is injustice as he was not paid what he is owed.  What is this "ability to be owed"?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: rbjmartin on May 23, 2014, 12:31:19 PM
Quote from: james03 on May 23, 2014, 12:14:54 PM
Where does this "ability to be owed" come from?  To use an example, a man  does a job, but is not paid.  We both agree that this is injustice as he was not paid what he is owed.  What is this "ability to be owed"?

This is a good point. There is no "owing" in nature.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 23, 2014, 01:24:55 PM
We've gone over this a thousand times, but I clearly haven't expressed myself very well.  I agree with y'all that morality exists, that it is very important, and that it must be grounded in something objective.  I am disgusted by most atheists, as they reject wholeheartedly any notion of objective morality.  Most atheists just reject God, and then spend no time asking what they actually think is true.  I don't like the term 'atheist' because it says nothing about what one actually thinks, I am an Objectivist.

The ability to be owed comes from the right to property.  I, as a man, have the right to the product of my labor.  If I contract with someone, and I do the job as agreed upon, then I am owed the amount of money which we agreed to.  At the most basic, human rights are based upon the law of identity, A is A and man is man.  Every man has a nature, a human-ness if you will.  As a man, I have a decision to make, to live or not to live.  If I choose to live, my nature demands that I pursue certain values.  I must pursue food, water, shelter, clothes, and a host of other values in order to remain alive.  If I am to live, I must have the ability to make my own decisions, as I must use my reason in order to live.  I cannot live on instincts alone, like the animals.  This is the right to liberty.  I also must produce the things that I need in order to live, as I will not find them lying around on the ground.  I have a right to produce values, and those values are mine as I made them.  I have a right to property.  Why am I pursuing these values?  I am doing so in order to live.  The moral standard of value for man is his life.  Morality gives man a path to sustain and further his life.  This, of course, all revolves around the right to live, which derives from the law of identity.  It is in man's very nature to live, and if a man chooses not to live, morality has no purpose to him.  From the law of identity we can deduce the rights to the pursuit of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.  The pursuit of happiness comes from the fact that man's natural purpose in living is to be happy.  The answer to the question 'why should a man live?' is in order to be happy.  These rights are grounded in the law of identity, which is implied in the very act of perceiving the world around us.  The law of identity cannot be denied without implicitly using the law of identity in the attack.  This is how morality is grounded in objective facts, which is very important.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 23, 2014, 02:13:58 PM
Some more on morality: consider a bank robber.  He has all of his material needs taken care of.  He has a wife, children, a beautiful home, a nice car, and is never in want.  But, can this man live a happy life?  I contend that he cannot.  He will always have to live a lie, he cannot tell anyone how he comes by his money.  His wife does not know, and so he lies to her.  Because he lies to her, he cannot be as intimate with her as he would if he were not keeping a lie from her.  This hampers his relationship with her, they cannot grow as close.  She hurts from this as well, as she has a distant husband.  He lives in fear that she will find out who he is, and that she will leave him, or even worse, that she won't.  She doesn't really love him, because she doesn't really know him.  What would it say about their relationship if she stayed after discovering the truth?  It would prove that she doesn't really love him, and probably never did.  The man she thought he was is gone, and she still wants to stay with him.  She loves the material things he gives her more than she loves him, how tragic.  He is desperate that his children never find out, so he can never really love them fully.  They grow up never really feeling loved, and hence can never love anyone else either.  Remember, nemo dat quod non habet.  This creates a terrible cycle.  Since he has to hide himself, he never provides value to others.  He cannot provide value to others, as he has no value to give.  He is a worthless man, and he knows it.  He hates himself and cannot be happy, and he should hate himself, because he is worthy of hatred.  His actions have destroyed him, even if he is never caught.

Morality leads to a good life, immorality leads to a bad life.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on May 23, 2014, 03:20:16 PM
QuoteThe ability to be owed comes from the right to property.  I, as a man, have the right to the product of my labor
You are begging the question.  The right to property comes from the ability to be owed.  Justice comes from the ability to be owed.  So where does this ability to be owed come from?  If you can't answer, then say so, don't go off on a monologue on extraneous topics.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on May 23, 2014, 03:21:43 PM
QuoteThis is a good point. There is no "owing" in nature.

Josef Pieper, The Four Cardinal Virtues, under "Justice".  I ripped him off.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 23, 2014, 03:25:01 PM

Quote from: james03 on May 23, 2014, 03:20:16 PM
QuoteThe ability to be owed comes from the right to property.  I, as a man, have the right to the product of my labor
You are begging the question.  The right to property comes from the ability to be owed.  Justice comes from the ability to be owed.  So where does this ability to be owed come from?  If you can't answer, then say so, don't go off on a monologue on extraneous topics.

The ability to be owed comes from the right to property, not the other way around.  That is in no way begging the question.  Nothing I said was extraneous, it was all backing up the right to property.

You really don't pay attention to a word I type, I am speaking to a wall.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on May 23, 2014, 03:30:44 PM
Stating that there is a right to property certainly is begging the question.

The right to property is firmly established in Justice, which is based on the ability to be owed.  If I work, I am owed the agreed upon wage.  I then exchange the wage for some property.  I am owed that property in exchange for my wage.  It becomes my due.  Now that I have possession of that property, it is mine, and no one may take it, since I don't owe it to them.  Therefore the right to property ultimately is derived from the ability to be owed.

So the question remains, what is this ability to be owed?  From whence does it arise?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 23, 2014, 03:44:38 PM
This is why I said that you don't read what I write.  I backed up the right to property and you ignored it.  If you disagree, then say why.  But, I clearly backed it up, which you deny.

If I work a job, I get paid as a trade.  I am trading the value I produce for money.  I have a right to the product of my labor, which I trade.  How do you speak of being owed anything, with no mention of rights?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on May 23, 2014, 03:47:35 PM
QuoteI have a right to the product of my labor, which I trade.

That is begging the question.  Where have you established this right?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 23, 2014, 03:51:14 PM

Quote from: james03 on May 23, 2014, 03:47:35 PM
QuoteI have a right to the product of my labor, which I trade.

That is begging the question.  Where have you established this right?

I established this right above, which you clearly did not read.  If you had read what I wrote, you would at least take issue with my argument.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 23, 2014, 03:59:54 PM

Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 23, 2014, 01:24:55 PM
We've gone over this a thousand times, but I clearly haven't expressed myself very well.  I agree with y'all that morality exists, that it is very important, and that it must be grounded in something objective.  I am disgusted by most atheists, as they reject wholeheartedly any notion of objective morality.  Most atheists just reject God, and then spend no time asking what they actually think is true.  I don't like the term 'atheist' because it says nothing about what one actually thinks, I am an Objectivist.

The ability to be owed comes from the right to property.  I, as a man, have the right to the product of my labor.  If I contract with someone, and I do the job as agreed upon, then I am owed the amount of money which we agreed to.  At the most basic, human rights are based upon the law of identity, A is A and man is man.  Every man has a nature, a human-ness if you will.  As a man, I have a decision to make, to live or not to live.  If I choose to live, my nature demands that I pursue certain values.  I must pursue food, water, shelter, clothes, and a host of other values in order to remain alive.  If I am to live, I must have the ability to make my own decisions, as I must use my reason in order to live.  I cannot live on instincts alone, like the animals.  This is the right to liberty.  I also must produce the things that I need in order to live, as I will not find them lying around on the ground.  I have a right to produce values, and those values are mine as I made them.  I have a right to property.  Why am I pursuing these values?  I am doing so in order to live.  The moral standard of value for man is his life.  Morality gives man a path to sustain and further his life.  This, of course, all revolves around the right to live, which derives from the law of identity.  It is in man's very nature to live, and if a man chooses not to live, morality has no purpose to him.  From the law of identity we can deduce the rights to the pursuit of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.  The pursuit of happiness comes from the fact that man's natural purpose in living is to be happy.  The answer to the question 'why should a man live?' is in order to be happy.  These rights are grounded in the law of identity, which is implied in the very act of perceiving the world around us.  The law of identity cannot be denied without implicitly using the law of identity in the attack.  This is how morality is grounded in objective facts, which is very important.

If you want to disagree with me, then take issue with what I wrote.  Read.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on May 23, 2014, 05:57:09 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 23, 2014, 01:24:55 PM
We've gone over this a thousand times, but I clearly haven't expressed myself very well.  I agree with y'all that morality exists, that it is very important, and that it must be grounded in something objective.  I am disgusted by most atheists, as they reject wholeheartedly any notion of objective morality.  Most atheists just reject God, and then spend no time asking what they actually think is true.  I don't like the term 'atheist' because it says nothing about what one actually thinks, I am an Objectivist.

The ability to be owed comes from the right to property.  I, as a man, have the right to the product of my labor.  If I contract with someone, and I do the job as agreed upon, then I am owed the amount of money which we agreed to.  At the most basic, human rights are based upon the law of identity, A is A and man is man.  Every man has a nature, a human-ness if you will.  As a man, I have a decision to make, to live or not to live.  If I choose to live, my nature demands that I pursue certain values.  I must pursue food, water, shelter, clothes, and a host of other values in order to remain alive.  If I am to live, I must have the ability to make my own decisions, as I must use my reason in order to live.  I cannot live on instincts alone, like the animals.  This is the right to liberty.  I also must produce the things that I need in order to live, as I will not find them lying around on the ground.  I have a right to produce values, and those values are mine as I made them.  I have a right to property.  Why am I pursuing these values?  I am doing so in order to live.  The moral standard of value for man is his life.  Morality gives man a path to sustain and further his life.  This, of course, all revolves around the right to live, which derives from the law of identity.  It is in man's very nature to live, and if a man chooses not to live, morality has no purpose to him.  From the law of identity we can deduce the rights to the pursuit of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.  The pursuit of happiness comes from the fact that man's natural purpose in living is to be happy.  The answer to the question 'why should a man live?' is in order to be happy.  These rights are grounded in the law of identity, which is implied in the very act of perceiving the world around us.  The law of identity cannot be denied without implicitly using the law of identity in the attack.  This is how morality is grounded in objective facts, which is very important.
all youve said here (and Ive read it several times) is these things are true because I say they are true.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 23, 2014, 06:05:53 PM
If you have read what I wrote, then explain why you think I'm wrong.  Do you deny the law of identity?  Do you deny human nature?  Do you deny that rights derive from the law of identity?  If so, why?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on May 23, 2014, 06:38:54 PM
QuoteI established this right above, which you clearly did not read.

I'll rephrase.  You are using circular reasoning.  It boils down to "Rights come from.....I have a right".

And I'll rephrase the question:  You have a GOAL to live.  That is your want, not a right (from an atheist standpoint, obviously a Catholic would not agree).  That's really nice.  Now how can you make a claim on someone else?  For example, where does your moral sanction come from to say I can't take your property?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 23, 2014, 06:58:40 PM
Of course I have a goal to live, and I have a right to pursue that goal.  If you don't think that you have a right to live, why are you doing so?  You seem to be just denying anything I say, because it comes from me.

What you describe isn't circular reasoning, it is grounding rights in reality.  You have to posit a proper basis for rights, if they are to be proven to be real.  Rights are bass on the law of identity.

You can't make a claim on someone else.  You don't own other people.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 23, 2014, 07:02:01 PM
Here is a cartoon on the non-aggression principle.  Obviously, it is not scholarly, but it is funny and makes a good point.
The non-aggression principle is the basis of politics, and is based on the right to live.

http://youtu.be/RHe4OQ4bY4o
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on May 23, 2014, 07:14:57 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 23, 2014, 06:05:53 PM
If you have read what I wrote, then explain why you think I'm wrong.  Do you deny the law of identity?  Do you deny human nature?  Do you deny that rights derive from the law of identity?  If so, why?
Yes I deny all of it because you deny the need for a creator of these things which is just moronic. If there is a law ANY law there MUST be a lawgiver. You deny this...that is insane.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on May 23, 2014, 07:16:54 PM
QuoteOf course I have a goal to live, and I have a right to pursue that goal.  If you don't think that you have a right to live, why are you doing so?
Where have you established that you have a right to pursue your goal?  Again, you are using circular reasoning.  I have a right.....because I have rights.  Of course a Catholic believes he has a right to live.  And he can establish it from first principles, because he believes in God.

QuoteYou can't make a claim on someone else.  You don't own other people.
Now you have contradicted yourself.  If you can't make a claim on someone else, then you can't claim that they pay you.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 23, 2014, 07:17:34 PM

Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on May 23, 2014, 07:14:57 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 23, 2014, 06:05:53 PM
If you have read what I wrote, then explain why you think I'm wrong.  Do you deny the law of identity?  Do you deny human nature?  Do you deny that rights derive from the law of identity?  If so, why?
Yes I deny all of it because you deny the need for a creator of these things which is just moronic. If there is a law ANY law there MUST be a lawgiver. You deny this...that is insane.

Brilliant, thanks for finally saying it.  You will deny anything I say, because I don't believe in your God.  I appreciate your honesty.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 23, 2014, 07:18:54 PM

Quote from: james03 on May 23, 2014, 07:16:54 PM
QuoteOf course I have a goal to live, and I have a right to pursue that goal.  If you don't think that you have a right to live, why are you doing so?
Where have you established that you have a right to pursue your goal?  Again, you are using circular reasoning.  I have a right.....because I have rights.  Of course a Catholic believes he has a right to live.  And he can establish it from first principles, because he believes in God.

QuoteYou can't make a claim on someone else.  You don't own other people.
Now you have contradicted yourself.  If you can't make a claim on someone else, then you can't claim that they pay you.

I don't make a claim on someone else when I trade with that person.

The right to live is an axiom, and it cannot be denied.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on May 23, 2014, 07:20:06 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 23, 2014, 07:17:34 PM

Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on May 23, 2014, 07:14:57 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 23, 2014, 06:05:53 PM
If you have read what I wrote, then explain why you think I'm wrong.  Do you deny the law of identity?  Do you deny human nature?  Do you deny that rights derive from the law of identity?  If so, why?
Yes I deny all of it because you deny the need for a creator of these things which is just moronic. If there is a law ANY law there MUST be a lawgiver. You deny this...that is insane.

Brilliant, thanks for finally saying it.  You will deny anything I say, because I don't believe in your God.  I appreciate your honesty.
No not what I said...you WISH I said that. I said you deny that there must be a lawgiver for a law to exist. That is insane.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on May 23, 2014, 07:24:57 PM
QuoteThe right to live is an axiom, and it cannot be denied.
It is easily denied.  If you believe this, stop eating.  Cows and plants are killed all the time so you can eat.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 23, 2014, 07:27:52 PM

Quote from: james03 on May 23, 2014, 07:24:57 PM
QuoteThe right to live is an axiom, and it cannot be denied.
It is easily denied.  If you believe this, stop eating.  Cows and plants are killed all the time so you can eat.

The right to live is not the same as invincibility.  I can't fathom how you would confuse the two.  You have a right to pursue life because it is in your nature, you don't have a right to live forever because it is not in your nature.

If you believe that you don't have a right to live, then stop doing so.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on May 23, 2014, 07:41:58 PM
I'll repeat, of course I believe I have a right to live.  And as a Catholic, I can establish it.  Consider that point settled.  Catholics believe we have a right to live.

QuoteYou have a right to pursue life because it is in your nature, you don't have a right to live
More begging the question, or if you prefer, circular reasoning.  You have a right to pursue life because it is in your nature to have a right to pursue life.

So why am I allowed to kill a cow?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: JuniorCouncilor on May 23, 2014, 07:50:11 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 20, 2014, 09:40:00 PM
Humans have volition, and therefore cannot be predicted.

I guess I shouldn't argue too hard with you, since you're right.  Nonetheless, I don't see how that fits otherwise with your worldview.  'The universe is ruled by laws, and is thus predictable and soluble.'  Well, humans are a part of that universe.  Arguably the most important (visible) part.  It's awfully strange to me to say that the universe is predictable and soluble but then the most important visible part of it isn't.

Besides which, this volition is based on rationality, no?  If so, then the decisions made should be rational.  This should also be true, again, because humans are part of the universe and thus subject to natural law, thus predictable and soluble (according to your worldview, as it seems to me that it must be in order to be consistent).

The reality, of course, is that we know that humans aren't always rational about their volition-- so why should we suppose they will ever be so rational as to solve the universe, which would seem to be a much more difficult problem?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 23, 2014, 07:58:03 PM
Sometimes men do not act rationally, but they always have the ability to do so.  While much of the population is very stupid, there are men do science who are remarkably intelligent.  These men have and will continue to solve extremely difficult problems.

Even in your worldview, I would imagine that you wouldn't accept that God would put a puzzle in front of us that we can't solve, especially since he made us with a nature that makes us incredibly inquisitive.  Man naturally wants to know, why put a puzzle in front of him without giving him the means to solve it?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on May 23, 2014, 07:59:38 PM
So why do I have a right to kill a cow?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 23, 2014, 08:02:17 PM

Quote from: james03 on May 23, 2014, 07:59:38 PM
So why do I have a right to kill a cow?

Because a cow is an animal, and has no rights.  It is an asset, a piece of meat.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on May 23, 2014, 08:14:28 PM
But a cow is alive.  Therefore the right to life is not axiomatic.  Proven.

Which means you don't have a right to pursue a goal of life based on this premise.  Which returns us to the ability to be owed.  Which you can't explain.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 23, 2014, 08:33:30 PM
This has become beyond silly.

Here is another great video: http://youtu.be/fasTSY-dB-s
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: JuniorCouncilor on May 23, 2014, 08:34:50 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 23, 2014, 07:58:03 PM
Sometimes men do not act rationally, but they always have the ability to do so.  While much of the population is very stupid, there are men do science who are remarkably intelligent.  These men have and will continue to solve extremely difficult problems.

Even in your worldview, I would imagine that you wouldn't accept that God would put a puzzle in front of us that we can't solve, especially since he made us with a nature that makes us incredibly inquisitive.  Man naturally wants to know, why put a puzzle in front of him without giving him the means to solve it?

Man is finite.  Some puzzles are just too big for him.  And a sense of mystery is good for him.  A know-it-all loses his capacity for wonder.

To shift into Aristotelian terminology, you might say that most enigmata are potentially soluble, but not actually soluble (kind of like the solution to Zeno's paradox).
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 23, 2014, 08:36:17 PM
Would you place a piece of candy in front of a baby, but not let the baby eat it?  If not, why would God?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 23, 2014, 08:43:02 PM
We are slaves to the state: http://youtu.be/Xbp6umQT58A
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on May 23, 2014, 08:48:31 PM
QuoteThis has become beyond silly.

No, it is not silly.  You are going to hell.  That is not silly at all.

You have no premise to base your beliefs.  You know that, because you have to bail every time you face that fact.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 23, 2014, 09:08:04 PM
The entire world is silly if you really think about it.  We let idiots in government control us with violence, and we accept this as necessary.  We are lied to on a daily basis, and we ignore it.  Everything I have ever been told is a lie.  The average man in this country is a bumbling idiot, and doesn't care either.  He cares more about American Idol than he does about philosophy.  He hates truth and loves lies, this is the American citizen.  This is all beyond silly, and it is amazing that almost no one sees it.  Try speaking the truth to the public, and see how much hatred you bring down upon yourself.  In a world of lies, truth is seen as a lie.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on May 23, 2014, 09:19:34 PM
QuoteThe entire world is silly if you really think about it.  We let idiots in government control us with violence, and we accept this as necessary.
The world is perfectly rational.  High points were reached when men knew how to think.  This was based on the Aristotelean premise that Truth, Justice, Beauty, and Love were due to a Prime Mover and First Cause.

Then came the atheists who denied the First Cause and inserted Materialism.  So there is no longer a basis to believe in Truth, or Justice, or Beauty, or Love.  After the rise of atheism, the logical, necessary results followed.  Perfectly rational.  It is irrational to expect anything else to result.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 23, 2014, 09:26:10 PM
Xenophanes (sixth century BCE) famously said that if cows and horses had hands, "then horses would draw the forms of gods like horses, and cows like cows."  This man lived before Aristotle.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: ResRev on May 23, 2014, 09:32:09 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 23, 2014, 09:08:04 PM
The entire world is silly if you really think about it.  We let idiots in government control us with violence, and we accept this as necessary.  We are lied to on a daily basis, and we ignore it.  Everything I have ever been told is a lie.  The average man in this country is a bumbling idiot, and doesn't care either.  He cares more about American Idol than he does about philosophy.  He hates truth and loves lies, this is the American citizen.  This is all beyond silly, and it is amazing that almost no one sees it.  Try speaking the truth to the public, and see how much hatred you bring down upon yourself.  In a world of lies, truth is seen as a lie.
Absolutely. I see that every day. Do you think there was a time when this wasn't so? (Not rhetorical, here). Or not so...painfully so? If there were such a time, what has changed?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on May 23, 2014, 10:22:14 PM
QuoteThis man lived before Aristotle.
And Aristotle did not draw the forms of God as man.  Instead he derived the forms of man from the forms of God.  Plato believed we could never perfectly understand the forms of God.

That is why Aristotle's Prime Mover does not resemble zeus.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on May 23, 2014, 10:29:44 PM
Interesting quote from Xenophanes.  Seems like he was arguing against polytheism, but had a Platonic belief in the One God.

Quote from: Xenophanes"One god, greatest among gods and humans, like mortals neither in form nor in thought."
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Non Nobis on May 23, 2014, 10:38:10 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 23, 2014, 08:36:17 PM
Would you place a piece of candy in front of a baby, but not let the baby eat it?  If not, why would God?

This leads to a proof for God, at least for an optimist.  Man desires more than the world can give him or he can give himself; questions that can't be answered here, love that is unfulfilled, desire for more beauty and truth than man can reach.  The pessimist atheist says tough, that is the way it is, enjoy what you've got, the problem is soluble, too bad if you never solve it.  The optimist who believes in God knows that God is the answer, the source of all that is desired, and that God in heaven will be what we are only reaching for on earth. God does let the baby eat the candy, the universe does not.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 23, 2014, 10:46:44 PM

Quote from: ResRev on May 23, 2014, 09:32:09 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 23, 2014, 09:08:04 PM
The entire world is silly if you really think about it.  We let idiots in government control us with violence, and we accept this as necessary.  We are lied to on a daily basis, and we ignore it.  Everything I have ever been told is a lie.  The average man in this country is a bumbling idiot, and doesn't care either.  He cares more about American Idol than he does about philosophy.  He hates truth and loves lies, this is the American citizen.  This is all beyond silly, and it is amazing that almost no one sees it.  Try speaking the truth to the public, and see how much hatred you bring down upon yourself.  In a world of lies, truth is seen as a lie.
Absolutely. I see that every day. Do you think there was a time when this wasn't so? (Not rhetorical, here). Or not so...painfully so? If there were such a time, what has changed?

Probably not.  I doubt there was ever a time when people were that much different than today.  The study of philosophy will cause a man to wake up and realize he is living in an insane asylum.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 23, 2014, 10:52:25 PM

Quote from: ResRev on May 23, 2014, 09:32:09 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 23, 2014, 09:08:04 PM
The entire world is silly if you really think about it.  We let idiots in government control us with violence, and we accept this as necessary.  We are lied to on a daily basis, and we ignore it.  Everything I have ever been told is a lie.  The average man in this country is a bumbling idiot, and doesn't care either.  He cares more about American Idol than he does about philosophy.  He hates truth and loves lies, this is the American citizen.  This is all beyond silly, and it is amazing that almost no one sees it.  Try speaking the truth to the public, and see how much hatred you bring down upon yourself.  In a world of lies, truth is seen as a lie.
Absolutely. I see that every day. Do you think there was a time when this wasn't so? (Not rhetorical, here). Or not so...painfully so? If there were such a time, what has changed?

You might be interested in the video above, which is entitled 'the story of your enslavement.'
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 24, 2014, 11:58:32 AM
The society in which we live is immoral to the core:  http://youtu.be/H8TI-pm0m2o
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 24, 2014, 12:56:22 PM

Quote from: Non Nobis on May 23, 2014, 10:38:10 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 23, 2014, 08:36:17 PM
Would you place a piece of candy in front of a baby, but not let the baby eat it?  If not, why would God?

This leads to a proof for God, at least for an optimist.  Man desires more than the world can give him or he can give himself; questions that can't be answered here, love that is unfulfilled, desire for more beauty and truth than man can reach.  The pessimist atheist says tough, that is the way it is, enjoy what you've got, the problem is soluble, too bad if you never solve it.  The optimist who believes in God knows that God is the answer, the source of all that is desired, and that God in heaven will be what we are only reaching for on earth. God does let the baby eat the candy, the universe does not.

I have heard this argument before, usually it's called the God sized hole.  You have a hole in you that cannot be filled, it is the 'size' and 'shape' (metaphorically speaking) of God.  We all have a longing for something that will give our lives purpose, and this need can be fulfilled by children, a career, or some kind of cause.  You see people trying to fulfill this need all the time.  A couple who can't have children will put a great deal of time and money into their pets.  A man who who feels unfulfilled by his job will put a lot of time and money into a hobby, a cause, or will become very religious.  I know about this first hand.  I have never cared much for my job, so I have tried finding fulfillment in many other areas.  I worked as a pilot in southern Florida, studied to be a priest in Minnesota, raced cars, became a master scuba diver, and even jumped out of a plane.  Nothing I tried in the past worked, but I have solved the problem.  The answer lies in philosophy, a good philosophy should give you guidelines to living a good life.  Ever since I began studying Objectivism my life has improved.  I still have much to learn, but I am making progress.  I am more active, I'm losing weight, and I have never been happier.  I am, however, still very lonely.  Once I get myself back into good shape, I will find a wife and start a life with her.  I'm going back to mass, to spend time with my grandmother, and I am taking bible classes.  I am very optimistic about the future now, and it is because of philosophy.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on May 24, 2014, 03:30:47 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 24, 2014, 12:56:22 PM

Quote from: Non Nobis on May 23, 2014, 10:38:10 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 23, 2014, 08:36:17 PM
Would you place a piece of candy in front of a baby, but not let the baby eat it?  If not, why would God?

This leads to a proof for God, at least for an optimist.  Man desires more than the world can give him or he can give himself; questions that can't be answered here, love that is unfulfilled, desire for more beauty and truth than man can reach.  The pessimist atheist says tough, that is the way it is, enjoy what you've got, the problem is soluble, too bad if you never solve it.  The optimist who believes in God knows that God is the answer, the source of all that is desired, and that God in heaven will be what we are only reaching for on earth. God does let the baby eat the candy, the universe does not.

I have heard this argument before, usually it's called the God sized hole.  You have a hole in you that cannot be filled, it is the 'size' and 'shape' (metaphorically speaking) of God.  We all have a longing for something that will give our lives purpose, and this need can be fulfilled by children, a career, or some kind of cause.  You see people trying to fulfill this need all the time.  A couple who can't have children will put a great deal of time and money into their pets.  A man who who feels unfulfilled by his job will put a lot of time and money into a hobby, a cause, or will become very religious.  I know about this first hand.  I have never cared much for my job, so I have tried finding fulfillment in many other areas.  I worked as a pilot in southern Florida, studied to be a priest in Minnesota, raced cars, became a master scuba diver, and even jumped out of a plane.  Nothing I tried in the past worked, but I have solved the problem.  The answer lies in philosophy, a good philosophy should give you guidelines to living a good life.  Ever since I began studying Objectivism my life has improved.  I still have much to learn, but I am making progress.  I am more active, I'm losing weight, and I have never been happier.  I am, however, still very lonely.  Once I get myself back into good shape, I will find a wife and start a life with her.  I'm going back to mass, to spend time with my grandmother, and I am taking bible classes.  I am very optimistic about the future now, and it is because of philosophy.
The final part of this post is the best thing you wrote in all 50+ pages.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 24, 2014, 03:34:07 PM
Thank you, Voxx.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on May 24, 2014, 03:47:11 PM
QuoteI'm going back to mass, to spend time with my grandmother, and I am taking bible classes.

Deo Gratias.

Now read my book so you don't backslide.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 24, 2014, 03:53:12 PM
Don't get me wrong, I still don't believe in God.  I am going to mass in order to spend time with my grandmother.  I am taking bible classes at a Protestant church, because my aunt and uncle attend and I would like to know more about the bible.  I think it is good to know about the bible since it dominates our culture.  If I had lived in Ancient Greece, I would have studied the Iliad and the Odyssey.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 24, 2014, 04:36:08 PM
The following video explains the violence of the state.  We should all strive to live in a peaceful society.

George ought to help: http://youtu.be/PGMQZEIXBMs
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on May 24, 2014, 05:03:05 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 24, 2014, 03:53:12 PM
Don't get me wrong, I still don't believe in God.  I am going to mass in order to spend time with my grandmother.  I am taking bible classes at a Protestant church, because my aunt and uncle attend and I would like to know more about the bible.  I think it is good to know about the bible since it dominates our culture.  If I had lived in Ancient Greece, I would have studied the Iliad and the Odyssey.
believing in God is up to God not you...my optimism is based on the fact you will be in the same proximity with God himself when you join your Grandmother....(pretty shitty to use your granny like that though....and the protty bible study...which will be wrong anyway)
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 24, 2014, 05:08:17 PM

Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on May 24, 2014, 05:03:05 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 24, 2014, 03:53:12 PM
Don't get me wrong, I still don't believe in God.  I am going to mass in order to spend time with my grandmother.  I am taking bible classes at a Protestant church, because my aunt and uncle attend and I would like to know more about the bible.  I think it is good to know about the bible since it dominates our culture.  If I had lived in Ancient Greece, I would have studied the Iliad and the Odyssey.
believing in God is up to God not you...my optimism is based on the fact you will be in the same proximity with God himself when you join your Grandmother....(pretty shitty to use your granny like that though....and the protty bible study...which will be wrong anyway)

Why would it be shitty to spend time with my grandmother?  And how am I using her?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on May 24, 2014, 05:16:53 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 24, 2014, 05:08:17 PM

Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on May 24, 2014, 05:03:05 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 24, 2014, 03:53:12 PM
Don't get me wrong, I still don't believe in God.  I am going to mass in order to spend time with my grandmother.  I am taking bible classes at a Protestant church, because my aunt and uncle attend and I would like to know more about the bible.  I think it is good to know about the bible since it dominates our culture.  If I had lived in Ancient Greece, I would have studied the Iliad and the Odyssey.
believing in God is up to God not you...my optimism is based on the fact you will be in the same proximity with God himself when you join your Grandmother....(pretty shitty to use your granny like that though....and the protty bible study...which will be wrong anyway)

Why would it be shitty to spend time with my grandmother?  And how am I using her?
why are you going to mass with her if you dont believe in God? Does she know this? You could just spend time with her anywhere....but she believes in God and she loves her grandson...who doesn't honor her because he rejects God.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 24, 2014, 05:23:47 PM
I don't think she believes in God either.  She has said she doesn't care what the pope says, she rejects all Catholic dogmas, she is super Novus Ordo, and she almost never speaks about religion, and when she does it is to criticize The Church.  She has told me that she wants married priests and women priests.  She expects the mass to last exactly one hour, and complains if it goes over by a few minutes.  She once said it was 'ridiculous' when the mass went 8 minutes over.  I'm pretty sure she is a deist at most, and maybe even an atheist.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on May 24, 2014, 05:26:24 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 24, 2014, 05:23:47 PM
I don't think she believes in God either.  She has said she doesn't care what the pope says, she rejects all Catholic dogmas, she is super Novus Ordo, and she almost never speaks about religion, and when she does it is to criticize The Church.  She has told me that she wants married priests and women priests.  She expects the mass to last exactly one hour, and complains if it goes over by a few minutes.  She once said it was 'ridiculous' when the mass went 8 minutes over.  I'm pretty sure she is a deist at most, and maybe even an atheist.
then your hurting her by indulging her fraudulent behavior.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 24, 2014, 05:37:10 PM
The fraudulent behavior of attending mass on a Sunday?  This is why people are leaving The Church in droves.  A man shows up on Sunday, and everyone treats him very well.  Everyone treats him like a god as long as he is the new guy.  Soon, though, he becomes a regular and more is expected of him.  He must believe the right things or people will talk about him behind his back and call him a 'heretic'.  It's not good enough that he be a Christian, he must be a Catholic.  It's not good enough that he be a Catholic, he must be a traditionalist.  It's not good enough that he be a traditionalist, he must be in the SSPX.  It's not good enough to be in the SSPX, he must be in the 'resistance'.  No one can agree, so The Church splinters into many churches.  Splinters splinter into other splinters, eventually it all begins to look like a tree, where each branch branches into more branches.  Good people get pushed out of The Church because they don't believe just right, and The Church will not tolerate dissenters.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on May 24, 2014, 07:20:55 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 24, 2014, 05:37:10 PM
The fraudulent behavior of attending mass on a Sunday?  This is why people are leaving The Church in droves.  A man shows up on Sunday, and everyone treats him very well.  Everyone treats him like a god as long as he is the new guy.  Soon, though, he becomes a regular and more is expected of him.  He must believe the right things or people will talk about him behind his back and call him a 'heretic'.  It's not good enough that he be a Christian, he must be a Catholic.  It's not good enough that he be a Catholic, he must be a traditionalist.  It's not good enough that he be a traditionalist, he must be in the SSPX.  It's not good enough to be in the SSPX, he must be in the 'resistance'.  No one can agree, so The Church splinters into many churches.  Splinters splinter into other splinters, eventually it all begins to look like a tree, where each branch branches into more branches.  Good people get pushed out of The Church because they don't believe just right, and The Church will not tolerate dissenters.
your the one who called your grandmother a fraud...not me.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 24, 2014, 07:22:46 PM
I did no such thing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on May 24, 2014, 07:27:28 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 24, 2014, 07:22:46 PM
I did no such thing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
let me refresh your memory:

you wrote QUOTE:
I don't think she believes in God either.  She has said she doesn't care what the pope says, she rejects all Catholic dogmas, she is super Novus Ordo, and she almost never speaks about religion, and when she does it is to criticize The Church.  She has told me that she wants married priests and women priests.  She expects the mass to last exactly one hour, and complains if it goes over by a few minutes.  She once said it was 'ridiculous' when the mass went 8 minutes over.  I'm pretty sure she is a deist at most, and maybe even an atheist.
That is the definition of a fraud.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 24, 2014, 07:28:59 PM
I never used the word fraud.  She goes to mass and she probably doesn't believe in God, who cares?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on May 24, 2014, 07:35:25 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 24, 2014, 07:28:59 PM
I never used the word fraud.  She goes to mass and she probably doesn't believe in God, who cares?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
what would you call a politician who gets elected and goes to washington but doesnt belive in the constitution (I know all of them  ;D) but the point is made.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 24, 2014, 07:38:03 PM
The point is not even close to being made.  The politician will make laws that harm millions of Americans, my grandmother harms no one.  What difference does it make if an atheist wants to engage in a religious ritual?  The atheist hurts no one.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on May 24, 2014, 07:48:49 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 24, 2014, 07:38:03 PM
The point is not even close to being made.  The politician will make laws that harm millions of Americans, my grandmother harms no one.  What difference does it make if an atheist wants to engage in a religious ritual?  The atheist hurts no one.
except herself and apparently you.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 24, 2014, 07:50:52 PM
Would she not harm herself if she just stayed at home?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on May 24, 2014, 08:36:24 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 24, 2014, 07:50:52 PM
Would she not harm herself if she just stayed at home?
It would be less damaging.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 24, 2014, 08:37:26 PM

Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on May 24, 2014, 08:36:24 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 24, 2014, 07:50:52 PM
Would she not harm herself if she just stayed at home?
It would be less damaging.

How?  What damage is being done?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on May 24, 2014, 08:44:13 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 24, 2014, 08:37:26 PM

Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on May 24, 2014, 08:36:24 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 24, 2014, 07:50:52 PM
Would she not harm herself if she just stayed at home?
It would be less damaging.

How?  What damage is being done?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
she is not adding the sins of sacrilege and blasphemy and showing a poor example to her grandson.....to her already mortally wounded soul. (assuming what you told us about her is true.)
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 24, 2014, 08:51:08 PM
What I told you is true, she is basically a very liberal Protestant who continues to attend mass.  She even believes that there should be no pope, and that there is no difference between the priesthood of the people and the sacramental priesthood.  The one thing she does believe about Catholicism is that she cannot leave The Church.

So, she likes to go to mass, so what?  Is there really any difference between having these beliefs at home and at church?  How does she add to the sin of sacrilege and blasphemy?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: zork on May 24, 2014, 10:24:37 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 24, 2014, 08:51:08 PM
What I told you is true, she is basically a very liberal Protestant who continues to attend mass.  She even believes that there should be no pope, and that there is no difference between the priesthood of the people and the sacramental priesthood.  The one thing she does believe about Catholicism is that she cannot leave The Church.

So, she likes to go to mass, so what?  Is there really any difference between having these beliefs at home and at church?  How does she add to the sin of sacrilege and blasphemy?

If she isn't there to worship her Creator (and actually doesn't believe in Him at all), then she has no business being there. That is how she blasphemes God.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 24, 2014, 11:20:22 PM
Well, she might believe in God, I don't know.  I still attend, however.  How am I blaspheming God by attending mass?  I'm not speaking I'll of him.  Isn't that what blasphemy is?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 25, 2014, 12:10:38 AM

Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on May 24, 2014, 05:03:05 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 24, 2014, 03:53:12 PM
Don't get me wrong, I still don't believe in God.  I am going to mass in order to spend time with my grandmother.  I am taking bible classes at a Protestant church, because my aunt and uncle attend and I would like to know more about the bible.  I think it is good to know about the bible since it dominates our culture.  If I had lived in Ancient Greece, I would have studied the Iliad and the Odyssey.
believing in God is up to God not you...my optimism is based on the fact you will be in the same proximity with God himself when you join your Grandmother....(pretty shitty to use your granny like that though....and the protty bible study...which will be wrong anyway)

I forgot you wrote this.  So, for me to attend mass is good because I will be in the proximity with God, but it's bad because it's blasphemy.  Which is it?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 25, 2014, 12:13:23 AM
The banking system in the US is the biggest scam in the history of the world:  http://youtu.be/iFDe5kUUyT0
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on May 25, 2014, 05:26:10 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 25, 2014, 12:10:38 AM

Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on May 24, 2014, 05:03:05 PM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 24, 2014, 03:53:12 PM
Don't get me wrong, I still don't believe in God.  I am going to mass in order to spend time with my grandmother.  I am taking bible classes at a Protestant church, because my aunt and uncle attend and I would like to know more about the bible.  I think it is good to know about the bible since it dominates our culture.  If I had lived in Ancient Greece, I would have studied the Iliad and the Odyssey.
believing in God is up to God not you...my optimism is based on the fact you will be in the same proximity with God himself when you join your Grandmother....(pretty shitty to use your granny like that though....and the protty bible study...which will be wrong anyway)

I forgot you wrote this.  So, for me to attend mass is good because I will be in the proximity with God, but it's bad because it's blasphemy.  Which is it?
Go by yourself...if what you said about your granny is true.....she is the one who acknowledges God and then rejects him....you simply havent accepted him at all....and maybe in his presence hell grant you the gift of faith and then you could help granny. On a side note at least I can see why your so screwed up religiously.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on May 25, 2014, 05:29:32 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 25, 2014, 12:13:23 AM
The banking system in the US is the biggest scam in the history of the world:  http://youtu.be/iFDe5kUUyT0
Preaching to the Chior son. Of course you refuse to take note of the fact that nearly every banking house are owned and run by Jews.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 25, 2014, 07:57:26 AM
That's just not true.

And as I'm on my way out of this forum, I want to hit y'all with a little truth.  We don't live in a free market, if we did there would be no such thing as poverty.  In a truly free market people wouldn't be taxed by force and there would be no regulations forcing people to act against their interests.  In fact there would be no taxes or regulations at all.  We are not free, the government owns us and gives us a little freedom in order to make us more profitable.  The government lays no legitimate claim on our lives, it is nothing more than organized crime.

Everything you have ever been told is a lie.  Religion has always been co-opted in order to control the people.  The two work in a mutually beneficial agreement.  Religion gives the state a sense of legitimacy among the people, as people will always question why the state has the right to control them and use violence against them.  When a man declares himself to be king, people question.  "What gives you the right?", they ask.  The religion gives the ruler legitimacy by claiming that God wills that this man be ruler, this is called the divine right of kings.  The state eliminates competition for the religion and feeds it massive amounts of money.  The state is nothing more than an organization which claims a monopoly on the use of violence over a certain geographical area.  There is no such thing as a 'legitimate' government, just like there is no such thing as a 'legitimate' rape.  The non-aggression principle applies to all, a man doesn't become exempt from the NAP just because he puts on a fancy uniform or because a majority of the populace vote him into office.

Wake up.  You are not free, you are a slave to the state.  The only thing that will free you is revolution, a peaceful revolution that is.  Never attempt to overcome evil with evil, those in government are much better at it than you or me.  The only moral society is an anarchist society, one that works on mutual cooperation.  Do not hit people, do not take their stuff, this must apply to government as well.  Government is the problem, anarchy is the solution.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: james03 on May 25, 2014, 08:12:38 AM
Here's the deal lad.  This is the hard truth.  Get over being pissed off about it and think about it long and hard.  You are a whiner, and you are completely immature and lack manly virtue.  I've dealt with responsible, manly atheists before.  We have intelligent discussions, and when they see their contradictions, they are man enough to admit it.

You on the other hand have an excuse in every pocket.  When you can't answer something, you shift the conversation and post some stupid YouTube video.  You now aren't even man enough to respect forum rules.  You need to take a hard look at yourself in the mirror and decide if you are satisfied with what you see.  I suspect the vices you display here carry over to your personal life, so have some humility and start working on eliminating them.  You talk about a wife, well guess what?  What I found out about you a woman will sense almost immediately, because that is in their make-up.  So good luck with getting a wife in your current situation.

I said it before, and I'll say it again.  The only reason someone like you comes here and posts is because he is trying to make an excuse for Judgment Day.  So you can have one last eternal whine: "I didn't know!".  Guess what?  God knows the inner heart better than the man himself.  Whining about your fate will only increase your torments in hell.

Good bye.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Francisco Suárez on May 25, 2014, 08:28:01 AM
Crimson, your post looks juicy for a point-by-point refutation. I may have a crack at it at some point, when I find the energy.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 25, 2014, 08:42:24 AM
I am not whining, I am simply telling you the truth.  I may be the first to do so.  I would love to hear your refutation Francisco, explain to me how the government has the right to use violence against others.  Please explain to me how the government is considered 'legitimate' or what that word even means.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 25, 2014, 08:45:55 AM
The bit about not being manly is puerile, and makes you sound like a high school jock.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on May 25, 2014, 11:24:43 AM
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on May 25, 2014, 08:45:55 AM
The bit about not being manly is puerile, and makes you sound like a high school jock.
Dude no one is more anti govt than me...your the hypocrit who refuses to see the zionist deathgrip on govt and the banking houses. Also your such a dope Ill bet you belive the govt story about 911. There has never been one here was deluded like you are into thinking that a free market can ever exist. As long as the Jewish materialists rule finance and the sciences humans will necer have true secular freedom. At best your views on religion are closee to marx and lenin. The first thing govts do to oppress the people is destroy Christians....and your no better. Im in construction and in my business I can only afford to hire real men...not pencil neck geeks weilding philosophys. Want to learn economics...go dig ditches for minmum wage....put down you babytoys like rand...pick up a hammeer or saw...make something usefull. Dont follow ayn rand to hell and loservill. Follow St Paul and make tents.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 25, 2014, 12:36:08 PM
I spent whole summers in college digging ditches in 100 degree weather.  I finished those summers looking like a Pakastani.  I did that, and I learned from it.  The best lesson on economics I received in college was from scalping football tickets on Saturdays.  Pencil neck geek wielding philosophy eh?  That's the same drivel I heard in college from construction workers when I showed up to the job site with a back pack full of books on my back.  I worked just as hard as any of them, but then I read text books when I was done.  I was told that 'all of those books will just hurt your eyes.'  That was anti-intellectual blather from cave men.  Having a disdain for learning does not make one a man.

No, I am not a truther.  The conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 are ridiculous, and no one with half a brain would believe them for a second.  All of the anti-Semitic 'Zionist' talk gets old as well.  I got enough of this crap when I was attending a SSPX chapel.  The Jews make up between 12-14 million people, yet trads seems to think they run the world.  This is beyond silly and stems from the fact that trads still blame the Jews for killing Jesus and are extremely angry about it.  It happened nearly two thousand years ago, get over it.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on May 25, 2014, 04:29:58 PM
Then you lost any credibility as a self proclaimed realist and antgovt activist if you swallow the govt line....you lick the govt jackboot. And while ashakazani jews make up a small percentage of the global population...they make up 95% of the banking...medical..entertainment and media power centers. That is simply a fact. Reading books is awsome...being an eltist useless philospher is not. You are pro govt...your own words prove that. Just really another useless chit. Its nice that now your done with us you finally have the balls to be honest about who you are.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 25, 2014, 04:42:15 PM
Don't be ridiculous, I am not pro government just because I am not a conspiracy nut with tin foil on my head, who listens to Alex Jones.  I am an anarchist, because there is no such thing as a legitimate or moral government.  You want to talk about gullibility?  You have swallowed what The Church says whole cloth.  The government and The Church both were created to control you.  Christianity was co-opted by Constantine in 325 in order to control the masses.  Marx may have been an idiot, but he was right when he said that religion is the opiate of the masses.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on May 25, 2014, 07:43:44 PM
So all that baloney you spewed about loving truth and the laws of nature goes out the window on 911.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 25, 2014, 08:18:53 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on May 25, 2014, 07:43:44 PM
So all that ********* you spewed about loving truth and the laws of nature goes out the window on 911.

No, the truth is that 19 Muslim hijackers were involved in the attack, and that was the only conspiracy on 9/11.  It is also true that the government had nothing to do with it.  They did, however, capitalize on the event, which is evil.  Truthers base their views on shoddy evidence.  It is a fact that two airliners slammed into the twin towers.  To claim that the towers had to have come down because of explosives is ridiculous, it was the airliners which took down the towers.  A conspiracy of this size would involve thousands of people, and to think none of them would speak out is naive at best.  The conspirators would have had to install thousands of pounds of explosives throughout the walls of the twin towers without anyone noticing.  They would have to set off the explosives without leaving any evidence.  The whole conspiracy theory is blatantly wrong.

The events of 9/11 did not violate the laws of nature.

It doesn't mean I don't believe in truth just because I disagree with you.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on May 25, 2014, 09:19:22 PM
I dont listen to or watch Alex Jones
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-F2j8js_INE[/yt]
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEvA8BCoBw[/yt]
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvKD-XNpG_s[/yt]
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQ1P2K1j-gQ[/yt]
never collapsed!
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on May 25, 2014, 09:27:28 PM
1. Don't all the high-level officials agree on what happened on 9/11?

No. Numerous present and former high-level military leaders and politicians have questioned the administration's version of 9/11.

2. Isn't 9/11 a partisan political issue, where extremists in one party are simply trying to smear the other party for political gain?

No, credible people from across the political spectrum question 9/11, including prominent conservatives,   prominent liberals, and prominent centrists.

3. Isn't it disrespectful to the victims of 9/11 and their families to question the events of that day?

No. Many of the families of the victims question the official story and are demanding that the truth be disclosed. The same is true of many dying heroes - the first responders who worked tirelessly to save lives on and after 9/11 - and are soon to become victims of the 9/11 attacks themselves. See this article.

4. Isn't it clear that Muslims carried out 9/11, and the war on terror is a clash of civilizations and religions? Therefore, isn't 9/11 skepticism harmful to our faith? And aren't the people questioning 9/11 anti-Semites?

Actually, 9/11 truth is a vital issue for all people of faith. That is why prominent Christian theologians state that 9/11 was an inside job.

Moreover, many people of Jewish faith question 9/11. Indeed, prominent Jewish scholars and rabbis say that uncovering the truth of 9/11 has the power to bring positive, lasting change to our nation and to our world.

5. Isn't this kind of thinking really a psychological problem?

Not at all. Some very prominent psychologists question the government's version of 9/11.

6. Aren't conspiracy theories anti-American, and isn't all the questioning of 9/11 part of what's wrong with America today?

Questioning our government is part of what it means to be a patriot and to love your country. People who question 9/11 are patriots who love their country.

7. Doesn't questioning 9/11 distract from much more important issues facing America today?

On the contrary, it is one of the very most important issues facing our country, and is closely connected with other problems we face.

8. But the government would NEVER hurt its own people. At least not intentionally.

Actually, the U.S. government -- and many other Western governments -- have done so before. Initially, the Joint Chiefs of Staff actually approved a plan to carry out terrorist attacks and kill U.S. citizens and blame it on Cuba, as a justification for invading Cuba. And a government informant has stated that he tried to stop the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, but that the FBI intentionally let the bombing happen . There are many other examples of other governments killing their own people for political gain, and the U.S. government killing its own as well.

As additional examples of the U.S. government letting U.S. citizens die based upon deceptions, many people breathed in highly toxic dust near ground zero, after the government knowingly misrepresented the risk, going as far as discouraging first responders from wearing masks. The U.S. government also misled the American people into the Iraqi war, causing thousands of American deaths.

9. Terrorists crashing planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon was wholly unexpected in 2001, wasn't it?

No, it was not unexpected.

10. But there is always confusion in any battle situation. Wasn't it the "fog of war" which prevented a successful response to the 9/11 attacks?

It was not the fog of war. Instead, it was the multiple war games, including hijack exercises involving real planes, and the injection of fake radar blips onto air traffic controller's screens which prevented the good people in the military from stopping the attacks from succeeding against their targets in New York and at the Pentagon. The dedicated people in the U.S. military were tricked and betrayed, so that they could not do their job.

11. Wouldn't a huge conspiracy involving thousands of people have been necessary to carry out 9/11, and wouldn't someone have spilled the beans by now if there really was a conspiracy?

Not necessarily. In fact, a small handful of people could have pulled it off.

12. Let's get back to the government's failure to stop or intercept the attacks. If the U.S. government wasn't perfect in stopping the 9/11 attacks, wasn't it due to a series of innocent mistakes or -- at the very worst -- incompetence?

Initially, the incompetence argument doesn't really pan out, and appearances may be deceiving. And there are many examples of the U.S. faking intelligence in order to promote its political goals.

Moreover, the government has not acted like it is trying to close vulnerabilities or fix problems which supposedly were unforeseeable before 9/11. Why wouldn't such vulnerabilities be corrected if they were the real cause of 9/11?

And there has been a clear government cover-up of the facts surrounding 9/11. Why would the government work so hard to cover up the true facts of 9/11, going so far as to repeatedly misrepresent the facts and change its story, if incompetence was the only problem with the official story?

And, apparently, fake evidence was planted to implicate certain people for 9/11. Why would fake evidence be needed if the official story was true? Do innocent people plant fake evidence?

13. Didn't a government agency come clean about its mistaken timeline, solving the whole 9/11 "conspiracy" once and for all?

Norad's newest "confession" is just the latest of multiple, completely conflicting versions of what happened on 9/11
Moreover, the latest statements by the military simply attempt to scapegoat one government agency, since the previous attempts to blame other agencies made no sense.

14. Isn't talk about "demolition" of the Twin Towers just a crazy theory by a couple of nutty people?

In fact, a lot of credible eyewitness testimony supports this theory, and more and more credible experts are discussing this theory every day.

15. But no one could have planted all of the explosives needed to bring down the Twin Towers without people noticing, right?

No, that is not true.

16. If rogue elements within the U.S. government did cause 9/11, why would they have used bombs to bring down the Twin Towers, when crashing planes into the buildings would have been sufficient to act as a "Pearl Harbor" type justification for war?

Apparently, for its shock and awe effect, which made for a very overwhelmed, afraid, and thus docile and compliant population.

17. If the government's account of 9/11 is not accurate, wouldn't the media have been "all over it"? Isn't the fact that most mainstream media sources don't spend much time covering these questions show there's nothing there?

No. Even well-known news anchors and writers say that self-censorship, censorship by editors and producers, and pressure from the government means that many important stories are not being covered. 9/11 is one of those stories.

18. I've heard claims made by the so-called "9/11 Truth Movement" which have turned out to be false. Doesn't that invalidate the whole 9/11 thing?

No, for two reasons. First, there are so many lines of evidence which overwhelmingly prove that 9/11 was an inside job, that even if one or two theories are disproven, the basic thesis still stands.

Moreover, there are some people who are simply sloppy in their thinking, and who throw out unfounded theories which do not stand up under scrutiny. In addition, there are, unfortunately, disruptive people who are working hard to make crazy claims to intentionally discredit the movement. This is a traditional tactic for undermining those who question the government.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 25, 2014, 11:12:49 PM

Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on May 25, 2014, 09:27:28 PM
1. Don't all the high-level officials agree on what happened on 9/11?
I seriously doubt it, it is highly unlikely to find total agreement within any group.  This also has no bearing on the truth.

2. Isn't 9/11 a partisan political issue, where extremists in one party are simply trying to smear the other party for political gain?
This would also be highly unlikely, just like number one.  There are idiots in both the Republican and Democratic parties.

3. Isn't it disrespectful to the victims of 9/11 and their families to question the events of that day?

Simple questioning isn't disrespectful, though it can be if prudence is not practiced.  The conspiracy theories are disrespectful to truth and logic, however.


4. Isn't it clear that Muslims carried out 9/11, and the war on terror is a clash of civilizations and religions? Therefore, isn't 9/11 skepticism harmful to our faith? And aren't the people questioning 9/11 anti-Semites?
9/11 was done by Muslim extremists.  Islam is a religion of hate, though not all Muslims are hateful.  This is because, thankfully, not all Muslims take their religion seriously.  9/11 skepticism has nothing to do with the faith.  Truthers also have nothing to do with skepticism either, a true skeptic looks for evidence, and accepts the truth.  Some Truthers are anti-Semites, others are not.

5. Isn't this kind of thinking really a psychological problem?
Yes, as all conspiracy theories are.  It's not a terrible psychological problem, but it is one.

6. Aren't conspiracy theories anti-American, and isn't all the questioning of 9/11 part of what's wrong with America today?
Questioning is never anti-American.  In fact, the phrase 'anti-American' is creepy.

7. Doesn't questioning 9/11 distract from much more important issues facing America today?
Yes, we are dealing with serious threats to our liberty.  This conspiracy non-sense helps nothing.

8. But the government would NEVER hurt its own people. At least not intentionally.

The government has hurt many people, that's what governments do, it's in their nature.

9. Terrorists crashing planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon was wholly unexpected in 2001, wasn't it?
No, it wasn't entirely unexpected.  The CIA had information that this kind of thing might happen.  Though, they had lots of information that never panned out also.  When terrorists attack they use 'chatter' beforehand, this means flooding the radios with false information so the CIA doesn't know which planned attack is real and which isn't.

10. But there is always confusion in any battle situation. Wasn't it the "fog of war" which prevented a successful response to the 9/11 attacks?

Government incompetence was the problem.  Several government agencies refused to speak or share information with each other, which led to no one in the government seeing this coming.

11. Wouldn't a huge conspiracy involving thousands of people have been necessary to carry out 9/11, and wouldn't someone have spilled the beans by now if there really was a conspiracy?
Yes, conspiracies eventually see the light of day, someone is bound to speak eventually.  The more people involved in the conspiracy, the bigger the chance that someone will sing.

12. Let's get back to the government's failure to stop or intercept the attacks. If the U.S. government wasn't perfect in stopping the 9/11 attacks, wasn't it due to a series of innocent mistakes or -- at the very worst -- incompetence?
It was incompetence, see above.

13. Didn't a government agency come clean about its mistaken timeline, solving the whole 9/11 "conspiracy" once and for all?

I have heard nothing of this.

14. Isn't talk about "demolition" of the Twin Towers just a crazy theory by a couple of nutty people?
Yes.

15. But no one could have planted all of the explosives needed to bring down the Twin Towers without people noticing, right?
Yes.

16. If rogue elements within the U.S. government did cause 9/11, why would they have used bombs to bring down the Twin Towers, when crashing planes into the buildings would have been sufficient to act as a "Pearl Harbor" type justification for war?
They wouldn't, the planes weren't a coincidence, they took down the towers.

17. If the government's account of 9/11 is not accurate, wouldn't the media have been "all over it"? Isn't the fact that most mainstream media sources don't spend much time covering these questions show there's nothing there?
Somebody would have, even if only one news outlet.

18. I've heard claims made by the so-called "9/11 Truth Movement" which have turned out to be false. Doesn't that invalidate the whole 9/11 thing?
One falsehood does not invalidate an entire movement.  But, yes the entire movement is false for other reasons.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on May 26, 2014, 06:52:09 AM
Youve asserted everything and proven nothing. You brought no evidence of any kind. Ive brought eyewitness testimony...physical evidence...and video evidence. You brought...Im god and if I speak it must be true. Please explain the collapse of bjdg 7 without appealing to miricles. I mean after all youve spent this entire thread extolling the absolutes of physical laws and nature. So please bring the absolutes and explain the total ncollapse of bldg 7.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 26, 2014, 08:01:28 AM
Building 7 was badly damaged as a result of the twin towers coming down.  There was a massive amount of falling debris from from two skyscrapers collapsing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 26, 2014, 09:06:19 AM
http://youtu.be/LYkdAivZwEk



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on May 26, 2014, 09:32:54 AM
Ok so unlike you I actually watched the vid you posted to make your case. And what did you submit? Ni science nothing but assertions by a professional talking head. Assertions that do not even debunk a single peice of the evidence I submitted. Assertions of frings...kooks...ad hominum blah blah. Meanwhile the actual vid of wt7 collapsing does not square with YOUR assertion of a PARTIALLY damaged building that completely collapsed at freefall speed directly into its own footprint. Yes sir you so called skeptics amd realists have really failed your country. Swallowing and then propogating the govt myth...the myths used to destroy what little liberty we had left after bushclintonbush. You sir and your crudulity and assinine narcissism are the enemy of American freedom. Your basically the apex of liars because you lie to yourself. You are mindscrewed. Your mind is completely severed from the reality around you.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 26, 2014, 10:06:14 AM
I may live here, but I certainly do not call America 'my country' any more than a slave might call a plantation 'his'.  You know nothing of freedom, freedom does not bow to any authority.  Yes, 9/11 has been used to turn this country into a 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 26, 2014, 10:11:07 AM
...police state, but that doesn't mean I have to accept ridiculous conspiracy theories from people like Alex Jones and Jesse Ventura.  I don't trust people with tin foil hats on their heads.  It is hard to take a man seriously when he starts spewing this garbage from his mouth.  I have come to the conclusion that you must be clinically insane, so I suppose I shouldn't make fun of you.

You know nothing of freedom, a man must accept reality in order to be free.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Probius on May 26, 2014, 10:11:32 AM
Tapatalk is not letting me edit...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Archer on May 26, 2014, 10:35:15 AM
And with that I think we'll say good-by to Crimson Flyboy.

Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Mono no aware on May 26, 2014, 10:42:03 AM
1501 posts: he made it to Feldwebel just in the nick of time.  Adieu, Crimson.  And good riddance to Randian Objectivism.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on May 26, 2014, 01:37:43 PM
Crap I was trying to get the last word LOL ;D
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bHRAYGo0-c[/yt]
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Wicked Papist on May 26, 2014, 02:07:15 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on May 26, 2014, 01:37:43 PM
Crap I was trying to get the last word LOL ;D
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bHRAYGo0-c[/yt]

Nothing says "charitable" quite like mocking a permanently banned poster.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on May 26, 2014, 02:43:00 PM
Quote from: Wicked Papist on May 26, 2014, 02:07:15 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on May 26, 2014, 01:37:43 PM
Crap I was trying to get the last word LOL ;D
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bHRAYGo0-c[/yt]

Nothing says "charitable" quite like mocking a permanently banned poster.
oh stop it ...mr piety man ::)
I was mocking my self...where were you when this child was mocking religion for dozens of pages. That ivory tower have an elevator?
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Angelorum on May 26, 2014, 05:36:38 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on May 26, 2014, 02:43:00 PM
Quote from: Wicked Papist on May 26, 2014, 02:07:15 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on May 26, 2014, 01:37:43 PM
Crap I was trying to get the last word LOL ;D
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bHRAYGo0-c[/yt]

Nothing says "charitable" quite like mocking a permanently banned poster.
oh stop it ...mr piety man ::)
I was mocking my self...where were you when this child was mocking religion for dozens of pages. That ivory tower have an elevator?

I'm surprised that he lasted 1500 posts before getting his ban.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Gardener on May 26, 2014, 05:40:36 PM
He was a feldwebel from the beginning, and upon the realization of his inner feldwebel, it was time for him to go. Fortune! Fame! Feldwebel!!
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Wicked Papist on May 26, 2014, 05:52:20 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on May 26, 2014, 02:43:00 PM
I was mocking my self...where were you when this child was mocking religion for dozens of pages. That ivory tower have an elevator?

That's different.  Atheists are allowed to mock whomever they like.  It's called a "double standard."
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on May 26, 2014, 06:22:04 PM
Quote from: Wicked Papist on May 26, 2014, 05:52:20 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on May 26, 2014, 02:43:00 PM
I was mocking my self...where were you when this child was mocking religion for dozens of pages. That ivory tower have an elevator?

That's different.  Atheists are allowed to mock whomever they like.  It's called a "double standard."
Well the Mods thought just possibly he might wake up...they gave him a great opportunity that he squandered.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Heinrich on May 27, 2014, 01:10:54 PM
Well, back on topic: I think Humility is good.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Kaesekopf on May 27, 2014, 01:39:46 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on May 26, 2014, 06:22:04 PM
Quote from: Wicked Papist on May 26, 2014, 05:52:20 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on May 26, 2014, 02:43:00 PM
I was mocking my self...where were you when this child was mocking religion for dozens of pages. That ivory tower have an elevator?

That's different.  Atheists are allowed to mock whomever they like.  It's called a "double standard."
Well the Mods thought just possibly he might wake up...they gave him a great opportunity that he squandered.

For the most part, I think crimson was sincere.  When he began posting more and more anticatholic thought and views, and seemed more and more firm in those ideas and views, it was time for the forum and him to part ways
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: rbjmartin on May 27, 2014, 01:50:27 PM
Quote from: Heinrich on May 27, 2014, 01:10:54 PM
Well, back on topic: I think Humility is good.

I agree.

Next topic.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Archer on May 27, 2014, 04:06:38 PM
Quote from: rbjmartin on May 27, 2014, 01:50:27 PM
Quote from: Heinrich on May 27, 2014, 01:10:54 PM
Well, back on topic: I think Humility is good.

I agree.

Next topic.

It only took 93 pages.  :toth:
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on May 27, 2014, 04:21:16 PM
Let this be a lessin to any parents out there...if your teen comes homw with an ayn rand book..
.burn that chit FAST!
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Kaesekopf on May 27, 2014, 04:37:16 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on May 27, 2014, 04:21:16 PM
Let this be a lessin to any parents out there...if your teen comes homw with an ayn rand book..
.burn that chit FAST!

She's not really worth reading.

As John Rogers wrote...
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on May 27, 2014, 05:02:16 PM
I have friend whos a student therapist at a local college...he calls rand "his enemy"
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: RobertJS on May 27, 2014, 06:01:37 PM
Quote from: Kaesekopf on May 27, 2014, 01:39:46 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on May 26, 2014, 06:22:04 PM
Quote from: Wicked Papist on May 26, 2014, 05:52:20 PM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on May 26, 2014, 02:43:00 PM
I was mocking my self...where were you when this child was mocking religion for dozens of pages. That ivory tower have an elevator?

That's different.  Atheists are allowed to mock whomever they like.  It's called a "double standard."
Well the Mods thought just possibly he might wake up...they gave him a great opportunity that he squandered.

For the most part, I think crimson was sincere.  When he began posting more and more anticatholic thought and views, and seemed more and more firm in those ideas and views, it was time for the forum and him to part ways

Fair enough, but even better....personally, I don't care if someone is "sincere" because if what they are saying is publicly harmful to the Faith of Catholics...it must be quickly stopped. Thank you, Archer, for stopping it!

Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Kaesekopf on May 27, 2014, 07:52:40 PM
Robert, my motives were hoping that he was authentically searching for the truth.  If he wanted to debate and discuss things he had in his mind and was open to conversion (which I thought he was), I saw no harm in it, especially since posters I trust and admire were engaging him in ways I thought were useful.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: voxxpopulisuxx on May 27, 2014, 08:24:54 PM
he was no threat...all his arguments were handled soundly. And I hoped he could be reached as well.
Title: Re: Humility: Good or Bad?
Post by: Michael Wilson on May 29, 2014, 11:46:02 AM
Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on May 27, 2014, 04:21:16 PM
Let this be a lessin to any parents out there...if your teen comes homw with an ayn rand book..
.burn that chit FAST!
I read Ayn Rand's "Anthem" in High School and I really liked her theme on the affirmation of the individual over the collective/egalitarian dictatorship; it was a very good critique and satire of the direction that Communism and its fellow travelers were attempting to lead humanity. I just recently re-read it again a year ago and I found it equally compelling. That said; individualism has its limits and finds its fulfillment in a well ordered society i.e. A Catholic society. Man is not sufficient of himself to provide for all of his needs both material and spiritual; but finds these inside of institutions that are part of a Christian order.  Miss Rand's atheism was a big obstacle in her way, not allowing her to see the "big picture''.  Fr. Fahey in his books where he praises the work of Mrs. Nesta Webster also cautions the reader that as good as some of her books are, they suffer from the fact that Mrs. Webster isn't a Catholic and is therefore also hampered from arriving at a complete understanding of the forces working to undermine and destroy the remnants of Catholic civilization and of the Catholic Church, in order to usher in the reign of the anti-Christ.