Unfortunately, this is something i utterly reject. It doesn't just border on ignorance for you to tell anyone their own desires and thoughts and their sincerity to themselves, it goes over the border and keeps on going. I find it insulting to the highest degree for you to try and impose upon me a lack of sincerity in the things that i do in order to cover the truth of the matter - that i have not felt god, and that is no fault of my own. I will not accept the guilt that the church tries to lay at my door and it only pushes me away by attempting to do so.

I'm sorry if I offended you, but you might not be seeing this from my perspective. From my perspective, I know God exists, therefore, if you don't know God, it means that you haven't truly sought Him out. You've also spent many of your replies telling me all of the reasons why you don't seek Him out and aren't interested in seeking Him out, which lends credence to that theory. You say it's no fault of your own, but scripture says He gives everyone sufficient evidence, which people suppress, and in the end no one is going to have an excuses. I am not trying to offend you by saying that, I just believe scripture and my own experience.

If i were to tell you that if you really really wanted to, you could just admit that god isn't real, and you'll stop believing in an outdated superstition caused by the fear of the unknown - death. Would you like that? No, and you'd be right to be put out. I have no position to tell you your mind or thoughts or sincerity to yourself.

My position is if you do what scripture says, you will know God. That's always been my position.

By saying something like that, you lower yourself to be no better than a crusading atheist - do you not see that? I hope i have not misjudged you; afford me the same respect i afford you, please. If we both decide to dictate to each other our own minds and sincerities, this would be me and you telling each other we're wrong, ignorant, stupid etc., i hope god helps you to find a way of talking to an agnostic atheist without accusing them of ignorance and insincerity, because you did the same thing last time when you reinforced my understanding that theists cannot discuss religion in a fair and balanced manner, and therefore their argument must be weak.

I don't know anything about you other than what you post on this website. I don't assume anything other than you're a person worthy of respect.

It is utterly facile of you to tell me that 2 religions are taken from christianity. You know as well as anyone else that there are thousands of religions and thousands of "gods" i could choose. Why did you cherry pick two religions post christ? You understood my point, yet you decided to avoid it. Regardless, if i got a mormon or muslim in here, they would offer similarly vehement defenses of their own religion followed by casting dispersions on yours; do not skip the underlying point, the religion in question is irrelevant. Your religion is not the oldest religion on the planet, not by a long way; so no, not all revolves around christ.

There are 1000s of religions, most of them in antiquity. If God has revealed Himself to the world, do you think it is going to be through some obscure religion no one has ever heard of? Do you think He is only going to have a handful of adherants? All religions are not the same, and they don't make the same claims. For most of the believers on the planet, Jesus is the central question. Also, Judiasm is the oldest religion on the planet, and that is where Christianity comes from.

Finally, why do you assume that i have not investigated logic and the scientific method? In the past and now, you have occasionally had a negligent way of speaking to me that i don't feel i've deserved.. There are ALWAYS many people out there who are more educated than you are, and i could be one of them.

Maybe you have, and maybe you are. However, we cannot examine the comments you made about mathematics without examining the laws of logic and the uniformity of nature.

I put a lot of time and effort into these posts for you and it's unrewarding.

I have put in some time as well, as thus far I find you addressing the last paragraph or line of my replies and ignoring everything else.

Edit:
Actually, i imagine with all the people you have to reply to it's probably hard to editorialise everything you want to say.

It can be, especially because of the limitations of the medium.



>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^shinyblurry:

This is something He would give to you if you sought it out.

Unfortunately, this is something i utterly reject. It doesn't just border on ignorance for you to tell anyone their own desires and thoughts and their sincerity to themselves, it goes over the border and keeps on going. I find it insulting to the highest degree for you to try and impose upon me a lack of sincerity in the things that i do in order to cover the truth of the matter - that i have not felt god, and that is no fault of my own. I will not accept the guilt that the church tries to lay at my door and it only pushes me away by attempting to do so.

If i were to tell you that if you really really wanted to, you could just admit that god isn't real, and you'll stop believing in an outdated superstition caused by the fear of the unknown - death. Would you like that? No, and you'd be right to be put out. I have no position to tell you your mind or thoughts or sincerity to yourself.

By saying something like that, you lower yourself to be no better than a crusading atheist - do you not see that? I hope i have not misjudged you; afford me the same respect i afford you, please. If we both decide to dictate to each other our own minds and sincerities, this would be me and you telling each other we're wrong, ignorant, stupid etc., i hope god helps you to find a way of talking to an agnostic atheist without accusing them of ignorance and insincerity, because you did the same thing last time when you reinforced my understanding that theists cannot discuss religion in a fair and balanced manner, and therefore their argument must be weak.

It is utterly facile of you to tell me that 2 religions are taken from christianity. You know as well as anyone else that there are thousands of religions and thousands of "gods" i could choose. Why did you cherry pick two religions post christ? You understood my point, yet you decided to avoid it. Regardless, if i got a mormon or muslim in here, they would offer similarly vehement defenses of their own religion followed by casting dispersions on yours; do not skip the underlying point, the religion in question is irrelevant. Your religion is not the oldest religion on the planet, not by a long way; so no, not all revolves around christ.

Finally, why do you assume that i have not investigated logic and the scientific method? In the past and now, you have occasionally had a negligent way of speaking to me that i don't feel i've deserved.. There are ALWAYS many people out there who are more educated than you are, and i could be one of them.

I put a lot of time and effort into these posts for you and it's unrewarding.

Edit:
Actually, i imagine with all the people you have to reply to it's probably hard to editorialise everything you want to say.

I disagree. Raise your kids right and make "doing the right thing" an expectation, not a cause for reward.

>> ^Darkhand:

>> ^budzos:
>> ^Deano:
As a Brit, I felt a need to reach for the sick-bag - just a little. It WAS a nice gesture but strange that the coverage has to play it up and make an enormous deal about it. It's just a BALL.

I agree. The game announcer's comment "that's a well bred young man" was sufficient and appropriate. To gush over a kind act misses the point of being kind.

If it was an adult I'd agree with you guys. But it was a kid and when you have a child in my opinion you need to enforce that good deeds do not go unrewarded. This was a very good deed and from young boy (boys who notoriously do not care about emotions, etc.). For him to not only care about some random stranger but to also give up the game ball is a big deal.
It embodies a bit of what we all should aspire to be and what should happen to all of us when we are kind but usually does not.

>> ^budzos:

>> ^Deano:
As a Brit, I felt a need to reach for the sick-bag - just a little. It WAS a nice gesture but strange that the coverage has to play it up and make an enormous deal about it. It's just a BALL.

I agree. The game announcer's comment "that's a well bred young man" was sufficient and appropriate. To gush over a kind act misses the point of being kind.


If it was an adult I'd agree with you guys. But it was a kid and when you have a child in my opinion you need to enforce that good deeds do not go unrewarded. This was a very good deed and from young boy (boys who notoriously do not care about emotions, etc.). For him to not only care about some random stranger but to also give up the game ball is a big deal.

It embodies a bit of what we all should aspire to be and what should happen to all of us when we are kind but usually does not.

>> ^Xax:
Still waiting for a remotely funny Curb Your Enthusiasm clip. I just don't get it.


I have to agree. There's something about the humour here that just seems somehow... Unrewarding. I can't articulate the fact that I don't enjoy it any more thoroughly than that, it just fails to hit the spot.

Quote:
"Re: the virtue of selfishness.
Our personal right to life is enhanced if it's defended by our countrymen in exchange for us defending their right to life. That reciprocity, as they call it in game theory, is what keeps it from being an unrewarded duty.

While people who follow Rand's general philosophy of self-reliance will generally need less reciprocity from society, I believe being a good Randian would mean being prepared for anything, which includes getting some combat training."

While there could be a net benefit in helping your fellow man in return for help yourself-- this "contract" or "obligation" cannot be morally forced and must be volunteered. Thus, my point was that it is not possible to make a moral argument against the people of the bus who did not act to save the victim. Whether you realize it or not, you probably have entered into this "contract" with your family and friends. Chances are if it was your brother, mother, daughter, friend or otherwise in that bus seat being stabbed, you would immediately act to help them, regardless of the danger to yourself. As the excerpt detailed, it would take a low self-esteem, or an irrational and immoral action to risk ones life for a complete stranger--given that you yourself may have others (who you value) that depend on your life, be it your children, parents, friends, or spouse (not to mention yourself).

The sad reality, is that the victim was sleeping and the attacker took advantage of this. One cannot attempt a defense, however ineffective it may be, while they are unconscious.

As far as the requirements of a "Randian," there is nothing in Objectivism (Ayn Rand's philosophy), to my knowledge, that requires being prepared for all situations. The philosophy simply espouses acting as a rational being, while adhering to the fundamental human right I quoted.

Quote:
I've been meaning to read some Ayn Rand, she seems pretty sensible.

I would highly recommend "For the New Intellectual" and "The Virtue of Selfishness"

Re: the virtue of selfishness.
Our personal right to life is enhanced if it's defended by our countrymen in exchange for us defending their right to life. That reciprocity, as they call it in game theory, is what keeps it from being an unrewarded duty.

While people who follow Rand's general philosophy of self-reliance will generally need less reciprocity from society, I believe being a good Randian would mean being prepared for anything, which includes getting some combat training.

To those making value judgments on the action or inaction of the bystanders, I invite you to read the following excerpt, as well as implore you to fully consider the moral implications of your perspective.


"'Sacrifice' is the surrender of a greater value for the sake of a lesser one
or of a nonvalue. Thus, altruism gauges a man’s virtue by the degree to
which he surrenders, renounces or betrays his values (since help to a stranger
or an enemy is regarded as more virtuous, less “selfish,” than help to those
one loves). The rational principle of conduct is the exact opposite: always
act in accordance with the hierarchy of your values, and never sacrifice a
greater value to a lesser one.
This applies to all choices, including one’s actions toward other men. It
requires that one possess a defined hierarchy of rational values (values
chosen and validated by a rational standard). Without such a hierarchy,
neither rational conduct nor considered value judgments nor moral choices
are possible."


"To illustrate this on the altruists’ favorite example: the issue of saving a
drowning person. If the person to be saved is a stranger, it is morally proper
to save him only when the danger to one’s own life is minimal; when the
danger is great, it would be immoral to attempt it: only a lack of self-esteem
could permit one to value one’s life no higher than that of any random
stranger. (And, conversely, if one is drowning, one cannot expect a stranger
to risk his life for one’s sake, remembering that one’s life cannot be as valu-
able to him as his own.)
If the person to be saved is not a stranger, then the risk one should be
willing to take is greater in proportion to the greatness of that person’s value
to oneself. If it is the man or woman one loves, then one can be willing to
give one’s own life to save him or her—for the selfish reason that life
without the loved person could be unbearable."

"No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an
unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be
no such thing as 'the right to enslave.'"


Now if there was a police officer, legally entrusted to serve and protect, who did not act, or the peoples of the bus had made a prior agreement to act as a unit in the event of emergency, one could make a moral case against inaction.

With regards to those arguing for/against the usage of certain items in self defense:

"There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action— which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life"

If you believe this to be true, you cannot make any rational argument against an individuals choice to carry any particular (inherently benign) item--knife, gun, or otherwise. It is this fundamental human right from which the right to bear arms is derived--not statistics, culture, or personal beliefs.

(quotes from Ayn Rand's "The Virtue of Selfishness")

MINK?, alien concept??...QM?... dannym3141?? Thank you. Stay safe and sane, and your dissent in this matter, is greatly needed-swimming up-stream in shit is difficult, and oftentimes, goes unrewarded-

Institutions hold weight and meaning, and this one pissed upon, is a simply the signs of the times.....retrograde, dying, bursting at the seams-

Marry away Mary Lacy, marry away Sappho Jasper-and then, as it has been throughout the history of societies.."Keep a lid on it."

"Mommy, why is that man kissing that other man?"
"Well Billy, their public display in the face of overwhelming contrary social mores, could be a frustrated and anarchistic protest-they do it perhaps, because they know that most of the people watching will be offended and uncomfortable...perhaps they did not get enough proper attention from their mothers and fathers, maybe their first sexual encounter at puberty was one with a person of the same sex, or maybe like all of earth's creatures, whose prime directive is continuation of the species, they we're simply BORN that way."

That's why he needs more! Why does kindness always go unrewarded???!!