The Many Faces of US Politics...

[muppet]

Ah the old ego Muppet, it can get the better of the best of us. Repent! Repent!

You don't even have to use your own philosophy Muppet, you don't even have to have one, we arent trying to out do each other. I am just trying to demonstrate a few things, open people's mind a little more. Anyway this shit is way to impractical to use as your own personal philosophy.

And you point to my ego?

Joe you are simply a contrarian. No matter what anyone posts you gently (most of the time) disagree and put up a smilie. What is the point?

I don't believe in taking a view point based on an initial or gut reaction (apart from sports, music or food) and then working backwards with facts to try and prove my viewpoint.

But to answer your question it is to gain information and further understanding of subject areas and have a bit o craic. You?

I don't believe in blindly following dogma and working backwards with facts to try to justify what I have been told to believe.

I enjoy these debates, though much to my surprise my style of posting obviously wind somes people up. It is not deliberate (usually  ), as when I have the same discussion at work or in the pub, this doesn't appear to happen. It probably reflects my inability to articulate my thoughts properly in writing.

[omaghjoe]

It's the confusion of the question of how with the question of why. The naturalist doesn't assert there is nothing but the material world. He asserts that the material world is all we KNOW and (at least partially) understand - the how of things. He asserts that we do not (yet?) possess the capability to understand the reason(s) for the existence if the universe, if there are any - the why of things.

The theist attributes both the how and the why to supernatural (i.e. non naturalist) intervention. But there is no basis at all in anything we KNOW for those assertions. He might as well speculate that it's all down to th cosmic teapot.

That which is asserted without proof may clearly be rejected without proof or even comment.

I thought that's exactly what naturalists believed in terms of philosophy at least, that there is only the material? But as I have pointed out earlier the material itself has been cast into doubt by quantum physics, which theorises that there is in fact no material. The physical realm is just how we perceive things but that in itself is just an illusion formed by our minds, which begs the question: Are the traditional nonphysical entities we have actually the only real things we have since the physical is just an illusion?

But anyway onward to your point and indeed you raise a good one about the How and Why. Maybe that just another way of understanding the physical (how?) and the nonphysical (why?) is it? Or at least is that the question that both fields are trying to answer?

To a practical level I find both fields ( if they can even be called that) quite compatible, one deals with the physical realm the other deals with non physical. The problems arise when we attempt to apply them to each other, which I believe you are trying to do. Theists beliefs are based on faith not proof and certainly not physical proof. There are of course theists who are creationists but a theist in the strict sense of the word would not try to tie his belief to the material world and if he did, he would reform his belief based on physical evidence.

[Hardy]

We should pay great attention to the questions philosophers ask. We should pay no attention to their answers.

Somebody said that.

[J70]

Stephen Hawkings writes:
"Provided the universe has evolved in a regular way, we might expect that the reasoning abilities that natural selection has given us would be valid....and so would not lead us to the wrong conclusions"

Purely on materialistic grounds, this argument and yours J70 is entirely circular. In a naturalist universe in which nothing exists but matter, our minds would reducible to brain chemistry. Our thoughts, ideas even our reasoning would be reducible to deterministic physical processes. So when Hawkings (surely regarded as one of the greats of naturalism) appeals to the theory of evolution, random mutation and natural selection to explain our ability to think, reason and draw accurate conclusions, he appeals o a theory that is itself the result of physical processes How can you or Hawkings or any naturalist know that your ideas are true??

If our ideas are just the biological product of deterministic material laws and natural processes, biochemical excretions and whatnot, why does anything you have to say about anything have any meaning? Or any truth?

If you are really a firm naturalist surely you agree?

Been thinking a little about this. Like I said, I am far from a philosopher, and your "how do we know what we perceive as truth or fact or reality is in fact so" is not an easy question.

You brought it up to challenge my assertion that science and materialism is a more valid and vital lens through which to view the world than religion or any other world view. Your challenge is in the form that "how can we know what science tells us is true or fact?"

I'm not convinced that is actually relevant though. As Omaghjoe also said (I think!), we have to have a starting point, a baseline from which to operate in processing the world in which we live. We all operate on the basis that the things we sense are real (and yes, this can occasionally fail e.g. mental illness). If I drive the wrong way down a one way street or I fire a gun into a crowd, the chances are that a real person can get hurt. If I jump into a roiling current, I'm probably going to drown. If my child is sick, I take them to a doctor for treatment. If my child misbehaves, I correct them and try to teach them. If I don't treat my child, educate my child or teach it proper behaviour, bad outcomes are more likely. These decisions are all based on logic and accumulated experience and knowledge, both personal and societal, with no appeal to supernaturalism or mysticism required. And given that the same processes of thought and confidence in our perceptions have given rise to the development of spiritualism and religion, except without the physical evidence and process of confirmation and validation, why should they be elevated to the same plane of authority? Are you really saying that some nomad looking at the sky 3,000 years ago, wondering where it all started, and due to the limits of knowledge attributing it all to some unseen, magical, intelligent force, that his views should carry the same weight as that of modern day science where predictions are made and tested empirically? If you are saying that anything and everything is fair game and equally valid, then I don't know what to say to that. Good luck with the witch doctor I guess!

My point was J70 as a proclaimed firm naturalist you can't even understand or point out how you even came up with all of this. And you have to agree that it is meaningless. The result of electro chemical farts in your brain.
So either you change your world view and decide you are no longer a naturalist, because to be so and still argue so vehemently your points on every thread would seem pointless (especially on this one) OR you continue to be a naturalist and freely admit that everything you have to say carries no more weight than any of us....

Meaningless in terms of what? In comparison to what?

Are you seriously saying that no one is ever right about anything?

In the naturalist world everything just is. Thats it.
It just is.

Maybe our understanding of naturalism is different. But I dispute you are really a naturalist. Maybe a cultural naturalist. a naturalist with a 'but'...

"Just is" as in its not a figment or creation of the mind of some magical being?

"Just is" as in there is not some other place or "reward" toward which we are working?

[omaghjoe]

We should pay great attention to the questions philosophers ask. We should pay no attention to their answers.

Somebody said that.

Oh well, it was nice while it lasted

[omaghjoe]

Ah the old ego Muppet, it can get the better of the best of us. Repent! Repent!

You don't even have to use your own philosophy Muppet, you don't even have to have one, we arent trying to out do each other. I am just trying to demonstrate a few things, open people's mind a little more. Anyway this shit is way to impractical to use as your own personal philosophy.

And you point to my ego?

Joe you are simply a contrarian. No matter what anyone posts you gently (most of the time) disagree and put up a smilie. What is the point?

I don't believe in taking a view point based on an initial or gut reaction (apart from sports, music or food) and then working backwards with facts to try and prove my viewpoint.

But to answer your question it is to gain information and further understanding of subject areas and have a bit o craic. You?

I don't believe in blindly following dogma and working backwards with facts to try to justify what I have been told to believe.

I enjoy these debates, though much to my surprise my style of posting obviously wind somes people up. It is not deliberate (usually  ), as when I have the same discussion at work or in the pub, this doesn't appear to happen. It probably reflects my inability to articulate my thoughts properly in writing.

And thats fine if you want to use that position as your base position, although if you read my posts on the past few pages that in this great unknown where our understanding is constantly changing we have to use something as a base, something as a given, which is why many people use the stability and untouchable nature of faith as that base. So at the very least you have to open to the idea that some/alot of people do work with faith and dogma, and that to call out the differences in your base position every time you disagree with them even tho you may have many other outlooks similar will not be constructive. We have to use what we do agree on to create resolutions, not what we disagree on.

[muppet]

And thats fine if you want to use that position as your base position, although if you read my posts on the past few pages that in this great unknown where our understanding is constantly changing we have to use something as a base, something as a given, which is why many people use the stability and untouchable nature of faith as that base. So at the very least you have to open to the idea that some/alot of people do work with faith and dogma, and that to call out the differences in your base position every time you disagree with them even tho you may have many other outlooks similar will not be constructive. We have to use what we do agree on to create resolutions, not what we disagree on.

See, this is my problem.

My understanding may change from time to time, but it requires a well made point.

What is yours?

[omaghjoe]

And thats fine if you want to use that position as your base position, although if you read my posts on the past few pages that in this great unknown where our understanding is constantly changing we have to use something as a base, something as a given, which is why many people use the stability and untouchable nature of faith as that base. So at the very least you have to open to the idea that some/alot of people do work with faith and dogma, and that to call out the differences in your base position every time you disagree with them even tho you may have many other outlooks similar will not be constructive. We have to use what we do agree on to create resolutions, not what we disagree on.

See, this is my problem.

My understanding may change from time to time, but it requires a well made point.

What is yours?

Oh I don't have any problem, I recognise that different people have different points of view and come to an understanding of the world from different places so I try to reach an understanding with them based on common ground. I wouldn't discuss sausages with a jew or whiskeys with a tee totaler, I wouldn't get anywhere and probably likely offend them.

My understanding is changing constantly of both the physical and nonphysical. I absolutely revel in new information and considering new takes on things.

[foxcommander]

Has this been on the US news yet?

http://trendingstylist.com/police-hunting-for-black/

[J70]

Has this been on the US news yet?

http://trendingstylist.com/police-hunting-for-black/

14 year old kids assaulting another kid and behaving like idiots should be national news?

I'm sure you can find some better story to support your blacks as agressors/whites as the real victims persecution complex.

[cuconnacht]

Ah the old ego Muppet, it can get the better of the best of us. Repent! Repent!

You don't even have to use your own philosophy Muppet, you don't even have to have one, we arent trying to out do each other. I am just trying to demonstrate a few things, open people's mind a little more. Anyway this shit is way to impractical to use as your own personal philosophy.

And you point to my ego?

Joe you are simply a contrarian. No matter what anyone posts you gently (most of the time) disagree and put up a smilie. What is the point?

Ah now,dont be heedin him OmaghJoe,keep smileying ,I believe Omaghjoe to be more of a constructionist of the De Cartes mode and method and Muppet the real Contrarian
(and hes probably still pissed off with having to go to the great shithole in the sky bog on the 19th instead of a nice day out  in Salthill)

[foxcommander]

Has this been on the US news yet?

http://trendingstylist.com/police-hunting-for-black/

14 year old kids assaulting another kid and behaving like idiots should be national news?

I'm sure you can find some better story to support your blacks as agressors/whites as the real victims persecution complex.

That's your take on it? acting like idiots.... Can't even bring yourself to call it as it actually is. And what about all the friends standing around and egging her on? Even the guy dancing...

I'm sure if roles were reversed it would be on repeat on CNN...

[J70]

Has this been on the US news yet?

http://trendingstylist.com/police-hunting-for-black/

14 year old kids assaulting another kid and behaving like idiots should be national news?

I'm sure you can find some better story to support your blacks as agressors/whites as the real victims persecution complex.

That's your take on it? acting like idiots.... Can't even bring yourself to call it as it actually is. And what about all the friends standing around and egging her on? Even the guy dancing...

I'm sure if roles were reversed it would be on repeat on CNN...

My take on it is that they are kids.

You didn't see shit like this in secondary school with bullying and a gang egging on someone kicking the shite out of another? If it wasn't some tool using race as a justification it would have been something else. And yes, of course its racist nonsense they're spouting.


But, I still don't get why this would be national news worthy. Are you saying this is the same as cops beating up or shooting unarmed black people?

Rush Limbaugh has, a number of times, highlighted stuff like this to show a supposed increase in racist behaviour on the part of blacks since Obama's election.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/16/rush-limbaugh-obamas-amer_n_288371.html

[omaghjoe]

Ah the old ego Muppet, it can get the better of the best of us. Repent! Repent!

You don't even have to use your own philosophy Muppet, you don't even have to have one, we arent trying to out do each other. I am just trying to demonstrate a few things, open people's mind a little more. Anyway this shit is way to impractical to use as your own personal philosophy.

And you point to my ego?

Joe you are simply a contrarian. No matter what anyone posts you gently (most of the time) disagree and put up a smilie. What is the point?

Ah now,dont be heedin him OmaghJoe,keep smileying ,I believe Omaghjoe to be more of a constructionist of the De Cartes mode and method and Muppet the real Contrarian
(and hes probably still pissed off with having to go to the great shithole in the sky bog on the 19th instead of a nice day out  in Salthill)

I've no intention of stopping Cuconnacht.
Its only his perception of me anyway but then its probably more real than the reality since that maybe isnt real at all :-)

On another note I enjoy your analysis, philosophy is something you obviously know about. I on other hand know feck all about it but just come up with shit, only to find out some other eejit came up with it in a more eloquent way years ago anyway.

Well I at least heard of Descartes, thanks to his coordinates. Never knew he was a philosopher tho into the bargin. I see where you leading me BTW, to those ontological arguments? Very good, tho defo gone way beyond the boundaries of this thread, would be interested to hear a few peoples opinions on them. However it would most likely be futile as most people have already made their mind up on the subject anyway so it would only be google search away to find a contradictory argument which you could latch on to.

[Hardy]

Has this been on the US news yet?

http://trendingstylist.com/police-hunting-for-black/

That's embarrassing. Not the item. Your decision to post as if it made some kind of point.