Wednesday, January 04, 2006


Don't forget to check out the sidebar occassionally for new blogs! I've added Neo, and Nicki of The Liberty Zone (by the way, I joined the Navy to get out of the Army Reserve, so you can keep the Army!) There's also BlameBush and GM's Corner, check 'em out!

Neo, Soc of Caucasianally-Challenged-Christian has some excellent and thoughtful response to my philosophical arguements which have arisen out on my opining over ID v. Evolutionary theory. I seem to have given him food for thought without being smited, so I've got that going for me!

Though, he's right about what he said on Shoptrat's blog, this is a neverending philoposhical discussion. Nobody's going to convince anybody of anything and nobody's going to "win". Stating and restating my position is, well, repetitive and redundant so I'm just going to address a couple of things and move on.

His posts addressing point I've brought up linked below:
Re: Epistomology & Origins
You bring up a good point about me not having existed to you before you saw what I'd written, and that you still haven't laid eyes on me, so how would you know for sure? Well, using a little deductive reasoning, you can puzzle it out. For example, if you tried Googling Robosquirrel or Matthew T. Armstrong, you'd come up with evidence of things I have written dating back almost ten years, as well as some other stuff by other people discussing Robo-squirrels and named Matthew T. Armstrong. Of course Google isn't scientific, and you'll get about 152,000,000 hits for "God" as well. I suppose if Google was scientific proof, well, there you'd have it! But I have an address and phone number! Does God have those? You could come to Rhode Island and I'd buy you a beer! Would that prove I exist? Would God buy you a beer?

Neo writes:
Observable data: Everything has a design! Period! We sit here musing over DNA chains and the such; and each shows a unique design and structure not from happenstance but order. Yet, to create/maintain such a variety of differences, you would need an infinitely intelligent creator to have these exist apart from itself.
The problem with this arguement is that religious explanations for the order of things do not subject themselves to be objectively falsified. If I may rephrase, you're saying that everything has a design is because there has do be a God. Likewise, I suppose there has to be a God, because everything is design? Is it so impossible to believe that life may be a series of complex system interacting with one another and that elements of these systems align because of their individual properties? Uh... let's consider that rhetorical. This is the main reason I used to avoid religious topics since religious explanations for the order of things are based on faith and do not subject themselves to be objectively falsified. You can't disprove something that by it's nature can't be proven. It doesn't matter anyway, because I'm not trying to disprove God or ID, or prove Evolution, rather discuss these things on their rational merits.

Re: Fable or Fact
Just because the Bible is old and there are a lot of copies doesn't make the very magical, mythical, things that defy all reason within its pages true. What about all the gospels that didn't make into the "approved" bible? What reason would the church have to exclude them? I don't know much about them other than that they exist.

Homer's Illiad may be an authentic work by Homer, but it's hardly any more fact than the Bible is. Both have elements of truth, interpretations of actual events, perhaps, but the Greek gods no more fought the battle of Troy than Lot's wife turned to a pillar of salt. I don't know scripture, but I remember a bit of Sunday school.

I realize science supports things like the great flood, but I'd love some references on science having proven that the Bible is word-for-word fact. I'm no biblical scholar, and could stand to read a little more.

As I said, I'm not trying to explain life or the beginning of Earth, but to implore people to use their inherent ability to reason.

Re: Is Procreation a viable option for evolutionists?
To be clear, you are quoting me quoting Ayn Rand, with whom I mostly agree. In her view, one should act in one's own best interests, without undermining yourself for the benefit of others or taking advantage of them. I think this would be a beautiful world if everyone could manage that. As far as my kids, well, my eight-year-old daughter doesn't live with me and my son hasn't been born yet. But when my daughter visits me or I visit her, I do my best to instill her with self-respect and self-sufficiency. It's difficult without being able to be a full-time parent.

She also said, To say "'I love you' one must first be able to say the 'I.'"

Also, “Love is an expression and assertion of self-esteem, a response to one's own values in the person of another. One gains a profoundly personal, selfish joy from the mere existence of the person one loves. It is one's own personal, selfish happiness that one seeks, earns, and derives from love.”

Finally, “That love is reverence, and worship, and glory, and the upward glance. Not a bandage for dirty sores. But they don't know it. Those who speak of love most promiscuously are the ones who've never felt it. They make some sort of feeble stew out of sympathy, compassion, comtempt, and general indiference, and they call it love. Once you've felt what it means to love as you and I know it - the total passion for the total height - you are unable of anything else.”

Wow, man, I want to experience that - I feel that I am moving in that direction. It's the ideal. The problem with Rand's philosophy is that in order for her ideal to be reached, everyone would need to be that way. As it is, when people meet someone like this, they consider that person arrogant, cold, even cruel... which is why I found it interesting you said, "Okay, now. If he is a parent, then I couldn't be his kid because I'd be in a world of hurt not receiving attention because my dad's ideology does not permit him to acknowledge my existence." That's hardly what that means.

As far as, "If I am a sick or needy individual I would fret often because I would be a liability to him and therefore expendable," well, not exactly. I would want to take care of you if you are someone I care about (don't take that the wrong way - as you can see, I am somewhat empathic!). If I don't know you or have no reason to take care of you, why would I do it? One must also wonder why you are sick or needy in the first place. Have you put yourself in this position by way of your own foolishness? Have you not acted in your own self-interest when you could've or should've? Why should I take care of someone who can't be bothered to take care of himself and survives on the charity of well-meaning suckers?

"If I am a criminal then I can have a field day with him because his ideology forces him to operate alone and one target is better to stop than two." Not at all. A person such as whom Ayn Rand describes attract people who appreciate his nature. I have one or two good friends, plenty of people I socialize and am friendly with, am happily married and have the love and support of my family - the feeling is mutual. You seem to think that such a person would hate mankind, when in fact it's just the opposite. The person who helps those who should help themselves to that own person's detriment, or uses others to further himself - that person hates mankind. Why else keep your fellow men from acheiving all that they could acheive and in a constant state of dependency? What is there for me to gain by keeping you from being a productive member of society?


Blogger Nicki bloody well said...

We'll save the inter-service rivalry for another day. Ahem. Needless to say, Army RULES!!


04 January, 2006 23:02  
Anonymous Anonymous bloody well said...

Who knows where to download XRumer 5.0 Palladium?
Help, please. All recommend this program to effectively advertise on the Internet, this is the best program!

13 November, 2009 22:21  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home