The proof of God
Current time: 09-20-2014, 07:00 PM
User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
Author: arizona_logan
Last Post: eye2i2hear
Replies: 45
Views: 10640

Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The proof of God
01-28-2012, 07:37 PM
Post: #16
RE: The proof of God
None, his saying that it's the only one that makes sense is not equivalent of him trying to SHOVE this idea down your throat, so watch yourself, too. He's expressing it as a truth for himself. No where did he say "and you MUST believe this."

I share a similar view in terms of logic in relation to God. I accept that all human knowledge combined has not yet discovered all truth, so I can't claim there isn't a space for God somewhere in a logical universe. However, since we DO have things like logic and the universe IS self-consistent, I suspect God MUST be a being in concordance with whatever principles govern this universe.

As far as the logical argument Zonsb shared, I've seen it before. It's quite good and quite valid, but validity is not the same as truth. It's only valid within the confines of it's own premises, as all logic is judged. In answer to such a logical proposition, one MUST wonder what is meant, then, by "good" and "evil." And, if you suppose there was a creative being responsible for the human race, what makes one suppose he must be all-powerful?

I don't hold this view of a god as plausible at all (I anticipate people taking this as a quote and simply ranting that none of it is plausible. I ask you in advance not to insult my intellect by presuming I don't consider that point, either. I'm just not exploring it HERE). IF there is such a thing as a scale of good vs. evil, or instead call it something else, like rational consistency vs. irrational inconsistency; IF there is ANY such scale to measure things which only MATTER to the volitional consciousnesses in the universe, what then precludes the possibility of rising to a point of understanding and capability to create a whole race of beings? Even worlds?

And is not THIS a standard of goodness? One we all pursue? By way of citing the desire and joy of creating children and learning the sciences by which we have greater control over our impact and interaction with our reality, I think there's a case for at least this point, that there is a standard of goodness and a scale of refinement.

But why must God be all-powerful? What does that even mean? By the very act of defining God by any description, you are logically acknowledging that he is something and not anything else.

Suppose, then, that God is perfect, or at the least past the event horizon on the scale of refinement proposed earlier. Is not the act of creating a race of other sentient beings a act of goodness upon this scale? Remember, the scale is only relevant given the existence of any volitional being.

Would not the doing of the good be, therefor, give some credence to the idea that God does, perhaps, therefor pro-actively promote good over evil? And if we believe so much in voluntarism, why is such a blame-like logic attributed to god's actions? Would not his interference against evil in the world, a world full of other volitional consciousnesses, be hypocritical and counter to his own volitional consciousness? THAT would most certainly invalidate god as god, because the scale of goodness would demand such high degree for the respect for the autonomy of others.

I will preface here that I don't buy as true for one second the biblical stories of God leveling cities as being something that supposedly actually happened, so don't anybody dredge such muck up and presume you know what I ascribe to when I haven't said so.

If god has a nature, and it is good, god has boundaries. The logic of "willing" and "able" presupposes an obligation upon God to do a hell of a lot in an interfering manner, and simultaneously a lot of cause to blame him if he does not. In short, it assumes to know what the motives of such a being would have to be, and what boundaries define what he is.

It is not, in short, unequivocal proof against God. It is a very valuable proof against many weak superstitions, but not a complete disproof by a long shot.

If God is perfect, he adheres to and is measured as such against some standard.

Forget, then, pissing about whether he's real, or not. Find the standard. So very many things and teachings attributed to him and those who were called his disciples are based around this one idea:

Learn the standards that define right action. Observe them and and remain faithful to them, and afford yourself the truth that you will not do so perfectly, in either the first or the second.

Let's have no more bloody religious quibbling, if you all would be so kind. Just because I believe there is a real possibility for God to exist does not mean I wish others to bend to this belief. "My beliefs do not require them to."

Just the same, if you do not believe God is at all possible, rational ethics still stipulate that you cannot require others to instead reject this possibility in sole favor of logic.

I have friends of all positions, but what groups them together as friends is that they understand that the PRINCIPLES are more important than proving or disproving GOD. In my view, knowing these principles perfectly would be the only way you would ever truly KNOW anything without having to rely on any modicum of faith, even faith in the idea of the power and applicability of pure logic.

We carry tentative conclusions at all times, people. That's all faith is for. Without assuming some position, without espousing some idea in spite of the acknowledged incompleteness of our understanding, we could not function. We could not make choice at all.

And so what? This is the thing that gives rise to the pleasures of new experience, the novelty of living.

Whether you espouse "religious" notions or not, you all utilize faith to shore up those holes; to allow you to act in the face of what paralyzing dread you would otherwise feel at the pointing of realizing you don't know the path before you started walking it.

First principles. If there's any room for God, it is proven in here. But as long as people wish to peacefully exercise their application of faith towards the belief that he is, leave them be. As well, I respect equally anyone looking for first principles who does not expect or hope or plan to find God there.

All else is getting off the point. Let's, please, have more useful discussions. Anyone who takes any proposition I made about what I THINK God MAY BE IF he exists, and simply continue the argument, I call you out now as a wanker. Let it go.

One shouldn't believe everything one thinks.
-Jace: Johanson
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-28-2012, 09:52 PM
Post: #17
RE: The proof of God
NonEntity Wrote:Dude, I did not come forth and try and force my beliefs down anyone else's throat.
I don't think Logan did either.

NonEntity Wrote:Logan came in with incoherent and illogical assertions and then gets upset that we don't accept them all.
NonEntity Wrote:I think perhaps the same applies to you.

You lost me. Could you elaborate?





NonEntity Wrote:I don't give a good god damn WHAT you want to believe as long as you are polite and honest in your approach.

[IMO] I don't think that is entirely true. You seem to have demonstrated that you do care to some degree, to have replied in the first place and to lash out so unprovoked.


-NonE-Prime

Why is it a penny for your thoughts but you have to throw in your two cents? Somebody's making a penny here....
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-28-2012, 10:53 PM (This post was last modified: 01-28-2012 10:53 PM by zonsb.)
Post: #18
RE: The proof of God
(01-28-2012 07:37 PM)Jace: Johanson Wrote:  But why must God be all-powerful? What does that even mean?

I think the Christian God, which is the alleged God at issue as started by Logan with this thread, in scriptures says God is all powerful. Perhaps the Bible explains what that even means. It is the Christian God that my post was directly related to. Obviously it was within that premise. I meant it no further than to call into question the notion of an omnipotent God. You chose to expand the God issue beyond the Christian God and elaborated on that.

--

The thought of how far the human race would have advanced absent initiatory force
staggers the imagination.

THE POINT: Unlike the government thief, a common thief doesn't claim his "craft" is honest.
Lawyer-like dishonesty a point: The common thief is honest when he tells you he's robbing you.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-29-2012, 08:35 AM
Post: #19
RE: The proof of God
(01-28-2012 09:52 PM)Kel Wrote:  
NonEntity Wrote:I think perhaps the same applies to you.

You lost me. Could you elaborate?

-NonE-Prime
NonE-Prime Wrote:Because your statements do not mesh with their own fucked-up, shattered view of the world.

- NonE

P.S. Jace, I appreciated your post. I wrote a long thoughtful response to it. My dog the computer ate it. I may try again. Or I may not.

- NonE

- NonE .).

"I just don't understand how this happens." Undecided
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-29-2012, 11:24 AM
Post: #20
RE: The proof of God
(01-29-2012 08:35 AM)NonEntity Wrote:  
(01-28-2012 09:52 PM)Kel Wrote:  
NonEntity Wrote:I think perhaps the same applies to you.

You lost me. Could you elaborate?

-NonE-Prime
NonE-Prime Wrote:Because your statements do not mesh with their own fucked-up, shattered view of the world.

- NonE

I guess what I meant to say when I asked if you could elaborate, was if you would give me an example as to what you were referring to. I still don't understand.


-NonE-Prime

Why is it a penny for your thoughts but you have to throw in your two cents? Somebody's making a penny here....
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-29-2012, 01:17 PM (This post was last modified: 01-29-2012 01:55 PM by NonEntity.)
Post: #21
RE: The proof of God
(01-29-2012 11:24 AM)Kel Wrote:  
NonE-Prime Wrote:Because your statements do not mesh with their own fucked-up, shattered view of the world.

- NonE

I guess what I meant to say when I asked if you could elaborate, was if you would give me an example as to what you were referring to. I still don't understand.


-NonE-Prime

[/quote]

I did exactly that, I gave you an example.

- NonE


(01-28-2012 04:49 PM)Dionysus Wrote:  You could also try to convert your beliefs into "knowns."

Dude, I just ran across an interesting (and very short) article that I think you may enjoy regarding the concept of "to know."

- NonE

- NonE .).

"I just don't understand how this happens." Undecided
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-29-2012, 03:05 PM (This post was last modified: 01-29-2012 03:10 PM by Kel.)
Post: #22
RE: The proof of God
(01-29-2012 01:17 PM)NonEntity Wrote:  
(01-29-2012 11:24 AM)Kel Wrote:  
NonE-Prime Wrote:Because your statements do not mesh with their own fucked-up, shattered view of the world.

- NonE

I guess what I meant to say when I asked if you could elaborate, was if you would give me an example as to what you were referring to. I still don't understand.


-NonE-Prime



NonEntity Wrote:I did exactly that, I gave you an example.

- NonE


Is that the incoherent and illogical assertion you feel I was putting forth? And that I was/am getting upset because others do not accept it?

I ask only for clarification, because admittedly I am still a bit lost on what it is you were driving at.

-NonE-Prime.

Why is it a penny for your thoughts but you have to throw in your two cents? Somebody's making a penny here....
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-29-2012, 04:59 PM (This post was last modified: 01-29-2012 05:18 PM by NonEntity.)
Post: #23
RE: The proof of God
(01-29-2012 03:05 PM)Kel Wrote:  
(01-29-2012 01:17 PM)NonEntity Wrote:  
(01-29-2012 11:24 AM)Kel Wrote:  
NonE-Prime Wrote:Because your statements do not mesh with their own fucked-up, shattered view of the world.

- NonE

I guess what I meant to say when I asked if you could elaborate, was if you would give me an example as to what you were referring to. I still don't understand.


-NonE-Prime



NonEntity Wrote:I did exactly that, I gave you an example.

- NonE


Is that the incoherent and illogical assertion you feel I was putting forth? And that I was/am getting upset because others do not accept it?

I ask only for clarification, because admittedly I am still a bit lost on what it is you were driving at.

-NonE-Prime.


Ah. I see. Sorry, I didn't understand your confusion. I was speaking of, not the "incoherent and illogical," but rather the "getting upset because..." And as evidence of your "upset that we don't accept them all," I used the tone of the statement, the tone of the phrasing: "do not mesh with their own fucked-up, shattered view of the world."

Does that help to clarify this for you?

In attempting to respond to your post I'm seeing a lot of truth in Jace's critique of my post. I think I said something like "shove his ideas down our throats" and Jace pointed out that there was no "force" involved, that he had merely made a statement. And that is true, so I'm trying to find out what it is that set me off, and I'm thinking that it is his declarations about truth, and that is what often sets me off about religionists, of whatever stripe, this tendency to proclaim TRUTHS by declaration rather than presenting evidence and then pointing out that this evidence, to the writer, tends to lead to certain conclusions.

It is the declaration that I see as "force." Zat help Jace? (Not meaning that I'm right, just trying to show you how I'm seeing this as an offer of why I may be reacting as I am.)

To make a claim of proof is to be a very disrespectful approach, it is dismissive of the other person. To offer evidence and a conclusion is respectful and allows room for disagreement. As evidenced by my statement that I don't care what you think, to which Jace claimed that I obviously DID care... well, no, I don't. What I DO care about is when you treat me with contempt from the get go, which is my perception of what declaration of TRUTH is a form of.

I also find it terribly disrespectful when a writer doesn't even show his reader enough respect to make sure a sentence is coherent and can be parsed into a logical form. If you can't be bothered to spell check and proof read your sentences then it would appear to me that you have no respect whatsoever for your audience, you take them as fools beneath your respect. Which sort of rhymes with "do not mesh with their own fucked-up, shattered view of the world." Angel

I hope maybe this will further the discussion.

So there ya go. Cool

- NonE


(01-27-2012 11:09 PM)arizona_logan Wrote:  It must be presupposed in order to be proved.

Need I say anything more about this? (My rudeness is another matter.)

And if you claim that I am taking this out of context... read it IN CONTEXT, it is just as insane, circular, illogical, devoid of any rational meaning.

But the wonderful thing is that this is the essence, the core, the heart and soul of all religious belief, in ONE SENTENCE!

To prove the truth one must accept (x) with no evidence or consideration.
This is literally insane.

- NonE

- NonE .).

"I just don't understand how this happens." Undecided
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-29-2012, 08:04 PM (This post was last modified: 01-29-2012 08:05 PM by WorBlux.)
Post: #24
RE: The proof of God
(01-28-2012 01:34 PM)arizona_logan Wrote:  
(01-28-2012 10:32 AM)WorBlux Wrote:  
(01-28-2012 01:34 PM)arizona_logan Wrote:  
(01-28-2012 10:32 AM)WorBlux Wrote:  The philosophy of the medieval church from the time of Aquinas to Luther was dominated by the works of Aristotle, who was referred to simply as "The Philsosopher." The key element of which was the assertion of a real distinction between essence and existence. (And not the existence of the biblical god, for which Aquinas admitted was entirely a matter of faith and revalation rather than reason and logic.)

The western worldview is simply not synonymous with the christian one, and it took over a millennium for the former to be fully integrated into the later.

I don't see how this has to do with my post. If you want to debate you will have to do it off the things i say and not others.

Your failure on the first matter makes me reluctant to continue in the second. Consult the fourth paragraph of your original post and let me know if your eyes are opened.


This response is to the two of you.
I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying.
I am not trying to disprove logic, no not at all.
I am also not saying that non Christians don't use logic.

What I am saying is in any other worldview apart from the Christian logic does not make sense.
Logic is the very way God thinks. He has written it on our hearts.
My question to you two and to anybody reading this is how in an atheistic worldview can you account for logic? In other words why do we have it and where does it come from? What is it's foundation? This also holds true to morality and the uniformity of nature.

But you did make the claim that no system of though can give an account of certain things unless they have incorporated a christian god.

This is not true, the Aristotelian system does account many or most of these things, so much so that vast portions of said system were incorporated with little alteration into christian philosophy at the height of it's power and influence in the western world.

Logic comes from the identity and nature of things, from the fact that A is A.

Morality is from the same of man, but somewhat more subtle, it describes both his inclinations and some things about his internal causal structure.

The uniformity of nature is due to the reality of essence. Everything that exists does so only in a certain and particular way.

No my other problem with your explanation is that it is imaginary, and doesn't actually explain anything. You start with the observation I have and add to that an assumption there is a biblical god somehow responsible for these three things.

Such an assumption doesn't explain anything more or offer any additional insights over them. Though of course your taken the liberty of such an explanation, there is no reason why it must be taken.

My pgp key ID:
0x3E4258F8382DE6D0
available at subkeys.pgp.net (and others)
key fingerprint:
2F0C 4109 C8C3 B8BE E0B9 84DF 3E42 58F8 382D E6D0
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-30-2012, 01:37 AM (This post was last modified: 01-31-2012 01:35 AM by Jace: Johanson.)
Post: #25
RE: The proof of God
Thanks for the nod, NonE. I look forward to seeing your second draft of your lost response, if you decide to re-write it. You're clarification of your own position was appreciated, although I can't say it wasn't almost exactly as I anticipated it when I decided to chime in. This is meant to be a neutral statement of fact, in case anyone's first read implies I'm tooting my own horn. Angel I do take very much pride in exercising an empathic approach to entering a discussion, especially if I'm crazy enough to step between arguing parties. Confused

One thing to point out, though. I was confused here:

Quote:to which Jace claimed that I obviously DID care

Cause I was quite sure I never entered that arena. I think you were referring, instead, to this, which Kel wrote:

Quote:You seem to have demonstrated that you do care to some degree, to have replied in the first place and to lash out so unprovoked.

Didn't want to enter that point, still don't except to bring to your attention what I take as an innocuous run-of-the-mill brain spasm. All-in-all, I appreciate your response, though I'd add only one last micro-critique of still coming off strong (but I get that you probably also know that)
Quote:(My rudeness is another matter.)

Also, Kel, I judge of you that you wouldn't assume I'm taking sides, but I want to avoid leaving it on your shoulders to know I'm not.

WorBlux.... not much to say. You're regularly good and neutral from where I stand. Stay Black, mate. Tounge Big Grin

Zonsb, I considered that perspective at the time. I took it that the topic had already been widened towards all religiosity, just made a point to acknowledge the premises of the quote itself are limited. I completely agree with questioning the ideas claimed to be attributes of God, and I expect you gathered that from the rest.

I know of lot of scriptures that say things akin to "God is all-powerful," yet not actually in those words, and most I know are written in allegorical language that MAY reasonably be taken to mean that, but aren't hard-lining toward that interpretation.. sort of attempting to explain an idea close to omnipotency, while acknowledging the inherent flaw and the lack of something to fill it with.... Noticing that was one thing that spurred my own questioning of what God's nature and motives could actually be, rather than what was claimed to be...

Anyway, I know of lot's of misconstructions of things that are said to be IN the Bible. The line from Aesop's Fables, "God helps those who help themselves," being a rather infamous transposition.



[addressing everyone, now] Really my point was that I'd hope we'd not continue the (pardon the phrase, please) circle-jerk of arguing religion, that's been going on..... forever. We're already committed to one age-old argument. Let's not persist another which causes divides on both sides of the first, and which can be easily set aside according to the standards of, "Are your beliefs based on demanding I share them or be harmed? No? Good, welcome aboard; what's you're name....?" OR "Yes? Then I pity you. Tounge"

Really, if anyone does make a statement that [blank] is the only viewpoint that makes total sense, is it somehow NOT really true that all you DO have to say in response is ask that question? I judged by Alex, here and elsewhere, that he'd say "Yes." Can't actually substitute my supposition for the truth in any way, but I would have expected this to really be the nature of the response given by anyone who finds such a proposition (understandably) as off-putting.

I expect high standards from our veteran and reputable posters, like you, NonE. If you DO remember your standard litmus question, just remember to ask it instead. It would, I think, address that unidentified stress reaction of yours which you hinted at in acknowledging my critique. (I picked a phrase to describe what you said which seemed fair. Mentally insert a more personally appropriate one if you find it askew...)

After all, you can only rationally take someone at their word without being in regular proximate presence of them, as is not the case when it's over the internet. I've (sigh, sadly) seen enough and different high-functioning sociopathy to know that I can only gauge any one of you so much off of only textual interactions. So far you've all generally earned my trust and respect as far as I could digitally throw you, but for all we really know, anyone we've only interacted with online, and many people we even meet, could just be very skilled liars.

Even you, Marc. Big Grin

I thoroughly enjoy myself here sometimes.... Big GrinBig GrinBig GrinBig Grin

No worries. Peace, mates.

One shouldn't believe everything one thinks.
-Jace: Johanson
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-30-2012, 06:16 AM (This post was last modified: 01-30-2012 07:00 AM by NonEntity.)
Post: #26
RE: The proof of God
(01-30-2012 01:37 AM)Jace: Johanson Wrote:  Cause I was quite sure I never entered that arena. I think you were referring, instead, to this, which Kel wrote:

Quote:You seem to have demonstrated that you do care to some degree, to have replied in the first place and to lash out so unprovoked.

You are quite right. My humble apologies.

- NonE

Jace, My apologies up front for this: I have a hard time following your writing because, I think, we come from different cultures with different ways of phrasing things, so I'm not really clear on all of your points. That said, one thing that rang clear for me was your comment, something to the effect of, religion is an unwinable thing to argue about and so it's stupid to argue it but that it is okay to ask the question of whether or not a person will engage in violence to support his beliefs. (Izat sorta whatchu meant?) To which I must agree, it is not religion per se which is the issue, rather it is the expectation that a declaration of some truth is expected, demanded (?) to be accepted over evidence to the contrary. Or lack of evidence in support. THAT is the issue I have. When one refutes the ability to examine evidence and attempt to draw meaningful conclusions from said evidence then it seems to me that one is rejecting outright the ability to think. Which is directly a refutation of another person as a whole human being. This seems to me to get to the core of the issue for me. And now I'm seeing the connection which makes it so personal. My mother is a narcissist. I learned that it is not possible to discuss anything with her. She will only see the image she has in her mind and is incapable of considering any other possible interpretation for the purpose of discussion. On those few instances where she was faced with facts contrary to her stated beliefs which proved incontrovertibly that she was wrong... she never would admit or apologize, her only position was to take the new (proved) data and proceed with it from that point, as if both, competing, positions were simultaneously true. Which is insane.

So I have grown up with a clear understanding that my own personal life depends upon my complete willingness to reject the acceptance of insanity. I recognize that it exists, of course, but in no way will I allow it any credence, any foothold into my world. It is a poison.

So when I am presented with insanity I simply reject it. Loudly, firmly, forcefully, as it, I do believe, is one of the most destructive things extant in the path of human development and thriving. It is not only theoretically harmful, but individually, personally, intimately so.

Perhaps that is what draws me so clearly to Marc's ideas and thinking.

It isn't religion which is the issue for me so much as it is the destructive nature of the demands of the insane.

- NonE

Let me add this: It is not okay, for the sake of being polite, to consume poison rather than to, at the risk of appearing rude, decline it. No amount of propriety makes that okay.

{a further addendum} I must laugh and acknowledge that my own behavior here might also be pointed to as an example of insanity in attempting to refute, attempting to rationally discuss something, with an insane person. Indeed, if that were my position, it might be. (and who knows, maybe it is) But, to put the most favorable spin on it, what I think I am doing is attempting to simply and clearly notify the world that I will not buy this crap. I am standing up for my own sanity, declaring that I am able to actually think, lest I be assumed to accept the self contradictory nonsense that others proffer on the world as valid. Perhaps that is also what drove Ayn Rand. That said, I think maybe I need to try and learn from her to speak my truth while at the same time not becoming such a horrid person as she devolved into. Hmm. Hat tip to Jace for holding up the mirror.

- NonE .).

"I just don't understand how this happens." Undecided
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-30-2012, 09:03 AM
Post: #27
RE: The proof of God
(01-30-2012 01:37 AM)Jace: Johanson Wrote:  So far you've all generally earned my trust and respect as far as I could digitally throw you, but for all we really know, anyone we've only interacted with online, and many people we even meet, could just be very skilled liars.

Even you, Marc. Big Grin

I don't know about "very skilled" thoughBig Grin

If government services were valuable and the market wanted them, they wouldn't be provided on a compulsory basis.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-30-2012, 09:09 AM
Post: #28
RE: The proof of God
(01-29-2012 04:59 PM)NonEntity Wrote:  But the wonderful thing is that this is the essence, the core, the heart and soul of all religious belief, in ONE SENTENCE!

To prove the truth one must accept (x) with no evidence or consideration.
This is literally insane.

- NonE

I'm calling BS on this, you're painting with waaaayy too broad a brush there, making quite an assumption.




If government services were valuable and the market wanted them, they wouldn't be provided on a compulsory basis.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-30-2012, 10:17 AM
Post: #29
RE: The proof of God
(01-30-2012 09:09 AM)Marc Stevens Wrote:  
(01-29-2012 04:59 PM)NonEntity Wrote:  But the wonderful thing is that this is the essence, the core, the heart and soul of all religious belief, in ONE SENTENCE!

To prove the truth one must accept (x) with no evidence or consideration.
This is literally insane.

- NonE

I'm calling BS on this, you're painting with waaaayy too broad a brush there, making quite an assumption.

That's your right (do you have rights??? Big Grin ) dude. I stand by my position.

- NonE

- NonE .).

"I just don't understand how this happens." Undecided
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-31-2012, 01:17 AM (This post was last modified: 01-31-2012 02:29 AM by zonsb.)
Post: #30
RE: The proof of God
(01-29-2012 04:59 PM)NonEntity Wrote:  I also find it terribly disrespectful when a writer doesn't even show his reader enough respect to make sure a sentence is coherent and can be parsed into a logical form. If you can't be bothered to spell check and proof read your sentences then it would appear to me that you have no respect whatsoever for your audience, you take them as fools beneath your respect. Which sort of rhymes with "do not mesh with their own fucked-up, shattered view of the world." Angel
[Emphasis mine]

(01-30-2012 01:37 AM)Jace: Johanson Wrote:  On thing to point out, though. I was confused here:
[Emphasis mine]

--

The thought of how far the human race would have advanced absent initiatory force
staggers the imagination.

THE POINT: Unlike the government thief, a common thief doesn't claim his "craft" is honest.
Lawyer-like dishonesty a point: The common thief is honest when he tells you he's robbing you.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)