Menu Bar
Bravado's Comments
Re: Penn & Teller: Bullshit! Recycling
I hate Penn & Teller with a passion - they should be called Supercilious and Sanctimonious, though I grant that if they lost the attitude their entertainment value would plummet - but their subject matter this time around hooked me. It was a very interesting segment, thanks for the link!
By: Bravado
Re: O Dhimmi Canada
You, of course, realize that your own avatar sports a religious icon?
By: Bravado
Re: Robot Chicken: Born in a Manger
I can appreciate that people might find this clip humorous, and that they may say brave and foolish things to buttress their idiot response to the absurd but the above comment is so tasteless and uncouth as to cause one to reflect upon the final passion of the Western Mind.
Troll much?
Troll much?
By: Bravado
Re: George Carlin: Baseball and Football
Not really.
But I'd rather he stick to this than his usual tirades against religion and society.
But I'd rather he stick to this than his usual tirades against religion and society.
By: Bravado
Re: Tokyo Dance Trooper in Shibuya
"TK421, why aren't you at your post?"
So THAT'S why!
If I owned a stormtrooper costume that's exactly what I would be doing too. And I'm not even joking.
lol, too funny!
So THAT'S why!
If I owned a stormtrooper costume that's exactly what I would be doing too. And I'm not even joking.
lol, too funny!
By: Bravado
Re: Bread Making vs 80s Fitness
lol, oh man, that's just shameless!
I can just hear this guy respond like McBain when asked how he can sleep at night:
"On a pile of money with plenty of girls."
I can just hear this guy respond like McBain when asked how he can sleep at night:
"On a pile of money with plenty of girls."
By: Bravado
Re: Carl Sagan: Four Billion Years of Evolution
The only thing consistent in evolution is that the theory itself is constantly evolving to prove itself.
By: Bravado
Re: West Wing: Fighting Scripture with Scripture
Didn't watch it. Don't need to.
Trading Bible quotes is just stupid - a document must be proved inerrant or authoritative before you can use it as a source. Only Catholics can do that, and they don't do the quote exchange thing.
Trading Bible quotes is just stupid - a document must be proved inerrant or authoritative before you can use it as a source. Only Catholics can do that, and they don't do the quote exchange thing.
By: Bravado
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
lol, boy, where did all these posts come from? Well, I'll try to make this my last one in lieu of everything that must have been said since.
Misquoting, perhaps, I was trying to make a transitional sentence with the "but really" and leave it to one to decide for themselves whether they agreed. The logic part I will leave lie, since that is an entire discipline in itself.
I'll just try to lay out what I refer to in the metaphysics. Existence is only proper, in the philosophical sense, to that who's essence it is to exist. For anything to exist, some thing must be whose essence it is to exist.
"You" are not just an organization of atoms, "you" implies a personality, a being made of atoms, yes, but that's not what you are or what defines you.
I don't know if you are interested in further studying metaphysics, but if you wish I would encourage delving into some books on it from several disciplines or angles since I prove unequal to the task on here.
Cheers!
Misquoting, perhaps, I was trying to make a transitional sentence with the "but really" and leave it to one to decide for themselves whether they agreed. The logic part I will leave lie, since that is an entire discipline in itself.
I'll just try to lay out what I refer to in the metaphysics. Existence is only proper, in the philosophical sense, to that who's essence it is to exist. For anything to exist, some thing must be whose essence it is to exist.
"You" are not just an organization of atoms, "you" implies a personality, a being made of atoms, yes, but that's not what you are or what defines you.
I don't know if you are interested in further studying metaphysics, but if you wish I would encourage delving into some books on it from several disciplines or angles since I prove unequal to the task on here.
Cheers!
By: Bravado
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
It was philosopher Alfred North Whitehead that commented that all philosophy is but a footnote to Plato, not I. And really, snce Hermaclitus and Democritus all philosophy has been a tweaking of the details. Science cannot exist without philosophy, which is why until the modern world forgot about it, philosophy was acknowledged as the mother of science. Modern philosophers were just bumps in the road. In fact, ancient philosophers were so keen, Democritus, for example, even gave voice that all things were made of tiny pieces of matter which he called "atoms", a name science adopted when millennia later science actually discovered these hypothetical particles. There is no point studying the moderns until a firm grasp of the beginnings are known. And then, once the beginnings are known, the moderns can be better evaluated for what they are and what role they play, and really it is more an exercise of the mind to follow their thoughts than an enlightenment.
The intuition of existence is to know "God", or that which exists. Since existence is not proper to any organism or transitory being, there must be that which holds all things that exist in existence: vertical casuality, which is the only way to "prove" God vs the often used but highly delicate horizontal casuality chains that end in infinite series.
The intuition of existence is to know "God", or that which exists. Since existence is not proper to any organism or transitory being, there must be that which holds all things that exist in existence: vertical casuality, which is the only way to "prove" God vs the often used but highly delicate horizontal casuality chains that end in infinite series.
By: Bravado
Re: Richard Dawkins: An Atheist's Call to Arms
The question of "is" is self-evident. Call it God or "Is", same metaphysical reality. This is where metaphysics and all philosophy begins, so to do philosophy is to already accept the premise of something that exists.
I have studied philosophy all my adult life in several disciplines (if bolstering reputation is necessary). Decartes through to Kant, while very influential upon the world and thinking, were hardly the glory of this discipline. In fact, they are largely responsible for the farce philosophy has become and can be ignored as a serious venue unless you are studying mathematics or the history of philosophy (I will admit, however, the immediate above is my own opinion). As is often said, all philosophy is a footnote after Plato. The whole God question is not so much a question of proof as a quesiton of being. If you look for proof, you are missing the forest for the trees. This is not an affirmation that God must be taken on blind faith, but that "God" or whatever you call It is as intuitive as existence. Unless of course "intuition" is faith, which is a question that has just occured to me now lol.
I have studied philosophy all my adult life in several disciplines (if bolstering reputation is necessary). Decartes through to Kant, while very influential upon the world and thinking, were hardly the glory of this discipline. In fact, they are largely responsible for the farce philosophy has become and can be ignored as a serious venue unless you are studying mathematics or the history of philosophy (I will admit, however, the immediate above is my own opinion). As is often said, all philosophy is a footnote after Plato. The whole God question is not so much a question of proof as a quesiton of being. If you look for proof, you are missing the forest for the trees. This is not an affirmation that God must be taken on blind faith, but that "God" or whatever you call It is as intuitive as existence. Unless of course "intuition" is faith, which is a question that has just occured to me now lol.
By: Bravado
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU