once again you have coped out of what i have said...AND you have misunderstood what i said and used it falsely to back up your own belief that Moore was wrong in using part of Bradbury's title...

Pterran,
I know what Braling II said and I understood it fully that is why I made the comment that I made....if you want to show my way of thinking as ridiculous you can try your best and I can defend it....you have yet to make a proper defense of your religion after I have made perfectly good points about it....answer me please....

And Mr. Dark,
Your comment above all makes the least amount of sense....so now you believe that the synthesis of older ideas is actually a vital and necessary part of almost everything? So then you ARE saying that the only reason why you support Bradbury's childish plea against Moore is because you couldnt possibly disagree with Bradbury and you dont like Moore's politics....NOT because you actually have any sound reason to believe that Moore did anything wrong in regards to the title....
And I was not talkin in generalities.....the use of other people's words on this forum is at a point where i rarely see people actually giving me their opinions...i mostly see people pompously quoting someone else instead of giving me their own thoughts....the use of quotes and other peoples words in normal situations as a way to boost an arguement is wonderful....but when all i get are quotes with no personal thoughts it makes me wonder...

My views on what Moore did wrong have been extensively and clearly expressed. What is it you don't understand about my views on this subject? Also, I do think that most "new" ideas involve a synthesis of previous thoughts. This hardly seems like a radical or revolutionary idea.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr. Dark:
My views on what Moore did wrong have been extensively and clearly expressed. What is it you don't understand about my views on this subject? Also, I do think that most "new" ideas involve a synthesis of previous thoughts. This hardly seems like a radical or revolutionary idea.

extensively, yes. but clearly? before this recent post they were....but now you contradict yourself in your vain attempts to make me out as an idiot....I understand all that you are saying, i fear however that you dont realize the glaring mistake you have made in your statements....you have clearly stated that you find Moore's use of the title to be ridiculous and a theft and yet at the same time you cite the wll known idea that i have been talking about all along that the incorporation of others ideas from culture into a work is nothing but ordinary artistic behaviour.

It is not radical or revolutionary.....i never said it was....its what i have been saying all along....thank you for inadvertantly agreeing with me and destroying all reasonable arguements that you had against me....

I'm not going to get into yet another petty argument with you, but for the record: I never said Moore's use of previous ideas in his adaptation of Bradbury's title was legitimate. You said that. My response was to a particular idea you expressed, saying that someone's response to you was illegitimate because they quoted someone else. My response dealt with two points:

(1) That original ideas are rare. Most of what are considered new ideas are syntheses of previous thoughts.

(2) That the use of quotes is a legitimate part of making an argument.

I never said ALL SYNTHESIS of previous ideas was legitimate, and I've made it clear that I don't feel Moore's use of Bradbury's title was in keeping with civility and respect for Bradbury's status as a living author.

Is this unclear to you? Do you misconstrue my meaning intentionally? Surely, my statement is not intellectually above what you are capable of.

Back to God:

For an atheistic person (with agnostic tendecies) death is the ultimate evil. Actually, I cann't speak for anybody else but me, so I'll turn to the first person:
Death is the absolute end; it is the end beyond which nothing exists. There are no thoughts, no emotions, nothing, after death. Which is why one can have morality and atheism. Based of the idea that death is the ultimate evil, everything leading to death is also evil. Sometimes death needs to happen, but in such circumstances all should be done to limit it. When I look at the person sitting across from me right now, that person has only a set number of years to live. That person has a mind, is loved and loves. Why should I kill that person? What benefit will I gain? Material? That person's car is worthless to me - a car simply gets me from one place to another - usually to a place where there are people I want to be with. I would kill people to be with people, then, which seems absurd to me, given that I have no clue who the person in front of me is (hey, maybe if I got to know her, she could turn out to be the love of my life?). The same goes with pain. Why hurt others? This is no joke - I always find more pleasure in helping others, rather than hurting them. It's probably egotistical, but it's there. If I can help someone, I'm happy. If I have to break their nose, I'm usually not (depends, of course, for what. Revange is sometimes a very sweet fruit).
God has nothing to do with inner morality - just because there are 10 rules that we must obey doesn't mean that we believe in them. I'd rather believe in something and do it because I want to, and not because I'm afraid. That sums up the tip of the iceberg. Throw into this Existentialism (a la Camus), science, bad personal experiances, politics, and (I think), a clear and open mind, and you get a morality that rivals anything Christians or Jews or Muslims can ever come up with.

Yes, Pabillisman, I am surely going to hell. I mean, I am the red devil incarnate, aren't I? Socialist AND an atheist? "Boil him in Oil...!"

So yes, I have bad nightmares sometimes. I wish I could really just believe some little story about God and heaven and everyone living eternally.
But I can't. Life is what we do; if we want a good life, we should make it on earth. Trust me, whoever wants to, being an agostical atheist is no fun. It's damn hard work. When I get the blues, I have no one to pray to. But also no one to blame but me, and that keeps me going.

Cheers, Translator

Ok, Mr. Dark....so you are saying that:
(1) That original ideas are rare. Most of what are considered new ideas are syntheses of previous thoughts.

But this only applies to things that you agree with such as the state of modern religion and such....whereas the simple use of part of a title becomes blasphemy to the highest degree...that makes sense but only as a way to highight my arguement that you are taking only what you want out of this stance and not taking it for what it truly means...

(2) That the use of quotes is a legitimate part of making an argument.

This as well is true and in my post i pointed out that quotes are great and can charge a discussion in interesting ways....but what you arent hearing from me is that too many times on this forum do people seem to use nothing BUT quotes....and that is the line between an intellectual boost and a regurgitation of info.....my main point being that i would like to see some opinions on here and less mindless quoting....thats all....

oh and btw...all you do with me is get into petty arguements...i see no reason to stop now...


i think i am probably one step below Translator in the ladder toward true atheism....i see that eternal nothingness as a possiblity but i am just as open to different planes of existence of all kinds....the idea of what comes next doesnt tend to plague me too much simply because I think of it as beyond my control.....

Thormachine,

That little smiley face I included with my post was intended as an indicator to you that I was kidding about you coming around to my point of view on Michael Moore�s use of Bradbury�s title. Lighten up, man. We�re all friends here. (And, by the way, no, it wasn�t clear that you understood what Braling II had said. Instead, you dwelled on how he said it. Okay, you don�t like it when a poster uses someone else�s words to make a point. But what do you have to say to the point that was made? That the religion you describe and the one Braling II and I believe in are two entirely different things?)

Now, about not making a proper defense of my religion: You�ve seemed to have forgotten the unwritten rule around here: Just because someone doesn�t respond to each and every post you make doesn�t mean they agree with you or they don�t have a counter argument. Sometimes it�s best to let things be.

Having said that, here is my response to your points. . .

You have an interesting theory about how we develop our moral code. What I think your saying is that the shaping of our morals is done primarily by our family, with our society echoing what the family believes to be important. Close enough? Good. Then where does the moral code you receive from your upbringing and your society come from? From some inner instinct that it�s wrong to kill the innocent? To steal from others? Is it just some kind of by-product of evolution: those cultures that adopted the correct moral codes survived while those that didn�t perished? If so, it�s a big wide world out there and I�d say there�s lots of room for a variety of moral codes. Sticking with the evolution example, there are a variety of, say, insects that manage to not only survive but thrive. You might take a look at that and say, well, there�s no single way to survival. There are many and one�s no better, really, than the other since the goal of survival of the species has been met. Now, if you�ve come along with me this far on this premise, couldn�t the same be said about a moral code that evolves through time? That there isn�t just one moral code but many? And not one single code that�s better than the other because the goal of survival of the culture has been achieved? If that�s so, then how would a culture that condones the murder of the innocent be considered wrong? Without God, you may say something is wrong but I might say it isn�t. Because who�s to say, really? One set of morals is as good as the other. There�s no over-riding code of morality that joins us all. Choose whatever pleases you. It doesn�t matter.

(That�s the point of the quote by Dostoevsky. Interesting, too, that it should be posted in this discussion because I just saw the quote in a review of the movie Collateral. I�m a fan of Michael Mann and I�d like to see this movie, especially if it explores the clash between amorality and morality.)

So all is allowed and nothing matters. Kill or not, live or die, it�s all the same. Your life doesn�t matter, the art you create doesn�t matter, the lives of your loved ones don�t matter and the things they do just plain don�t matter. You�re nothing but an endless series of automatic responses to an endless series of stimuli. If it matters little if you live today or not, why go on? What�s it matter if you have another pleasurable experience or not? There�s no guarantee you will, anyway. After all, the future doesn�t exist. It wouldn�t matter if it did. There�s no point to your existence today, there was no point to your past, and there�s no point in your existence tomorrow. There�s no point to your mysterious materialization in the first place.

Well, I assert there IS an over-riding code of morality. There IS right and wrong in this universe. There ARE choices for you to make. And your choices DO matter. Because YOU matter.

Fine. You and the things you do matter. How does this prove the existence of God? Well, as I�ve stated in other posts, you can�t have hard proof in matters of faith. That�s the very nature of faith. So in this matter, I opt for a belief in God because to believe in an indifferent universe where nothing matters, to use your words, seems �kooky.�

I disagree with your assertion that my faith has been responsible for the murder of millions. True, there are those who have used my religion as a justification for harm but nowhere in that religion will you find that justification. The error is not the religion itself but its followers. I would no more hold your religion (or areligion) responsible for the murder of innocent millions by the like of Hitler or Stalin or Pol Pot. My religion doesn�t call for the extermination of the innocent any more than yours does. And rather than being the root cause of much of the world�s problems, my religion seeks to help the world. I�m not keeping score but I�d say that means a wee bit more than just creating interesting speculation.

Best,

Pete

Bralings comment was not a serious answer to what i was saying it was merely a little quip thrown out there to annoy me and belittle what i said without actually investing any thought to my arguement....

I dont know where you got all that stuff about evolutionary moral codes in a darwinian fashion but it certainly wasnt from me...i actually stated that all people do have a universal moral code....where does that code come from? I am not quite sure...one good arguement is that it comes from what seems to seperate us from other animals....our sense and devotion to reason....this reason which instills itself in us all creates the basis for a logical moral code and then the familial structure and to a lesser extent the societal structure of that person helps it along to a unique fruition.

I am saying that there is an over riding moral code but that it is not some plan brought about by an all knowing god....it is simply how our species has chosen to look at the world....through the eyes of our self made reason....and of course reason defines itself and makes itself unfallable because otherwise it wouldnt exist in the first place....

i am not talking about an indifferent universe.....simply one where the answers to the existence of life are not so easily determined as you would think....

The idea in the belief of nothing but oneself is the very essence of YOU mattering....dont make it seem like i am some glum useless husk who cant get anything done because nothing matters.....things matter only if you allow them to matter....my actions are not dictated by a god who wont show himself until i am dead and the fact of life is done with....my actions are dictated by my own sense of what i can do with my life....

Finally, in regards to your "world loving and helping" religion....have you read the old testament? your religion is based off of one principle.....the control of the masses.....i dont know how to break it to you any other way....i would say to go back and read the extremely over translated texts that you base your future existence on so dearly but i know it would be pointless because you have been taught what each part means....you can no longer see with objectivism what the words mean.....the justification for the conversion of the world to christianity is right there in your precious book.....i believe its called salvation?

Pterran,
you've hit upon yet another gem. You say that the alternative to a godless universe is a universe where everything goes. I think you are correct. Everything does go. Killing others or helping them is absolutely the same thing, and any difference is blurred. Life and death are equals.
However, and this is the cool part, in this moral-less universe, those who uphold some sort of a moral code (onw which will inevitably be based on a lie, but which lie is deeply hidden) are the ones who are worth associating with. They must know the futility of their morals, and must accept that their life, everone's life, is not sacred, and is actually quite irrelevant. But that realization must not change their being. They should stay by those morals, and defend them to the end. I know my system of morals, however fluid and basic in its fundaments, is still equal to no morals, or to a wholly different set of morals. But it is only so at the lowest level; at the level where life = death. Thus I fully recognize the absurdity of my being, I recognize that I am, in essence, a conscious Don Quixote who is doomed to fail, for the enemy simply doesn't exists. Why am I then the way I am? Aesthetics, and my awersion (which I think might be instictual) to blood and pain, both mine as well as of others.
Thor, I disagree with you on this - I believe that humans do not posess a natural capacity for morality; I do not think that there are universal morals out there which Homo Sapiens are privy to by being simply Homo Sapiens. True, we have a differnt brain structure from other animals, and we probably have some faculties which no animals have. But I think that we're still animals, and morality is simply alien to all animals. If we end up behaving, collectively, in some way, it is because of conditioning, and some natural factors (instincts). Our conditioning habitualizes us into who we are, and our instincts give us our personalities (too strong a word, perhaps quirks is better). The origins of our habitualization is found in history, and is drenched in blood.
I'm rambling - it's clear in my mind, but I'm tired and I can't put it all into good words - pardonez moi, si'l vous plait. I welcome a discussion on the nature of man - let's do a bit of philosophizing of the highiest order here on the RB home page!
Cheers, Translator