Key

Sorry, but that's not what Darwinism teaches to me. Rather it teaches that evolution is needed in order to ensure survival. So if placed in a conscience setting, that would mean that inevitably there may be two people that are in accord, and that is how their society survives, or tries to. It doesn't imply that all societies will comply, either. What works for one group, may not work for another elsewhere. Same as evolution for species. In admitting his conscience is defective, he understands his limitations and is far more honest about it. You might well say a paradox exist then. He is moral (honest) while being morally defective, in a sense. Did I get that, meredog?

There was a time where the natural order adhered to the rule of survival of the fittest to ensure species would continue to thrive and live long into the future. Modern technology has rendered this concept obsolete. Because of this, there are now folks who rather much place their kids into a figurative protective bubble. Life lessons have become teaching points not so much by experience now, but by a collective knowledge based on past history. In so much as society's technology advances, it also looks back and changes how the past is looked upon. This is a shame, for many useful skills that may be deemed dangerous are not being developed or experienced for lack of trying, or lack of support and supervision.

More specifically, for one who does have belief, clarification is often required to distinguish another belief to comprehend it. Which is what complicates Atheism in the point of view of Monotheist, and possibly other belief systems. Which is why it is often difficult for them to pinpoint or define what an Atheist actually believes. Thus, complications arise via communicating the differences, which is what I feel is being experienced here in this thread. I get it, though.

Often it is best to confer with a county clerk, as rules may change from whatever online information may be given. I am sure there is someone here from New York who may answer your question. It just might take a little waiting to get a response.

Just another point. Belief often isn't quite so simple, either. So complications can be possible.

Regret is only the recognition of missed or lost possibilities of opportunities or experiences. Kind of like hindsight. One can look at the past, but nothing can be done to change it.

I may have had my first "senior moment" regarding that recent contemporary. I can't seem to find him now. Ah, but the classics will do fine, as long as the English is comprehend-able to me. Reworking the old plays into modern settings is nothing new, but don't always click the same, in my mind. It would depend greatly on the writing and interpretation of the play, goes without saying. (But I said it anyway.) "King Lear" and "Othello" come to mind. Whereas, "Much Ado About Nothing" might work, as it does involve some comedy.

And for the record, per my opinion, "Les Miserables" is better as a play than on film. Just thought I'd toss that in there, though I know I could have easily done the same in a different thread on the topic of film vs stage. Can't place exact reason for it. Maybe that imagination thing, or maybe because the stage actors are often trained singers. Or maybe because you aren't forced to focus on one actor in view, as you are in film. I don't know.

"A picture is worth a thousand words." Which is why dialogue has less emphasis in film. Action is more punctuated there than on the printed page or stage. And I agree that film also requires less imagination, as it has been fleshed out by the vision of the director. But the stage can also be visually stunning, as I witnessed of a production of "Les Miserables" some years ago. Overall, film is cheaper to attend, but stage is better for the imagining. Even more frugal, is the dvd at home.

I still, to this day, have trouble following Shakespeare. Miller is fine. The name for some reason eludes me at the moment, but I do enjoy a more recent contemporary. I research and get back to you. As far as written plays go, I do love "Death of a Salesman" and "Hasty Heart". Much underlying meanings and exploration of psychosis or psychology there.

I learned of Haiku while in high school, barely 40 years ago. The rules of the poem were simple. It should consist of three lines following the formula of: 5 syllables for the first line, 7 syllables for the second, and back to 5 for the last. The concept isn't that it should rhyme, but rather should create imagery or meaning that the reader may be able to identify. Often entertaining, I find. Hope your Labor Day has been enjoyable.

To me, logic is simply known results based from experiences, both personal and of others. What is correct, incorrect, black, white, movable, immovable, pleasure, or pain. Those sort of things that have definite conclusions common among many people. I may well be wrong. (The individual in question would have likely tried to bludgeon me with that as fact, simply because he had multiple degrees.) Principles may not be exactly have logic, but may have roots in it based on what a person believes or was taught to guide them in life. So in a way, logic isn't independent of a person. But principle is independent of a society, whereas logic, isn't. As for degrees, they are nice wall decorations that declare a person took a great deal of time to learn things they might not have otherwise. I don't think it necessarily makes a person wiser, or better than someone who hasn't one. While a plumber might not know what to do with a scalpel, a doctor might not know what to do with a wrench. It could require another person to teach them those things, which may require quite a bit of patience and repetition. (Something a certain person was disinclined to do, and seemed to believe was beneath his imagined status.) But that also brings back the issue of principles. A personal rule book of what was acceptable or not. Math is said to be an exact science. Results are always the same. Whereas, statistic results always show what a person wants them interpreted to mean. Statistics can be manipulated. Math not so much. These are just my thoughts, right or wrong. But I am always willing to learn, which may change them. But I tend to not so much from high brow, condescending dolts.

As I have no need to stroke an ego, to flaunt any degree in education, nor to parry haughty expressions of contempt and condescension, I will now truly take my leave of this discussion and present you with the last word, as you seem to need it. I'll observe and withhold any judgments from your view to ease your mind. Enjoy.

It is only illogical in the extreme to have extensive education and not share knowledge. This isn't an exclusive Oxford scholars club, in case you didn't realize.

For someone who hates people making any assumptions, you certainly do a lot yourself. You think God taps only the educated to serve? You might be bettter versed at scripture or even more educated, but so what? Christ was far more versed at scripture than his disciples and those He ministered to, the poor, and infirmed (which could also imply uneducated in those times). He taught and persisted to teach even when He seemed exasperated to perform miracles or answer questions. Not everyone who comes here is extensively educated on philosophy, psychology, or even religion, and so on. But here they are. To learn and support each other. Here's an idea: make THAT an assumption and educate and share as Christ did. I can't fathom from your tone that you speak to adults much. Come off your high horse, lest God have you be struck from it.

"Threads" does appear to be wrong, perhaps I should have said posts. As for "proofs", you said "evidence" which implies 100 percent to most people's perspective. An assumption you fail to clarify. Whether philosophy discusses theory or not, it can be viewed as theory until conclusive evidence is provided. Of course, you'll disagree. Explaining simple logic is part of dialogue and debate. If you find it silly, then don't engage. How would you know when dealing with "some people who should know better" if you don't know those people, anyway? Never mind, that's asking to explain more silly logic.

I'm sorry, but of any philosophers I know of, these arguments are viewed as possibilities in theory, not evidence. And it sounds to me that you, whether intentional or no, hold those with no class experience in philosophy as beneath you. He made assumptions, and so did you. You felt insulted, despite a logical conclusion, though in error, and insulted in return, also based on a logical conclusion, also in error. Perspectives differ from one person to another, thereby assumptions may run rampant. If misinterpretations are not your problem, then it shouldn't be theirs when you do, either. I am not intending to attack or insult you, but rather giving you an outsider perspective. But as I've seen in these threads, it doesn't seem to matter. Somehow you'll feel I did and respond as such. Thus creating only the feeling of dread of any communication. So, I'll bow out as well. It would seem more mature than to engage in schoolyard mudslinging, especially when I only sought to clarify another view.

I must interject here. He did no insulting, YOU did, by equating that if he were not a Creationist, then he looked unintelligent. You also stated earlier in the thread that if he wasn't familiar with any of the argument theories you presented, you'd be "happy to enlighten", did you not? But then when he admits to not knowing one, you simply dismiss him and deflect to other sources. I don't understand where your combative dialogue comes from.

While this seems sound, another reality is that for every bully out there, there is another bigger bully. Often a bully is emboldened by the inaction of others, (they lack respect for the high road or just don't see it), but a bully almost always backs down when faced with someone who dares administer them with their own medicine. Like two rams butting heads, one of them will eventually wear down and leave.

Not sure these are seen as empirical even among christians, as there are so many factions and interpretations among them. At least, not among all christians.

Both are also quite unique in humor. Loved Carlin's "stuff". And Python was British humor that didn't latch on with us yanks, at first, until the kids started to get it. Ah, we were smart kids then. Today's society is too PC for such originality to be created anymore.

Hello. Welcome to the forum.

Dick Gregory had many profound bits in his humor. His recent passing only highlights our lack of comedians of his caliber, political or otherwise. We still have some, sure, but they aren't as bright in the spotlight as he was in his day, as evidenced by my remembering him even though I was very young. In the spirit of this thread, I hope he does have a soul that can somehow continue to contribute insight as channeled through another comedian, maybe. (Or Robin Williams. My funny bone misses its fix, you could say.)

I don't remember anything in 1969. Unless it's something like, "you bet your sweet bippy!"

Depends on one's terms of what rational is. It's a never ending cycle isn't it?