Right wing Radio host waterboarded, admits it's torture

[wideright82]

wrong thread 86. That's WAKEboarding

Waterboarding is the thing you do to get good abs right?

Yeah, but then what is Ouigiboarding? All valid questions, none of which can be answered. Oh well.

[D1B]

Joe - but the same can be said for the Bible - parts used to justify any amount of hatred, intolerance, warfare, genocide, etc that the author did not intend.

Well, you are right about that, people twist the Bible all the time. But the Bible being a work of theological revelation, rather than philosophy, makes for a different type of conversation I think. Even when the Bible gets twisted, there is still some objective core, the true existence of God, from which the greater understanding can ultimately prevail.

If I take a philosophical system with a hole in the moral middle, I can fill it with anything.

Joe, how does Cardinal Alfonso Lopez de Trujillo, the vatican president of the Pontifical Council for the Family, and his public warning that all condoms are secretly made with holes so AIDS can pass through, contribute to a greater understanding prevailing? This asshole even translated this into the languages of the poor so they could hear it.

How does condemning gays do the same?

[Franks Tanks]

The hole exists in an atheistic outlook because a source of objective truth has been removed. If you are saying you fill that hole with friends and other people in your life, you may be more religous than you acknowledge. But the Nazis, the Soviets, and Cambodia under Pol Pot filled that hole with a state-driven ideology that filled that hole with the goals of the state, which had the affect of diluting human dignity and individual rights.

Religion is hardly a guarantee of a moral and meaningful life. Millions upon millions of atheists lead ethical, moral and meaningful lives.

Joe has it ass backwards. Joe believes in a transcendental theistic morality where all morality must emanate from a divine source. In his case the divine source is a vengeful, murderous, jealous, genocidal lunatic who kills babies and maims innocent people for kicks, who got bored and knocked up a married woman so she would give birth to really himself, but we'll call him the son of god with the sole intent of setting him up to be slaughtered to save us from **** knows what. Oh they have friend called Holy the Ghost too! His moral system relies on obediance to inflexible commandments and rules.

Humanist ethics is primarily based on man's perception of good an evil. Contrary to Joe's religion and their pessimistic estimation of man and their pathetic wallowing in shame, man is absolutly capable of discovering and building a rational morality. This endeavor is as ancient as the theistic moral systems and continues to this day - Plato, Epicuris, Spinoza, Kant, Mill, Aristotle. My moral system relies on critical ethical inquiry and human responsibility.

Joe is at a much lower stage of moral development. I take responsibility for my choices, rather than they be based on unquestioning obediance to code.

Joe is a trained dog. I am a thinking human being.

D1B that is an incredible post.

[JoltinJoe]

Anyone see evidence here why atheists account for an insiginificant 1.6% of the popoluation?

I feel bad for atheists who are really striving to find answers being lumped in with the outspoken lunatic fringe of their group.

Hey Jeff, until you can demonstrate that atheists account for at least 2 percent of the population, I'm done discussing this with you. Your views are insignificant (and lazy).

Yeah, Joe, you are real noble.

Joe, you are a member of a cult, plain and simple. Each Sunday you drag your poor, brainwashed children and terrified wife into an empty, scary building to eat the flesh and blood of a fictional cartoon character and chant. I've always wondered why there's never been a National Geographic special chronicaling this spectacle.

Insignificant? Joe, you've been up day and night dealing with this thread, fumblin over yourself, retracting statements... Your ego/conscience just can't allow you to sleep.

Hey, Jeff, you are an insignificant 1.6% of the population. I'm done with discussing this you -- you have read nothing but know everything. New requirements: not only must you demonstrate that you represent at least 2 percent of the population, but you also have to prove to me that you have an IQ which exceeds that of a low moron, and have read the material you claim you have read (because it is painfully obvious that yu have not).

[JoltinJoe]

Religion is hardly a guarantee of a moral and meaningful life. Millions upon millions of atheists lead ethical, moral and meaningful lives.

Joe has it ass backwards. Joe believes in a transcendental theistic morality where all morality must emanate from a divine source. In his case the divine source is a vengeful, murderous, jealous, genocidal lunatic who kills babies and maims innocent people for kicks, who got bored and knocked up a married woman so she would give birth to really himself, but we'll call him the son of god with the sole intent of setting him up to be slaughtered to save us from **** knows what. Oh they have friend called Holy the Ghost too! His moral system relies on obediance to inflexible commandments and rules.

Humanist ethics is primarily based on man's perception of good an evil. Contrary to Joe's religion and their pessimistic estimation of man and their pathetic wallowing in shame, man is absolutly capable of discovering and building a rational morality. This endeavor is as ancient as the theistic moral systems and continues to this day - Plato, Epicuris, Spinoza, Kant, Mill, Aristotle. My moral system relies on critical ethical inquiry and human responsibility.

Joe is at a much lower stage of moral development. I take responsibility for my choices, rather than they be based on unquestioning obediance to code.

Joe is a trained dog. I am a thinking human being.

D1B that is an incredible post.

It is incredible: incredibly stupid.

Jon and I have were having a nice, respectful conversation about our differing viewpoints-- making some genuine points about what each other had to say -- until this boor crashed back into the conversation with his usual intolerant, gross distortions. And thus ends what was a polite and thoughtful exchange of ideas.

And this impresses you?

[TwinTownBisonFan]

As a Catholic... Joe does not speak for me.

D - you can be one of the most obnoxious atheists i've ever met in my life, but I do not dispute you are capable of being a moral person with a profound sense of ethics without religion.

my faith doesn't TELL me what to do, how to act, or how to think... it lays out what it believes is the correct way, and I, with free will, can choose to follow it, or other sources, or multiple sources working in concert.

most of the Catholics I know have a moral compass informed by their faith, not dictated by it. just a reminder D, not all of us are Bill Donahoe nutters.

[dbackjon]

Does that hole exist because you think it should be there? Or that your religious teaching has conditioned you to believe that it exists, or that it can only be filled by God, rather than the people in your life.

There are those, even among the religious, that feels social contracts do not apply to them, or that God is speaking about "other people".

The hole exists in an atheistic outlook because a source of objective truth has been removed. If you are saying you fill that hole with friends and other people in your life, you may be more religous than you acknowledge. But the Nazis, the Soviets, and Cambodia under Pol Pot filled that hole with a state-driven ideology that filled that hole with the goals of the state, which had the affect of diluting human dignity and individual rights.

Oh, I definately have a religious background, having grown up a PK. Been very turned off of organized religion based on it's major hostility to me.

I would argue that the Nazi's, Soviets, et al created their own RELIGION.

And, I would argue that far too often, religion itself dilutes human dignity and rights

[JoltinJoe]

Oh, I definately have a religious background, having grown up a PK. Been very turned off of organized religion based on it's major hostility to me.

No one in organized religion can take God away from you, and don't let them.

There was nothing which troubled Jesus more than the way in which "moral majorities" ostracized others who were not as "pure" as they were. Jesus thought they were hypocrites and it would infuriate them when Jesus would pay special notice to them. I suspect if Jesus were to return today, he would find himself dining at the home of a gay person, much to the anger of the modern-day pharisees.

[dbackjon]

Oh, I definately have a religious background, having grown up a PK. Been very turned off of organized religion based on it's major hostility to me.

No one in organized religion can take God away from you, and don't let them.

There was nothing which troubled Jesus more than the way in which "moral majorities" ostracized others who were not as "pure" as they were. Jesus thought they were hypocrites and it would infuriate them when Jesus would pay special notice to them. I suspect if Jesus were to return today, he would find himself dining at the home of a gay person, much to the anger of the modern-day pharisees.

Yes - Jesus would definately feel more at home at a church that accepted everyone, as opposed to those that wear their religion on their sleeve.

And one does not need a church to have access to God.

[Franks Tanks]

D1B that is an incredible post.

It is incredible: incredibly stupid.

Jon and I have were having a nice, respectful conversation about our differing viewpoints-- making some genuine points about what each other had to say -- until this boor crashed back into the conversation with his usual intolerant, gross distortions. And thus ends what was a polite and thoughtful exchange of ideas.

And this impresses you?

D1B has the courage to use reason and say things that are difficult for others to hear.

Organized religion has centuires old tradition of being the moral police and handing down edicts of what must be followed, and the punishment that go with it. This doesnt create moral men, just those who follow rules out of fear

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

It is incredible: incredibly stupid.

Jon and I have were having a nice, respectful conversation about our differing viewpoints-- making some genuine points about what each other had to say -- until this boor crashed back into the conversation with his usual intolerant, gross distortions. And thus ends what was a polite and thoughtful exchange of ideas.

And this impresses you?

D1B has the courage to use reason and say things that are difficult for others to hear.

Organized religion has centuires old tradition of being the moral police and handing down edicts of what must be followed, and the punishment that go with it. This doesnt create moral men, just those who follow rules out of fear

D1 and Joltin' and dback all have made some very interesting points. Good post FT, good to see you putting a thought in on it. That kinda summarizes my thought on it as well.

[BlueHen86]

D1B has the courage to use reason and say things that are difficult for others to hear.

Organized religion has centuires old tradition of being the moral police and handing down edicts of what must be followed, and the punishment that go with it. This doesnt create moral men, just those who follow rules out of fear

D1 and Joltin' and dback all have made some very interesting points. Good post FT, good to see you putting a thought in on it. That kinda summarizes my thought on it as well.

I've enjoyed the argument/discussion so far. Lots of good, thought provoking, posts all around. Anything that makes you think is a good thing AFAIC.

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

D1 and Joltin' and dback all have made some very interesting points. Good post FT, good to see you putting a thought in on it. That kinda summarizes my thought on it as well.

I've enjoyed the argument/discussion so far. Lots of good, thought provoking, posts all around. Anything that makes you think is a good thing AFAIC.

Troof holmes. Those two are a pretty good duo for that sort of thing. Dback as always is a sharp SOB as is everyone else inputting on this thread. I've always had the ability to defend either side of most arguments but with the input of posters on this board I have the ability to dominate! Those sons a bitches at Red's ain't gonna know what hit em'.

[houndawg]

Good thread, gents. Now watch as I deftly bring the two branches of it together with a simple question to those who base their lives in the third-and-fourth-hand utterances of a recycled Eyptian sun god myth:


Would Jesus think waterboarding is torture?

[JoltinJoe]

It is incredible: incredibly stupid.

Jon and I have were having a nice, respectful conversation about our differing viewpoints-- making some genuine points about what each other had to say -- until this boor crashed back into the conversation with his usual intolerant, gross distortions. And thus ends what was a polite and thoughtful exchange of ideas.

And this impresses you?

D1B has the courage to use reason and say things that are difficult for others to hear.

Organized religion has centuires old tradition of being the moral police and handing down edicts of what must be followed, and the punishment that go with it. This doesnt create moral men, just those who follow rules out of fear

The truth is that for years, D1B has avoided answering critical questions and when the conversation gets to the point where he cannot respond, he lashes out.

This is more for the benefit of others who may be interested, since D1B doesn't care to listen or respond.

I've never said that an atheist could not live a moral life. Of course he can. What I criticize atheism is that it rejects the concept of an objective truth. Now some, in lieu of an objective truth at the heart of their value system, adopt some form of morality which is identical to that of someone who sees an objective truth as governing the human condition.

But what is to stop someone from buying half of D1B's house? What is to stop someone from adopting the philosophical/theological perspective of atheism, but then rejecting humanism as the core of his moral code? If there is no objectvie truth, why is that irrational. In fact, if there is no objective truth, or no greater good than what can perceived, why not adopt a more self-centered lifestyle? That decision is both logical and rational, in the absence of objective truth, because if there is nothing more than what can be perceived or reasoned, then our acts and actions in the end have no consequences, moral or otherwise.

This is what I mean when I say when you cut out the concept of objective truth, and leave a hole in the middle of philosophical outlook, you can fill it with anything. That you can fill it with humanism, like D1B, is great, but in his outlook there is nothing which objectively compels that choice. So plenty of others have filled that hole with something else ... Stalin, Pol Pot, etc.

In his work "The Possessed," Dostoyevsky chillingly wrote about a godless humanist who indoctrinated youths into his outlook. But the youths ultimately buy half the house -- the atheism part -- and reject the humanism. Dostoyevsky's point is that atheism, even an atheism based on humanism, is ultimately subject to that distortion and inevitably possesses the capacity, without a centered objective truth, to devolve into something far more sinister. He wrote, pretty chillingly in retrospect, about the hundreds of millions of lives that would be lost to this ideology as it became twisted for political purposes. I say chillingly because if you add up the atrocities of the officiallly atheistic states of the 20th century, the numbers slaughtered exceed one hundred million lives -- a staggering number which dwarves many times the numbers lost to religious distortion throughout the history of mankind.

So it's not enough to say, "I'm atheist but a humanist." I think you have to answer how your atheism and humanism is not susceptible to being manipulated by someone who is an atheism and not a humanist. And D1B has never answered that question.

I can go on about the illogical assumption that we can deduce through reason all that is real based on what we perceive, through our five senses and our experiences. More accurately, I can say quite confidently that it is not reasonable to believe that -- there is plainly more which is real that we can reason and deduce through perception and experience, and that there are more than five ways to perceive reality. And that is plainly the point of many of the philosophers which D1B mysteriously identifed above as supporting his position. It seems to me he has not read them closely enough. Plato, for example, is a notable metaphyscian, and the point of his famous allegory of the cave is that we perceive merely shadows of what is ultimately and objectively real. I note the irony of D1B's claim that science has rendered religion meaningless, and yet it appears that science is on the verge of perhaps proving the existence of dimensions that are imperceptible to man's senses or reason.

I would also add atheism, coupled with humanism, also in the end does not provide anyone with any sense of a greater purpose, and ultimately is insufficient to respond to the human concept of what "ought" to be.

[BlueHen86]

Good thread, gents. Now watch as I deftly bring the two branches of it together with a simple question to those who base their lives in the third-and-fourth-hand utterances of a recycled Eyptian sun god myth:


Would Jesus think waterboarding is torture?

No, because he could walk on water.

However, he would object to Dick Cheney tempting him to change rocks into bread.

[Wildcat Ryan]

Who the hell care if its torture or not, those people who decided to take the lives of others, HAVE NO MORE HUMAN RIGHTS in my mind, I dont care what Obama thinks about the Morality of this country, and I dont give a damn about what other countries think about us, this isnt a popularity contest. Those "torture" methods saved Los Angeles, but nobody mentions that do they?

Its all just an effort to make Bush look bad, its the only thing Obama has done while in office, except continue to tax just about everything in sight.

[BlueHen86]

Who the hell care if its torture or not, those people who decided to take the lives of others, HAVE NO MORE HUMAN RIGHTS in my mind, I dont care what Obama thinks about the Morality of this country, and I dont give a damn about what other countries think about us, this isnt a popularity contest. Those "torture" methods saved Los Angeles, but nobody mentions that do they?

Its all just an effort to make Bush look bad, its the only thing Obama has done while in office, except continue to tax just about everything in sight.

Just wait until he starts taxing your allowance.

[AZGrizFan]

Good thread, gents. Now watch as I deftly bring the two branches of it together with a simple question to those who base their lives in the third-and-fourth-hand utterances of a recycled Eyptian sun god myth:


Would Jesus think waterboarding is torture?

Pure brilliance, dawg.

[houndawg]

Who the hell care if its torture or not, those people who decided to take the lives of others, HAVE NO MORE HUMAN RIGHTS in my mind, I dont care what Obama thinks about the Morality of this country, and I dont give a damn about what other countries think about us, this isnt a popularity contest. Those "torture" methods saved Los Angeles, but nobody mentions that do they?

Its all just an effort to make Bush look bad, its the only thing Obama has done while in office, except continue to tax just about everything in sight.

You just sealed the case for the anti-torture side.



Yo, kid- whoever paid for your college education got ripped of.

[D1B]

D1B has the courage to use reason and say things that are difficult for others to hear.

Organized religion has centuires old tradition of being the moral police and handing down edicts of what must be followed, and the punishment that go with it. This doesnt create moral men, just those who follow rules out of fear

The truth is that for years, D1B has avoided answering critical questions and when the conversation gets to the point where he cannot respond, he lashes out.

This is more for the benefit of others who may be interested, since D1B doesn't care to listen or respond.

I've never said that an atheist could not live a moral life. Of course he can. What I criticize atheism is that it rejects the concept of an objective truth. Now some, in lieu of an objective truth at the heart of their value system, adopt some form of morality which is identical to that of someone who sees an objective truth as governing the human condition.

But what is to stop someone from buying half of D1B's house? What is to stop someone from adopting the philosophical/theological perspective of atheism, but then rejecting humanism as the core of his moral code? If there is no objectvie truth, why is that irrational. In fact, if there is no objective truth, or no greater good than what can perceived, why not adopt a more self-centered lifestyle? That decision is both logical and rational, in the absence of objective truth, because if there is nothing more than what can be perceived or reasoned, then our acts and actions in the end have no consequences, moral or otherwise.

This is what I mean when I say when you cut out the concept of objective truth, and leave a hole in the middle of philosophical outlook, you can fill it with anything. That you can fill it with humanism, like D1B, is great, but in his outlook there is nothing which objectively compels that choice. So plenty of others have filled that hole with something else ... Stalin, Pol Pot, etc.

In his work "The Possessed," Dostoyevsky chillingly wrote about a godless humanist who indoctrinated youths into his outlook. But the youths ultimately buy half the house -- the atheism part -- and reject the humanism. Dostoyevsky's point is that atheism, even an atheism based on humanism, is ultimately subject to that distortion and inevitably possesses the capacity, without a centered objective truth, to devolve into something far more sinister. He wrote, pretty chillingly in retrospect, about the hundreds of millions of lives that would be lost to this ideology as it became twisted for political purposes. I say chillingly because if you add up the atrocities of the officiallly atheistic states of the 20th century, the numbers slaughtered exceed one hundred million lives -- a staggering number which dwarves many times the numbers lost to religious distortion throughout the history of mankind.

So it's not enough to say, "I'm atheist but a humanist." I think you have to answer how your atheism and humanism is not susceptible to being manipulated by someone who is an atheism and not a humanist. And D1B has never answered that question.

I can go on about the illogical assumption that we can deduce through reason all that is real based on what we perceive, through our five senses and our experiences. More accurately, I can say quite confidently that it is not reasonable to believe that -- there is plainly more which is real that we can reason and deduce through perception and experience, and that there are more than five ways to perceive reality. And that is plainly the point of many of the philosophers which D1B mysteriously identifed above as supporting his position. It seems to me he has not read them closely enough. Plato, for example, is a notable metaphyscian, and the point of his famous allegory of the cave is that we perceive merely shadows of what is ultimately and objectively real. I note the irony of D1B's claim that science has rendered religion meaningless, and yet it appears that science is on the verge of perhaps proving the existence of dimensions that are imperceptible to man's senses or reason.

I would also add atheism, coupled with humanism, also in the end does not provide anyone with any sense of a greater purpose, and ultimately is insufficient to respond to the human concept of what "ought" to be.

Whatever Joe. A quick perusal of these "themed" threads will show numerous instances of you avoiding questions - Like "Joe, why are you right about Jesus and the Jews and Muslims are wrong?" Still waiting on that one...

See, that's the burden you have in attempting to use facts and logic to defend fairy tales and myth. Or, in this case, using fairy tales and myth to provide evidence of "objective truth". It just doesn't work. Try as you may to deflect attention with existentialism, russian literature/fatalism, and murky, circular and convoluted theology/dogma - the reality is no one buys it, except of course you. It's doesn;t require a Fordham divinity degree to see through it either.

I, on the other hand, speak honestly, and people get it. Immediately. It's the advantage I have. I don't have to adorn it with Kafka, or Freud or Thomas Aquinas to make it appear that I'm smart or well versed on a particular issue. A statement such as "Religion is supreme bullshit" or "Catholic priests often fuck little boys in their butts" is simple, honest and beautiful, like me.

Joe, sorry that I am smarter than you. Sorry that people here follow me and not you.

Try to look at me as not a rival but a mentor or one of your professors.

Yours Truly,

D1B - CS.COM Philosopher King

[Ibanez]

The truth is that for years, D1B has avoided answering critical questions and when the conversation gets to the point where he cannot respond, he lashes out.

This is more for the benefit of others who may be interested, since D1B doesn't care to listen or respond.

I've never said that an atheist could not live a moral life. Of course he can. What I criticize atheism is that it rejects the concept of an objective truth. Now some, in lieu of an objective truth at the heart of their value system, adopt some form of morality which is identical to that of someone who sees an objective truth as governing the human condition.

But what is to stop someone from buying half of D1B's house? What is to stop someone from adopting the philosophical/theological perspective of atheism, but then rejecting humanism as the core of his moral code? If there is no objectvie truth, why is that irrational. In fact, if there is no objective truth, or no greater good than what can perceived, why not adopt a more self-centered lifestyle? That decision is both logical and rational, in the absence of objective truth, because if there is nothing more than what can be perceived or reasoned, then our acts and actions in the end have no consequences, moral or otherwise.

This is what I mean when I say when you cut out the concept of objective truth, and leave a hole in the middle of philosophical outlook, you can fill it with anything. That you can fill it with humanism, like D1B, is great, but in his outlook there is nothing which objectively compels that choice. So plenty of others have filled that hole with something else ... Stalin, Pol Pot, etc.

In his work "The Possessed," Dostoyevsky chillingly wrote about a godless humanist who indoctrinated youths into his outlook. But the youths ultimately buy half the house -- the atheism part -- and reject the humanism. Dostoyevsky's point is that atheism, even an atheism based on humanism, is ultimately subject to that distortion and inevitably possesses the capacity, without a centered objective truth, to devolve into something far more sinister. He wrote, pretty chillingly in retrospect, about the hundreds of millions of lives that would be lost to this ideology as it became twisted for political purposes. I say chillingly because if you add up the atrocities of the officiallly atheistic states of the 20th century, the numbers slaughtered exceed one hundred million lives -- a staggering number which dwarves many times the numbers lost to religious distortion throughout the history of mankind.

So it's not enough to say, "I'm atheist but a humanist." I think you have to answer how your atheism and humanism is not susceptible to being manipulated by someone who is an atheism and not a humanist. And D1B has never answered that question.

I can go on about the illogical assumption that we can deduce through reason all that is real based on what we perceive, through our five senses and our experiences. More accurately, I can say quite confidently that it is not reasonable to believe that -- there is plainly more which is real that we can reason and deduce through perception and experience, and that there are more than five ways to perceive reality. And that is plainly the point of many of the philosophers which D1B mysteriously identifed above as supporting his position. It seems to me he has not read them closely enough. Plato, for example, is a notable metaphyscian, and the point of his famous allegory of the cave is that we perceive merely shadows of what is ultimately and objectively real. I note the irony of D1B's claim that science has rendered religion meaningless, and yet it appears that science is on the verge of perhaps proving the existence of dimensions that are imperceptible to man's senses or reason.

I would also add atheism, coupled with humanism, also in the end does not provide anyone with any sense of a greater purpose, and ultimately is insufficient to respond to the human concept of what "ought" to be.

Whatever Joe. A quick perusal of these "themed" threads will show numerous instances of you avoiding questions - Like "Joe, why are you right about Jesus and the Jews and Muslims are wrong?" Still waiting on that one...

See, that's the burden you have in attempting to use facts and logic to defend fairy tales and myth. Or, in this case, using fairy tales and myth to provide evidence of "objective truth". It just doesn't work. Try as you may to deflect attention with existentialism, russian literature/fatalism, and murky, circular and convoluted theology/dogma - the reality is no one buys it, except of course you. It's doesn;t require a Fordham divinity degree to see through it either.

I, on the other hand, speak honestly, and people get it. Immediately. It's the advantage I have. I don't have to adorn it with Kafka, or Freud or Thomas Aquinas to make it appear that I'm smart or well versed on a particular issue. A statement such as "Religion is supreme bullshit" or "Catholic priests often fuck little boys in their butts" is simple, honest and beautiful, like me.

Joe, sorry that I am smarter than you. Sorry that people here follow me and not you.

Try to look at me as not a rival but a mentor or one of your professors.

Yours Truly,

D1B - CS.COM Philosopher King

Wow...simply wow.

[JoltinJoe]

The truth is that for years, D1B has avoided answering critical questions and when the conversation gets to the point where he cannot respond, he lashes out.

This is more for the benefit of others who may be interested, since D1B doesn't care to listen or respond.

I've never said that an atheist could not live a moral life. Of course he can. What I criticize atheism is that it rejects the concept of an objective truth. Now some, in lieu of an objective truth at the heart of their value system, adopt some form of morality which is identical to that of someone who sees an objective truth as governing the human condition.

But what is to stop someone from buying half of D1B's house? What is to stop someone from adopting the philosophical/theological perspective of atheism, but then rejecting humanism as the core of his moral code? If there is no objectvie truth, why is that irrational. In fact, if there is no objective truth, or no greater good than what can perceived, why not adopt a more self-centered lifestyle? That decision is both logical and rational, in the absence of objective truth, because if there is nothing more than what can be perceived or reasoned, then our acts and actions in the end have no consequences, moral or otherwise.

This is what I mean when I say when you cut out the concept of objective truth, and leave a hole in the middle of philosophical outlook, you can fill it with anything. That you can fill it with humanism, like D1B, is great, but in his outlook there is nothing which objectively compels that choice. So plenty of others have filled that hole with something else ... Stalin, Pol Pot, etc.

In his work "The Possessed," Dostoyevsky chillingly wrote about a godless humanist who indoctrinated youths into his outlook. But the youths ultimately buy half the house -- the atheism part -- and reject the humanism. Dostoyevsky's point is that atheism, even an atheism based on humanism, is ultimately subject to that distortion and inevitably possesses the capacity, without a centered objective truth, to devolve into something far more sinister. He wrote, pretty chillingly in retrospect, about the hundreds of millions of lives that would be lost to this ideology as it became twisted for political purposes. I say chillingly because if you add up the atrocities of the officiallly atheistic states of the 20th century, the numbers slaughtered exceed one hundred million lives -- a staggering number which dwarves many times the numbers lost to religious distortion throughout the history of mankind.

So it's not enough to say, "I'm atheist but a humanist." I think you have to answer how your atheism and humanism is not susceptible to being manipulated by someone who is an atheism and not a humanist. And D1B has never answered that question.

I can go on about the illogical assumption that we can deduce through reason all that is real based on what we perceive, through our five senses and our experiences. More accurately, I can say quite confidently that it is not reasonable to believe that -- there is plainly more which is real that we can reason and deduce through perception and experience, and that there are more than five ways to perceive reality. And that is plainly the point of many of the philosophers which D1B mysteriously identifed above as supporting his position. It seems to me he has not read them closely enough. Plato, for example, is a notable metaphyscian, and the point of his famous allegory of the cave is that we perceive merely shadows of what is ultimately and objectively real. I note the irony of D1B's claim that science has rendered religion meaningless, and yet it appears that science is on the verge of perhaps proving the existence of dimensions that are imperceptible to man's senses or reason.

I would also add atheism, coupled with humanism, also in the end does not provide anyone with any sense of a greater purpose, and ultimately is insufficient to respond to the human concept of what "ought" to be.

Whatever Joe. A quick perusal of these "themed" threads will show numerous instances of you avoiding questions - Like "Joe, why are you right about Jesus and the Jews and Muslims are wrong?" Still waiting on that one...

See, that's the burden you have in attempting to use facts and logic to defend fairy tales and myth. Or, in this case, using fairy tales and myth to provide evidence of "objective truth". It just doesn't work. Try as you may to deflect attention with existentialism, russian literature/fatalism, and murky, circular and convoluted theology/dogma - the reality is no one buys it, except of course you. It's doesn;t require a Fordham divinity degree to see through it either.

I, on the other hand, speak honestly, and people get it. Immediately. It's the advantage I have. I don't have to adorn it with Kafka, or Freud or Thomas Aquinas to make it appear that I'm smart or well versed on a particular issue. A statement such as "Religion is supreme bullshit" or "Catholic priests often **** little boys in their butts" is simple, honest and beautiful, like me.

Joe, sorry that I am smarter than you. Sorry that people here follow me and not you.

Try to look at me as not a rival but a mentor or one of your professors.

Yours Truly,

D1B - CS.COM Philosopher King

[bench]

So what have we learned in this thread?

• Waterboarding is torture
• Torture is wrong, except when the intended recipient is a large type asshole
• Hitler is apparently more relevant to a discussion about waterboarding terrorists than one might have imagined
• Hitler was both an asshole and a fan of the writings of Nietzsche
• Therefore Nietzsche was an asshole
• If only he hadn't died 109 years ago, it would be acceptable to torture Nietzsche

[dbackjon]

Good summary, bench!