The other day my mom linked me an atheists vs. Christians debate involving the famous Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron. Cameron mentions how he was an atheist come Christian, which is hard for me to believe but I'll get to that later.
The debate was over the proof for God's existence without faith or the Bible. I was well pleased when Cameron said that we can prove Gods existence with total certainty.
Comfort went first with his intro, and basically said that God's existence can be proven by the majesty and wonder of the world around us. Unfortunately he almost immediately broke the rules and talked about the Bible.
The atheists finally got a voice and they had plenty to say in response.
The debate eventually came down to a debate over evolution which was fairly decent.
Overall the debate mostly sucked. The atheists were too cynical and not very open to any of the logic that the Christians did offer. But most of all, Cameron and Comfort absolutely failed the debate for their inability to be attached to the debate and understand the atheists questions.
This has basically brought me back to what I said in my previous note about embarrassing representation of the Catholic Church.
Cameron and Comfort couldn't help but resort to disconnected, vague preaching when they replied to either the moderator or the atheists, like how most people seem to evangelize nowadays unfortunately.
But it all ended for me when it came to a debate about the historical existence of Jesus. The atheists simply presented an evidential historical case for why Jesus probably didn't exist, saying how there are multiple sources that go against the few biblical sources. However, immediately following that, Ray Comfort simply responds by nothing short of PREACHING! He simply reiterated that the Bible was the living word of God, therefore outweighing the other sources. I don't know if they actually did anything better than that afterwards because i was so infuriated that i quit watching the debate.
Kirk Cameron wasn't really any better. Like i said earlier, i figured him being an ex-atheist would keep him from vague preaching and using logic that the atheists, or any logical person for that matter, could relate to. But i was mistaken.
I am just beyond done with the intellectual incompetence of people when there is plenty out there to learn from.
Basically, if i were the government and each aspect of the Church were a program, i would fund apologetics like a nation afraid for it's security ought to fund its military.
Friday, October 25, 2013
Friday, October 18, 2013
"Criticize the Choir"
You've probably heard the catch phrase "Preach to the choir" meaning that you preach to people who already know about what you are saying.
Over recent months I have developed a sense of what i call "Criticize the choir" which i define as the act of criticizing or correcting one's own side, especially regarding a controversial issue.
I have repeatedly had the feeling of distaste and discontent not so much for faulty things that the opposing side has said as i have for my own side. Most especially my Catholic side.
Have you ever felt embarrassed by a pathetic argument from somebody that was on your own side? it's irritating enough when the opponent is constantly saying stupid things, but for me it's worse when my own side (which i believe to be the true side) can't seem to make a decent case.
Because of repeated experiences of this i have come to the point of basically being a constructive critic of the apologetics of my own side in the Catholic Faith.
To be frank and blunt, i find my own side to be overall not that good at making it's case, not being able to live up to its own intellectual potential.
I'm not really saying that those of you who are my close friends know little to nothing; you guys are the ones that actually know a real amount, but that people in the bigger scope of things know too little of their own belief system, and with that know how to make the case for it.
I have one, big example of a poor argument from my own side that i have come across that, in all honesty, I Hate...
One of the most critical questions that atheists press against us is this:
"Why doesn't God just show himself and thus end the debate for good?"
The conventional response that i have come across is this:
"Because it would destroy our free will and we would be forced to believe that he exists!"
I'm sorry what?! "destroy our free will"?!?
There is two basic issues i have with this argument:
1. It violates what i have always understood as Catholic philosophy; namely that God's increased involvement = humans being more alive. More authentically how they were made to be. This philosophy can be summed up by a saying from the lips of one of our great church fathers, St. Irenaeus: "The glory of God is a human being fully alive."
note that this includes free will. Free will is a God given function to humanity, so when a human being is fully alive, free will is fully functional.
But according to this argument, God's presence, rather than making free will more functional, is instead a cause of conflict. So in the end, God has to awkwardly distance himself from us in order for us to function with the abilities he gave us. This is insulting to the Catholic Philosophy i have always been told about.
2. (The simpler reason) It's Illogical.
The idea that God's appearance necessarily destroys my free will never followed through in my mind. There's no reason why God's appearance would completely destroy my free will. Sure it would be impractical to doubt his existence in that situation, but I'm pretty sure i would still have the ability in me to doubt his existence.
Aside from those reasons, I'm having a lot of trouble understanding what's the big deal that God has shown himself. people seem to get caught up in the idea that we ought to live in a state of perpetual uncertainly over God's existence, never being able to know for certain that he does in fact exist. This too is a philosophy that i will never adhere to.
I don't see why the certainty of God's existence is such a sin when it's not the issue that matters most. What matters most is not simply that we believe God's existence but that we live the life that he laid out for us to live.
The way i would answer the atheist question:
God is omnipresent: It's important to note the fact that the God we believe in is omnipresent. Meaning he is absolutely everywhere.
This would imply that everywhere we look we ARE looking at God, because God is everywhere.
Now, we might not realize WHAT we are looking at, but that is a different story.
I stress this issue because i believe it is direly important for us Catholics to be the best we can be to live out our call to evangelize. it's one of the most important thing we can do, so i believe friendly constructive criticism of eachothers' arguments is a key element.
Over recent months I have developed a sense of what i call "Criticize the choir" which i define as the act of criticizing or correcting one's own side, especially regarding a controversial issue.
I have repeatedly had the feeling of distaste and discontent not so much for faulty things that the opposing side has said as i have for my own side. Most especially my Catholic side.
Have you ever felt embarrassed by a pathetic argument from somebody that was on your own side? it's irritating enough when the opponent is constantly saying stupid things, but for me it's worse when my own side (which i believe to be the true side) can't seem to make a decent case.
Because of repeated experiences of this i have come to the point of basically being a constructive critic of the apologetics of my own side in the Catholic Faith.
To be frank and blunt, i find my own side to be overall not that good at making it's case, not being able to live up to its own intellectual potential.
I'm not really saying that those of you who are my close friends know little to nothing; you guys are the ones that actually know a real amount, but that people in the bigger scope of things know too little of their own belief system, and with that know how to make the case for it.
I have one, big example of a poor argument from my own side that i have come across that, in all honesty, I Hate...
One of the most critical questions that atheists press against us is this:
"Why doesn't God just show himself and thus end the debate for good?"
The conventional response that i have come across is this:
"Because it would destroy our free will and we would be forced to believe that he exists!"
I'm sorry what?! "destroy our free will"?!?
There is two basic issues i have with this argument:
1. It violates what i have always understood as Catholic philosophy; namely that God's increased involvement = humans being more alive. More authentically how they were made to be. This philosophy can be summed up by a saying from the lips of one of our great church fathers, St. Irenaeus: "The glory of God is a human being fully alive."
note that this includes free will. Free will is a God given function to humanity, so when a human being is fully alive, free will is fully functional.
But according to this argument, God's presence, rather than making free will more functional, is instead a cause of conflict. So in the end, God has to awkwardly distance himself from us in order for us to function with the abilities he gave us. This is insulting to the Catholic Philosophy i have always been told about.
2. (The simpler reason) It's Illogical.
The idea that God's appearance necessarily destroys my free will never followed through in my mind. There's no reason why God's appearance would completely destroy my free will. Sure it would be impractical to doubt his existence in that situation, but I'm pretty sure i would still have the ability in me to doubt his existence.
Aside from those reasons, I'm having a lot of trouble understanding what's the big deal that God has shown himself. people seem to get caught up in the idea that we ought to live in a state of perpetual uncertainly over God's existence, never being able to know for certain that he does in fact exist. This too is a philosophy that i will never adhere to.
I don't see why the certainty of God's existence is such a sin when it's not the issue that matters most. What matters most is not simply that we believe God's existence but that we live the life that he laid out for us to live.
The way i would answer the atheist question:
God is omnipresent: It's important to note the fact that the God we believe in is omnipresent. Meaning he is absolutely everywhere.
This would imply that everywhere we look we ARE looking at God, because God is everywhere.
Now, we might not realize WHAT we are looking at, but that is a different story.
I stress this issue because i believe it is direly important for us Catholics to be the best we can be to live out our call to evangelize. it's one of the most important thing we can do, so i believe friendly constructive criticism of eachothers' arguments is a key element.
Tuesday, October 15, 2013
Pro-choice arguments: Set up and knocked down.
i mentioned that i would be commenting on the abortion issue, well here is my latest article i wrote on it recently.
By Nathaniel Kezer, Staff Writer
According to data from the CDC and the Guttmacher Institute, since Roe v. Wade in 1973, there have been at least 54 million legal abortions performed in the U.S. However, pro-choice advocates argue that it is not wrong. So I have identified 14 arguments that they use to do so and I address each one of them.
You may be wondering how this article is at all relevant to you, my simple answer is: you are a human, and this is a fundamental human rights issue.
1. Women's rights argument: "Women should have the right to choose what to do with their body."
The issue with this argument is that it doesn't answer the proper, more fundamental argument, 'When does life begin?’ Rather, it presupposes the unborn child not to be a life, and the issue becomes centered on women’s rights. Perhaps women, for the most part, should have the freedom to do what they want with their bodies. However, if the unborn is its own person (which is supposed to be the central focus of this whole issue) then the woman does not have the right to an abortion because it is not simply having to do with her own body, but another's.
If you're so concerned with women's rights then I would ask, what about all those unborn females? Are they allowed their right to live?
2. Hypocrisy argument: "You pro-lifers are such hypocrites, because you believe in saving the unborn but then the death penalty or killing abortion doctors is okay."
No it is not okay, ALL life from the womb to the tomb is special and valuable. What some anti-abortion advocates do with abortion doctors is the personal, radical decision they made and not the proper representation of the pro-life viewpoint.
I personally am appalled at hypocrisy arguments on just about any issue from either side. Hypocrisy arguments are an ad hominem, nothing more than just an attack on the arguer(s), rather than their arguments. What does someone's hypocritical actions have anything to do with whether or not that person's viewpoint is correct or not? Nothing.
3. Human appearance argument: "The embryo doesn't even look anything like a human."
Sure it might not "look like a human" at that stage of development, but then the reasonable question would be, at exactly what point does it switch from "not looking like a human" to "looking like a human?” The answer is there is no precise point, for it is a gradual process, rendering it an unfit and irrelevant factor in determining when life begins.
4. Active nervous system argument: "It is okay to terminate it since its nerves aren't active/fully active so it won't feel any pain.”
The nervous system also doesn't have a "turn on" point but develops gradually, making it an unfit factor in drawing the line of where life begins. Besides that, do you really want to argue that just because somebody can't feel the pain that it is okay to harm or kill him or her? There are many ways to painlessly kill someone, but it is still just as morally wrong.
5. Intelligence argument: "The embryo is about as intelligent as a rock... no where near a normal human intelligence.”
Intelligence, perhaps above all else, develops gradually and is therefore an unfit, arbitrary factor in determining where life begins. Just because someone may possibly be dumber than a brick doesn't make it right to kill them, they are still a human being.
6. "Parasite" argument: "The embryo is just a parasite because it is feeding off of the mother.”
The word "parasite" is a schemey, emotional appeal for the unborn's dependency on the mother, which I may also note is as well a gradually changing reality, and is therefore unfit and irrelevant in determining where life begins.
Not only that, but dependency is in all sorts of places outside of the womb. Infants and toddlers are dependent upon others to feed them and make sure they are safe. Are they not yet alive due to this? What about people in a coma? Overall, it is unreasonable to say that dependency justifies the taking of an innocent life. It is another human being that isn't simply a consumer, but will likely grow up to be a producer.
7.Personal subjectivity argument: "I think abortion is wrong but others may choose what to do with their bodies as they wish."
What somebody does with their body is perhaps indeed only their business. However, an unborn embryo, or fetus, is his or her own human with his or her own body. So it doesn’t just have to do with the woman’s body, but the child’s as well.
Personally thinking that abortion is murder but letting others decide for themselves is, frankly, no different than saying, “I won’t kill my children, but others may do as they wish with theirs.”
I’m sure none of you would actually think of doing that, but it is still important to make that point known. You think abortion is wrong because it is murder, but murder is something that is not to be easily thought of as subjective.
8. Anti-religious argument: "Stop shoving your religiously attained viewpoint on abortion down my throat. I am not of your religion so it doesn't apply to me."
Sure many peoples’ pro-life viewpoints originated in the doctrines of their religions, as did mine, but why do I need religion to defend my case about abortion? As a non-believer, you could indeed logically believe that murder is still wrong. So what is stopping you from also believing abortion is wrong, if they are in fact one and the same? Although at the same time, it could be the case that you need religious morals to argue for abortion and murder in general. Either way, the point to be made is that they are one and the same.
9. Poverty argument: "A woman shouldn't be forced to take care of a child she doesn't have the means to support."
This as well, should not reasonably justify the taking of an innocent life. It is also not the case that women are being forced to take care of their child, for they can give it up for adoption and/or perhaps get free support for the baby. You would be surprised how many there are out there who want to adopt a baby and perhaps don’t get the chance to. One great example of this was Steve Jobs, who was an unwanted pregnancy under two unwed college students, who put him up for adoption. If it weren’t for that, I would have had ten times more trouble in typing this very note.
Despite any poverty, the child still has a chance for a great life, and he or she should at least be allowed to have that chance.
10. "Blob of cells" argument: "The embryo is just a simple blob of cells, not a human person."
While that is technically true (for maybe the first two or three weeks of pregnancy), it is then reasonable to ask, "At what precise point does stop becoming a “blob of cells,” and finally become an formed human?” The answer being, like many of the things mentioned earlier, that there isn’t a certain point and it is a slow, gradual process. Therefore, rendering it unfit and arbitrary in determining when life begins.
Despite being a “blob of cells,” the embryo from conception is in fact a whole, living, individual human being with the full genome. Not just any ordinary cell like, for instance, a skin cell.
11. "Overpopulation" argument: "Abortion should be available, otherwise we would inevitably become overpopulated."
First of all, again, this does not provide any answer to the real central argument of this issue. It is nothing but a diversion to an external issue in attempt to justify abortion. If you think about it, this type of claim is fairly immoral. This is basically implying "Some people have got to stop living in this world but it's not gonna be me."
12.Rape argument: "A woman shouldn't have to carry her rapist's child."
No one should ever deny the horrific devastation of rape. As so, I refuse to appeal to arguments such as that from Todd Akin or the argument that rape pregnancies are rare. My goal will not be to try and make rape seem less terrible than it really is, but rather to clarify what our moral priorities ought to be.
"A woman has a right not to be pregnant if she doesn't want to be." This statement is, by all means, agreeable. So why then, does the rape argument not persuade me? Because, this right-to-liberty argument ignores the issue of the right to life. To sum up my point, keep in mind a simple principle: The right to life supersedes the right to liberty. If you think this is an amenable principle, then a woman should have the right not to be pregnant, but her right cannot interfere with a child's right not to be killed.
13. Pre-conception argument: "So if thousands of eggs or sperm are dying each day does that mean that we are all mass murderers?!"
No. As I mentioned earlier, conception is the starting point where the whole human genome is assembled. At this point, no earlier, it is a whole and moreover individual human being. A sperm cell is simply a single cell with the DNA of its producer, and the same goes for the egg.
14: Natural "abortion" argument: "Abortion is okay because it happens naturally all the time, and you may never even know that it happened."
With this same logic, it is reasonable to say that, “Because hundreds of people die naturally everyday, it is therefore okay to kill people.”
15: Abortion legal = fewer abortions argument: "But if abortion is made illegal, abortions will be unsafe and more widespread."
A simple strategy of determining the validity of this argument is to stop, sit down, and think about it for three seconds.
Overall, I think the issue of abortion in America is similar to other issues of human rights such as African Americans or women. It took us several years to decades to adjust to the fact that they were in fact equal persons like the rest of us. I believe it may also take time for us to adjust to the fact that the unborn deserve equal recognition like the rest of us.
According to data from the CDC and the Guttmacher Institute, since Roe v. Wade in 1973, there have been at least 54 million legal abortions performed in the U.S. However, pro-choice advocates argue that it is not wrong. So I have identified 14 arguments that they use to do so and I address each one of them.
You may be wondering how this article is at all relevant to you, my simple answer is: you are a human, and this is a fundamental human rights issue.
1. Women's rights argument: "Women should have the right to choose what to do with their body."
The issue with this argument is that it doesn't answer the proper, more fundamental argument, 'When does life begin?’ Rather, it presupposes the unborn child not to be a life, and the issue becomes centered on women’s rights. Perhaps women, for the most part, should have the freedom to do what they want with their bodies. However, if the unborn is its own person (which is supposed to be the central focus of this whole issue) then the woman does not have the right to an abortion because it is not simply having to do with her own body, but another's.
If you're so concerned with women's rights then I would ask, what about all those unborn females? Are they allowed their right to live?
2. Hypocrisy argument: "You pro-lifers are such hypocrites, because you believe in saving the unborn but then the death penalty or killing abortion doctors is okay."
No it is not okay, ALL life from the womb to the tomb is special and valuable. What some anti-abortion advocates do with abortion doctors is the personal, radical decision they made and not the proper representation of the pro-life viewpoint.
I personally am appalled at hypocrisy arguments on just about any issue from either side. Hypocrisy arguments are an ad hominem, nothing more than just an attack on the arguer(s), rather than their arguments. What does someone's hypocritical actions have anything to do with whether or not that person's viewpoint is correct or not? Nothing.
3. Human appearance argument: "The embryo doesn't even look anything like a human."
Sure it might not "look like a human" at that stage of development, but then the reasonable question would be, at exactly what point does it switch from "not looking like a human" to "looking like a human?” The answer is there is no precise point, for it is a gradual process, rendering it an unfit and irrelevant factor in determining when life begins.
4. Active nervous system argument: "It is okay to terminate it since its nerves aren't active/fully active so it won't feel any pain.”
The nervous system also doesn't have a "turn on" point but develops gradually, making it an unfit factor in drawing the line of where life begins. Besides that, do you really want to argue that just because somebody can't feel the pain that it is okay to harm or kill him or her? There are many ways to painlessly kill someone, but it is still just as morally wrong.
5. Intelligence argument: "The embryo is about as intelligent as a rock... no where near a normal human intelligence.”
Intelligence, perhaps above all else, develops gradually and is therefore an unfit, arbitrary factor in determining where life begins. Just because someone may possibly be dumber than a brick doesn't make it right to kill them, they are still a human being.
6. "Parasite" argument: "The embryo is just a parasite because it is feeding off of the mother.”
The word "parasite" is a schemey, emotional appeal for the unborn's dependency on the mother, which I may also note is as well a gradually changing reality, and is therefore unfit and irrelevant in determining where life begins.
Not only that, but dependency is in all sorts of places outside of the womb. Infants and toddlers are dependent upon others to feed them and make sure they are safe. Are they not yet alive due to this? What about people in a coma? Overall, it is unreasonable to say that dependency justifies the taking of an innocent life. It is another human being that isn't simply a consumer, but will likely grow up to be a producer.
7.Personal subjectivity argument: "I think abortion is wrong but others may choose what to do with their bodies as they wish."
What somebody does with their body is perhaps indeed only their business. However, an unborn embryo, or fetus, is his or her own human with his or her own body. So it doesn’t just have to do with the woman’s body, but the child’s as well.
Personally thinking that abortion is murder but letting others decide for themselves is, frankly, no different than saying, “I won’t kill my children, but others may do as they wish with theirs.”
I’m sure none of you would actually think of doing that, but it is still important to make that point known. You think abortion is wrong because it is murder, but murder is something that is not to be easily thought of as subjective.
8. Anti-religious argument: "Stop shoving your religiously attained viewpoint on abortion down my throat. I am not of your religion so it doesn't apply to me."
Sure many peoples’ pro-life viewpoints originated in the doctrines of their religions, as did mine, but why do I need religion to defend my case about abortion? As a non-believer, you could indeed logically believe that murder is still wrong. So what is stopping you from also believing abortion is wrong, if they are in fact one and the same? Although at the same time, it could be the case that you need religious morals to argue for abortion and murder in general. Either way, the point to be made is that they are one and the same.
9. Poverty argument: "A woman shouldn't be forced to take care of a child she doesn't have the means to support."
This as well, should not reasonably justify the taking of an innocent life. It is also not the case that women are being forced to take care of their child, for they can give it up for adoption and/or perhaps get free support for the baby. You would be surprised how many there are out there who want to adopt a baby and perhaps don’t get the chance to. One great example of this was Steve Jobs, who was an unwanted pregnancy under two unwed college students, who put him up for adoption. If it weren’t for that, I would have had ten times more trouble in typing this very note.
Despite any poverty, the child still has a chance for a great life, and he or she should at least be allowed to have that chance.
10. "Blob of cells" argument: "The embryo is just a simple blob of cells, not a human person."
While that is technically true (for maybe the first two or three weeks of pregnancy), it is then reasonable to ask, "At what precise point does stop becoming a “blob of cells,” and finally become an formed human?” The answer being, like many of the things mentioned earlier, that there isn’t a certain point and it is a slow, gradual process. Therefore, rendering it unfit and arbitrary in determining when life begins.
Despite being a “blob of cells,” the embryo from conception is in fact a whole, living, individual human being with the full genome. Not just any ordinary cell like, for instance, a skin cell.
11. "Overpopulation" argument: "Abortion should be available, otherwise we would inevitably become overpopulated."
First of all, again, this does not provide any answer to the real central argument of this issue. It is nothing but a diversion to an external issue in attempt to justify abortion. If you think about it, this type of claim is fairly immoral. This is basically implying "Some people have got to stop living in this world but it's not gonna be me."
12.Rape argument: "A woman shouldn't have to carry her rapist's child."
No one should ever deny the horrific devastation of rape. As so, I refuse to appeal to arguments such as that from Todd Akin or the argument that rape pregnancies are rare. My goal will not be to try and make rape seem less terrible than it really is, but rather to clarify what our moral priorities ought to be.
"A woman has a right not to be pregnant if she doesn't want to be." This statement is, by all means, agreeable. So why then, does the rape argument not persuade me? Because, this right-to-liberty argument ignores the issue of the right to life. To sum up my point, keep in mind a simple principle: The right to life supersedes the right to liberty. If you think this is an amenable principle, then a woman should have the right not to be pregnant, but her right cannot interfere with a child's right not to be killed.
13. Pre-conception argument: "So if thousands of eggs or sperm are dying each day does that mean that we are all mass murderers?!"
No. As I mentioned earlier, conception is the starting point where the whole human genome is assembled. At this point, no earlier, it is a whole and moreover individual human being. A sperm cell is simply a single cell with the DNA of its producer, and the same goes for the egg.
14: Natural "abortion" argument: "Abortion is okay because it happens naturally all the time, and you may never even know that it happened."
With this same logic, it is reasonable to say that, “Because hundreds of people die naturally everyday, it is therefore okay to kill people.”
15: Abortion legal = fewer abortions argument: "But if abortion is made illegal, abortions will be unsafe and more widespread."
A simple strategy of determining the validity of this argument is to stop, sit down, and think about it for three seconds.
Overall, I think the issue of abortion in America is similar to other issues of human rights such as African Americans or women. It took us several years to decades to adjust to the fact that they were in fact equal persons like the rest of us. I believe it may also take time for us to adjust to the fact that the unborn deserve equal recognition like the rest of us.
Monday, October 14, 2013
What's My Agenda?
I've been told repeatedly to start my own blog so i can say what i need to say. I hear it's how most people get started on a possible public career.
I'm said to be an excellent writer but i don't enjoy doing it too often, so i don't know how often i will be updating this blog.
So enough about that; what is my agenda? First let me give a hopefully interesting autobio to help show why I will say what I'm gonna say.
I'm an 18 year-old 4th-year highschooler who for years has had a love for philosophy. I am a devout Roman Catholic and love to discuss and ponder over the beliefs of Catholicism and the debates surrounding it. Often times on Facebook i would spend time "Troll Patrolling," basically fending off internet trolls who were invading pages that were in accord with my views, from religious to political.
Speaking of political, you probably won't go far without hearing my political viewpoints along with those of my religion. So I'll simply spill it all out here in advance:
I was a determined conservative republican for a while as my family raised me to be. However, I have mostly moved further to the right to become what is known as a "Classical Liberal", a close cousin to libertarianism. Though my belief is not for the ultimate purpose that people leave me alone so i can do what i want in my own personal space; i believe this philosophy because i see it to be the best means for a healthy, successful society.
Most importantly of my political views is my pro-life view. the view that human personhood begins at conception. You will certainly be hearing about this topic from me.
that's me basically, as for what my agenda is:
I love logic. I hate dealing with arguments that are based off of guilt or emotional appeal. Peoples' emotions vary like the stock market, while logic is as fixed as gravity. So you should hear me expressing my discontent for the human race in it's failure to use solid logic.
I love truth. One of the definitions of philosophy is "The love of truth", which matches my description perfectly.
Lastly... I'm into what matters most:
I love truth and logic because they help me deal with the issues that matter most. I feel that most people care about unproductive, overly-cultural things, while I care about the fundamental issues.
I'm said to be an excellent writer but i don't enjoy doing it too often, so i don't know how often i will be updating this blog.So enough about that; what is my agenda? First let me give a hopefully interesting autobio to help show why I will say what I'm gonna say.
I'm an 18 year-old 4th-year highschooler who for years has had a love for philosophy. I am a devout Roman Catholic and love to discuss and ponder over the beliefs of Catholicism and the debates surrounding it. Often times on Facebook i would spend time "Troll Patrolling," basically fending off internet trolls who were invading pages that were in accord with my views, from religious to political.
Speaking of political, you probably won't go far without hearing my political viewpoints along with those of my religion. So I'll simply spill it all out here in advance:
I was a determined conservative republican for a while as my family raised me to be. However, I have mostly moved further to the right to become what is known as a "Classical Liberal", a close cousin to libertarianism. Though my belief is not for the ultimate purpose that people leave me alone so i can do what i want in my own personal space; i believe this philosophy because i see it to be the best means for a healthy, successful society.
Most importantly of my political views is my pro-life view. the view that human personhood begins at conception. You will certainly be hearing about this topic from me.
that's me basically, as for what my agenda is:
I love logic. I hate dealing with arguments that are based off of guilt or emotional appeal. Peoples' emotions vary like the stock market, while logic is as fixed as gravity. So you should hear me expressing my discontent for the human race in it's failure to use solid logic.
I love truth. One of the definitions of philosophy is "The love of truth", which matches my description perfectly.
Lastly... I'm into what matters most:
I love truth and logic because they help me deal with the issues that matter most. I feel that most people care about unproductive, overly-cultural things, while I care about the fundamental issues.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)