DEBATE OpenAirAtheist (James Stillwell) vs Fatfist on ABSOLUTE TRUTH

Defining TRUTH & ABSOLUTE is extremely dangerous for the charlatan who wants to push these contradictory notions to the unsuspecting public!
Defining TRUTH & ABSOLUTE is extremely dangerous for the charlatan who wants to push these contradictory notions to the unsuspecting public!

INTRODUCTION

As an ex-theist and now a self-proclaimed “God”, addressing himself as OpenAirAtheist, I-Theist or James Theodore Stillwell; this fellow has been pushing his Religion of Absolute Truth all over the Internet. He harasses folks for a debate over email/pm rather than in a public forum. Several folks have brought this to my attention, as I’ve already debated James Stillwell in the past. He recently PM’ed me with the same debunked arguments from our last debate. He is known for bombarding people with PM’s like a spambot when he doesn't get his way. And even resorts to using 5000-year-old Sophist PERSUATION TRICKS to elicit a forced contradictory response from his opponents. If this fellow is an intellectual with a legitimate argument, then why is he so scared to defend it publicly? What can he possibly accomplish with these tricks? Instead of attacking his ignorance, why won’t Mr. James Stillwell read the article he hates so much, attack it head-on and destroy it?

You can see the painful exchange between myself and James Stillwell on July 2012 in my article on Absolute Truth. It was like pulling teeth trying to get him to define the key terms (i.e. truth) that make or break his argument. But he finally answered two critical questions which destroyed his Religion of Absolute Truth. To cut the crap and spare you the boredom of his pathetic attempts at deflection, I have summarized his argument in this article.

Every single “Truther” out there uses the same contradictory arguments as Mr. Stillwell. His responses underscore the fact that what is ‘true’ for you, is always a ‘lie’ for your neighbor. Truth is always a debatable claim. The anthropocentric concept of truth necessarily resolves to an observer’s opinion.




OpenAirAtheist, I-Theist, James Stillwell: FAILED ARGUMENTS

OpenAirAtheistfirst messaged me in July of 2012 requesting a private debate. I declined and told him to post his argument in my article on Absolute Truth. After several painful exchanges, he finally posted his argument:


OpenAirAtheist: “Your assertion that there are no absolute truths is logically fallacious. Let me give you an example. 1+1 always =2. A=A and it's always true in all situations, and possible worlds that square circles cannot exist. Period! You stand ruted!”


Obviously James Stillwell doesn’t realize that Systems of Logic like Mathematics and Classical Logic are pre-defined tautologies. His contentions are refuted as addressed with extreme detail in the following articles in my profile:

· LOGIC: The Law of Identity (A=A) is NOT True.

· What is Logic: Logic Does NOT Provide Proofs and Truths

James Stillwell was also oblivious to the fact that square circles are impossible BY DEFINITION! A square has four right angles and equal length sides (by definition). Ergo, it is impossible for squares to be circular. This has to do with definitions, not with truth (i.e. empirical verification). We learn this on day 1 of Junior Kindergarten.



Then he accuses me of making a CLAIM that there are no absolutes:


OpenAirAtheist: “[You are] claiming absolutes do not exist“


OpenAirAtheist is a typical Religionist who doesn’t understand the difference between a ‘claim’ and a ‘justified rational argument’. A ‘claim’ is an assertion without any supporting argument whatsoever. In fact, he has no argument for his claim of “there is absolute truth”. A ‘justified rational argument’ is a non-contradictory argument which explains why absolute truth is impossible. Such an argument cannot be contradicted. And such an argument was provided to Mr. James Stillwell in the very article he was contesting. Like most of the folks who comment on that article, Mr. Stillwell didn’t make it past the title. He chased his tail arguing solely with the title. He didn’t have the attention span or intellectual capacity to read the argument in the article which unequivocally justifies absolutes to be impossible….and without contradiction to boot!



After much teeth-pulling, he finally decides to provide a definition for ‘truth’:


OpenAirAtheist: “Truth is what exists objectively independent of wishes whims and desires”


He irrationally claims that ‘truth’ is a synonym for the term ‘exist’. Obviously James Stillwell has never taken a Philosophy or Logic 101 course to understand that the word ‘truth’ is concept of validation. As a concept, truth has been conceived by humans for the utility of a conceptual label of validation on statement types known as PROPOSITIONS. Propositions are statements which propose an alleged case or scenario. As proposals, propositions need to be validated before they can be labelled as ‘true’. Hence, this anthropocentric concept of truth is used by people to intentionally decree a label of “validated acceptance” (i.e. true) or of “validated rejection” (i.e. false) to propositional statements.

James Stillwell doesn’t understand that, as a concept of VALIDATION, truth necessarily requires an observer to use his extremely limited sensory system to empirically validate a propositional statement as either ‘true’ or ‘false’. So, yes indeed, the subjective concept of ‘truth’ is necessarily DEPENDENT on the wishes, whims, desires and biases of a human observer! All this stuff is explained in extreme detail in my article which he never bothered to read:

· There is NO Truth. Truth Resolves to OPINION.

It’s quite pathetic for people to attempt an intellectual argument without first understanding the basics of the very issue at the core of their argument. James Stillwell is either trolling or needs to go to school and learn the basics of logic, propositions and Philosophy.



Just to showcase his contradictions and to put an end to his nonsense, I told James Stillwell that Christian Apologist, Matt Slick, has already VERIFIED and VALIDATED the following two propositions as true:


P1: “God created space and matter”

P2: “The sky is blue”


So that’s it….there is NO debate on these issues…I mean, they are TRUE. We heard it from the horse's mouth. We're done!

James Stillwell doesn't think so. He responds:


OpenAirAtheist: “I cannot accept or reject the god claim”

OpenAirAtheist: “"the sky is blue" I would say that this statement is false since "blue" is qualia and not the sky it's self. Qualia is a product of consciousness and not intrinsic to the sky but to INDIVIDUAL human consciousnesses......subjective experience”


Gotcha!

James Stillwell finally puts his foot in his mouth. He now admits that TRUTH is synonymous with a CLAIM (i.e. the truth claim that God created space & matter). It seems that truth is not absolute for Mr. Stillwell anymore, but rather a claim that can always be contested. But what is there to contend with? Matt Slick already saw God who showed him a video of how He created space and matter. Furthermore, Matt Slick already saw the sky to be blue. He obviously has two VERIFIED truths for P1 and P2. So what's James Stillwell's problem then? According to Mr. Stillwell's reasoning, both of Matt Slick's statements must be true.

But no! Mr. Stillwell concedes that the concept of ‘truth’ is dependent on the subjectivity of an observer, in what a person feels like accepting, rejecting, or even on his subjective experience and limited sensory system. Hence, he argues that what Matt Slick verified as TRUTH, is nothing more than his OPINION. Obviously, Mr. Stillwell consistently falls back to human wishes, whims, desires, biases, opinions and other subjectivities in order to account for one’s validation of a proposition as ‘truth’; just as he did on behalf of Matt Slick. Well, you can’t have it both ways, Mr. Stillwell.

Of course, ‘truth’ is necessarily a subjective human-dependent concept. Truth necessarily resolves to OPINION! Truth is what is claimed, not what is rationally justified. Unjustified truth claims are nothing more than opinions.


Mr. OpenAirAtheist, I-Theist, James Theodore Stillwell….you have contradicted your claim that truth is objective. All you can possibly propose is a SUBJECTIVE sensory-dependent method to verify propositional statements as ‘true’. Your argument falls back to TRUTH = OPINION.

This summarily contradicts your proposal of Absolute Truth. I don't understand how you can keep up your persistence for Absolute Truth without first understanding the underlying issues. Please have the intellectual decency to read the article in question and then try to contradict its core argument if you disagree with it, ok?





OPEN AIR ATHEIST’S ANTIQUATED SOPHIST TRICKS EXPOSED!

With any rationally-justified response you provide to James Stillwell, he instantly spams you with the thoroughly debunked 5000-year-old Sophist rhetoric:

“Is that absolutely true?” – James Stillwell

“Is it absolutely true that there are no absolute truths?” – James Stillwell


That’s all he parrots. Give it up already! This is not an argument! It’s a pathetic linguistic persuasion trick of lexical syntax, no different than: “Is it true that you stopped beating your husband?”

James Stillwell is nothing but a door-to-door vacuum salesman trying to persuade people to buy his wares. I have dedicated a whole article in exposing and refuting this pathetically old trick of Sophist Rhetoric, check it out:

· ABSOLUTE TRUTH: Is it Absolutely True that there are NO Absolutes?


Mr. Stillwell is showcasing his ignorance and chasing his tail with this line of circular questions. You cannot use the term ‘absolute’ to evaluate the term ‘absolute’. Similarly, you cannot use the term ‘truth’ to evaluate the term ‘truth’. Why is it that some people just cannot grasp this obvious futile exercise in circular reasoning?

For example, you cannot use the “law” to evaluate the “law”. This is Begging the Question, circular and contradictory. Even a student of Logic 101 knows this. To evaluate the “law”, you need to go outside the law, conceptually at a time when there was no law, in order to critically reason a rational argument from a non-legal perspective (i.e. non-circular). Same goes for the concepts of truth and absolute. If you want to evaluate a concept, any concept, then you must evaluate it at the conceptual level where its relation is established. That is, you must evaluate the intrinsic definition or meaning of the concept in question. All concepts are defined, including ‘truth’ and ‘absolute’. Language demands it, otherwise communication is impossible.

God only knows why people like James Stillwell try to circumvent the ultra-basics of language, logic and Philosophy, but rather choose to sucker-punch you with these circular tactics of ancient rhetoric.





OPEN AIR ATHEIST BOLDLY CLAIMS TO BE A PHILOSOPHER

James Stillwell has various blogs proclaiming to be a critical thinker, logician and a philosopher. That’s fine, people make tons of claims. But very few can justify them. He also calls himself an “I-Theist”, which he purports to mean that he is his own God. Whatever the heck that means!

“I am my own God” – James Stillwell, from his youtube video i-theist (TheSatanicSeries P2)


Ummm…yeah….sure you are, Mr. Stillwell. Let’s see… first you were a Christian Apologist, then an Agnostic Atheist… and now you’re a God, huh? Whatever tickles your fancy! Even my neighbor’s shapely blonde wife with the luscious tanned skin and large silicone implants believes herself to be a Goddess. People are free to have their own delusions. Mental illness is at an all-time high in developed societies, as explained by John B. Calhoun.

James Stillwell’s youtube account idolizes philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche with Superman or God-like status. He references many Nietzsche quotes which he claims make Nietzsche an I-Theist…a God of sorts. OMG, how many Gods do we need?

Regardless, if James Stillwell is going to be a fanboy of Nietzsche while pushing his nonsense of absolutes, he should at least do the minimum of research on the man. Nietzsche clearly stated that the very idea of an Absolute Truth is unintelligible and contradictory.


“There are no eternal facts, as there are no absolute truths.” – Friedrich Nietzsche: Human, All-too-Human

“I shall reiterate a hundred times that ‘immediate certainty’, like ‘absolute knowledge’ and ‘thing in itself,’ contains a contradictio in adjecto [contradiction in terms]: we really ought to get free from the seduction of words!” -- Friedrich Nietzsche (BGEI.16)


And Nietzsche was rational in his assessment because an ‘absolute’ is an irrational concept which is decreed to be: without relation to anything.

All concepts are necessarily relations (i.e. relative). You cannot conceive of any concept without it necessarily referencing or relating something else. Concepts are relations by definition! It’s unavoidable. It is impossible to have anything in the Universe standalone without being related to something else, just as it is impossible to have any term in language that has no relations to something else. Those who disagree should try to conceive of anything standalone (i.e. without relations) in order to show an exception to my rational argument. But you can’t! It is impossible!

It goes without saying that “absolutes are impossible”. Not because I say so; opinions and other subjectivities play no role here. This is an OBJECTIVE issue because the term ‘absolute’ contradicts the meaning of the term itself (i.e. self-refuting). Therefore, the term ‘absolute’ is an oxymoron: a LINGUISTIC CONTRADICTION!




OPEN AIR ATHEIST CONCEDES THAT TRUTH = OPINION

Even putting aside proposition P1 about God, James Stillwell boldly claims that something as obvious as proposition P2 (“The sky is blue”) is false! So there you have it folks: Mr. Stillwell confirms that what is true for him is not true for you. Truth is clearly a matter of opinion! What a funny circus show this monkey-business of truth is, huh?

James Stillwell confirmed that ‘truth’ is necessarily an anthropocentric concept. The human ape is front and center stage in the definition of ‘truth’, as this subjectively-biased observer is required to validate and dogmatically decree a proposition as 'true'. But we know damn well that not everyone will “agree” on the validator’s version of ‘truth’. Your version of truth will always be different than your neighbor’s version of truth. And that’s the last nail in the coffin for all the “Truthers” out there. All their alleged ‘truth’ boils down to is their own personal OPINION!



So Let’s Recap:

1) James Stillwell decrees that there is Absolute Truth and that truth is objective without any injection of human subjectivity, wishes, whims, desires, biases, etc.

2) As an example to justify his above claim, James Stillwell subjectively states that he doesn’t want to accept Matt Slick’s ‘truths’ that “God created space & matter” and that “the sky is blue”. He subjectively decided to do so solely from his wishes, whims, desires, biases, etc.

3) Therefore, James Stillwell’s response is yet another confirmation that TRUTH necessarily resolves to OPINION, and hence, is not absolute.


Absolutes are impossible, not because I say so….but they are necessarily impossible because:

a) All concepts are necessarily relations (i.e. relative).

b) The term ‘absolute’ is an oxymoron (i.e. linguistic contradiction) of non-relative relativeness!

More by this Author


Comments 61 comments

Ericdierker profile image

Ericdierker 3 years ago from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A.

What a "straw dog" hub. I like it though, a bit eclectic but doable.

What is the difference between a "self evident truth" and an absolute truth?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

You first need to ask yourself what "truth" is. This is the term that has eluded Philosophers and Theologians for 5000 years. The terms "self-evident" and "absolute" are standard fare in any dictionary. But "truth"....well....this is what destroys people's arguments. Even for the professional atheists who use the magic tricks of logic to prove every convenient truth under the Sun.


El Dude 3 years ago

Bravo! Solid debunking of the absolutist nonsense of modern Atheism.

Small typo at the beginning of article, fyi : 'PURSUATION' should be 'PERSUASION'.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

Thanks for catching the typo!


monkeyminds profile image

monkeyminds 3 years ago from My Tree House

The nails in the Stilwell "argument" coffin.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

What else can I do? James Stillwell is a mega-troll who is not interested in any rational discussion. He only has Religious trickery up his sleeve. That's why he refuses to read the argument that kills absolute truth.


Ricardius profile image

Ricardius 3 years ago

Atheists like James Stillwell won't even get past the title of the article because they have such deep regards for this magical word called truth, they won't even bother to read any farther They will do and say anything to defend what they can't and won't define. He refuses to back up any argument that he's made concerning absolute truth. Here ya go, this is James' killer knockdown argument, "Is it absolutely true there are no absolute truths?"Wow!!! What an argument! Jimmy fails to realize there's a whole article devoted to just that statement? Jimmy needs to read and learn!


Josh Behnsen 3 years ago

This is one of the most retarded so-called critiques I have ever seen. Stillwell obviously got under your skin LMAO!. So is anything you said in the above blog post true? Is there a possibility that your wrong and he is right?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

Hi James Stillwell (aka Josh Behnsen)

Did you even read the article? Having problems reading or comprehending?

Why don't you just cut the crap and stop trolling, ok? This is really getting old. Why are you hiding like a scared little girl? Any men in your family, Stillwell? Ever had a father figure in your life growing up?

Listen...if you don't have any argument to defend your belief system, it's ok. I promise not to press you on this issue. Just a simple comment that states: "sorry, I don't know how to justify absolutes, I only believe in them".....will get you a LOT of respect from others.

Be a real man, not a modern-day femboy, ok? Just fyi.


Ricardius profile image

Ricardius 3 years ago

Josh (James!) said "So is anything you said in the above blog post true?" Why don't you define the word TRUTH so that we understand what you mean? This is really getting old James. Trolling around parroting your thousand year old sophist garbage won't work here. You must objectively define the keywords of your statement. BTW, I'd love to hear your argument in defense of absolutes! Don't worry, I won't stay up waiting! You're are a trolling coward James Stillwell!


I-Theist 3 years ago

Coward? Your the one who turned down a Skype debate with me so you can hide behind your keyboard. You are also a coward because you said things to me on Facebook you wouldnt dare say too my face! You send people to my Facebook and youtube account to harass me! I have had to block your Ricardius account far more than once even though i repeatedly asked to be left alone. Now your harassing anyone else who disagrees with you. Your the coward! I don't want anything to do with you because your a god damn psycho! You want me to define truth? I just did, but here just so you piss -off! Truth is what is the case. Truth statements are what refer to what is the case. All conceptualizations are derived from past experience and are compilations there of. Angles don't exist but wings and people do, and all the brain is doing is photo shop. A "square exists" is a true statement because it is the case that I'm holding a square object right now. No I can't think of a square circle or married bachelor because it is the case that A=A (something is itself and not, not itself). It is the case that the symbol A=A refers to what "is" the case and therefore a true statement. Now it is the case that you can reject what I have said above and thus commit intellectual suicide. I could careless what you do. I'm asking you however, to move on with your life AND LEAVE ME ALONE! I don't have the time nor patients to deal with intellectual infants and emotionally unstable people! Peace


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

I-Theist,

“turned down a Skype debate with me so you can hide behind your keyboard”

Oh, so you turn down a keyboard debate so you can hide behind the computer screen, huh?

What an idiot! Not even a Theist can be this dumb!

“You are also a coward because you said things to me on Facebook you wouldnt dare say too my face!”

Everything I say to you from the Internet I will say in YOUR face while I’m simultaneously beach-slappin’ your momma, got that….pseudo-tough guy? I eat idiots like you.

“I don't want anything to do with you because your a god damn psycho!”

How about I take ya out for lunch and a beer or something? It’s on me.

“Truth is what is the case.”

Hmmm……”the case is truth” and “truth is the case”, huh?

All you said is “X is truth” and “truth is X”.

What have we learned?

Can you please be more ambiguous or use a more covert synonym so I can understand you better?

“Truth statements are what refer to what is the case. “

I have a case of beer in front me? Is that case of beer a synonym for truth in your Religion? Did your Banana-man Pastor teach you that?

“Angles don't exist”

Baseless assertion! Can you prove that?

“A "square exists"

Ummm….what do ya mean by ‘exist’?

Exist: something somewhere (an object with a location)

Object: that which has shape

Is a square an object? Yep…it has shape!

Does a square have location? Nope…..the paper and ink have location, but the square is a conceptual abstract entity! Squares don’t exist.

EPIC FAIL!

“ is a true statement”

Truth is what the Priest rammed up your butt! Proof means that he raped you and you liked it, so now you are sitting on his lap willingly!

Credence is a matter of opinion….what is true to you…is a LIE to your neighbor. Here, educate yourself:

http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/There-is-N...

“It is the case that the symbol A=A refers to what "is" the case and therefore a true statement.”

Your A=A Religion is debunked here in all its glory. You probably don’t want to look as it’s scary how I ripped it to shreds!

http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/LOGIC-The-...

“I'm asking you however, to move on with your life AND LEAVE ME ALONE!”

So I guess you’re turning down my obsessive request to have a beer with you, huh? Your lips say no but your heart says YES.

Seriously dude…..you came harassing me like a broken record over PM’s….remember?????

I have no friggin’ desire to harass you….I have better things to do. This article was only written to respond to YOUR obsession with my article on absolute truth. You don’t have to come and post here if you don’t want to. Take a pill and chill out. Peace.


A.Villarasa profile image

A.Villarasa 3 years ago from Palm Springs

Interesting debate, one that has gone beyond the usual scholarly back and forth give and take argumentative discussion. If you guys are physically present at each other's space, a fisticuffs is entirely to be expected.

Fisticuffs are for schoolyard juveniles, but then again who is to say that juveniles can't have hard core beliefs that they will defend to the death. Thank God for passion with restraint.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

"If you guys are physically present at each other's space, a fisticuffs is entirely to be expected."

I love brawls. I always got kicked out of school for fighting. Got expelled 5 times. My parents got sick and tired of my antics and forced me to join the Marines.


monkeyminds profile image

monkeyminds 3 years ago from My Tree House

If some one doesn't want to talk rationally, nothing like a knock down drag out to loosen everyone up.

After a fight, when the emotion is gone, then the real discussion(s) can take place.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

At Fatfist Corp., we aim to please. We have the professional experience to accommodate the whims of all of our contestants….from the sane to the insane. Whether it is an intellectual discussion, a psychiatric evaluation or even a down-right bare-bones fist-fight, we promise not to disappoint.

Fatfist Corp. is an equal-opportunity employer. Please see our symbol FFIST in the New York Stock Exchange.


abyssinal profile image

abyssinal 3 years ago from Pennsylvania

I...have no words for the...whatever, I just read. It was brow beating, heavy handed and quasi irrational and hysterical all at the same time. The meandering "logic" and "philosophy" were muddled, poorly worded and confusing (in execution). Not to mention the myriad of mistakes made "defining" things: "you cannot use the “law” to evaluate the “law”". Well, that depends on what you mean by "law" in both regards. If by "law", you mean, "a system or collection of such rules." and you take the other to mean, "one who enforces and interprets the law" (as in "Johnny law" or "Here come's the law!") Then, using your very statement, "You cannot use the "law" to evaluate the "law". I could counter that with "The Supreme Court or "the law", evaluates "law" every day. It all depends on how you define it.

The entire article is spent blindly and backwardly justifying a point, made by the person you spend the article ridiculing. What he said was, "Is it absolutely true that there are no absolute truths?". Which, may be a Sophist trick, but, using less than a thousand words, he nullified your entire argument, whether you like it or not. Which you obviously didn't. I thought it was kind of funny in a way. Frankly, the fact that you didn't see the sarcasm, laced throughout it's wording, speaks volumes. Regardless, seen or not, simply arguing that someone's point isn't true, simply by saying "it's not" and then throwing ill worded insults, veiled in half logic at it in an attempt to somehow "defeat" it, isn't a debate. It's called bickering.

You wrote an article vehemently claiming that...with concrete certainty...there is no absolute truth. Which, is, in itself a paradox. Sure, the definition of "truth" is debatable, yet, you didn't actually argue about that (with any evidence), instead, you chose to stick to the "absolute" portion.

Then, you went on to argue that...the truth is, there are absolutely no "absolutes"...especially when it comes to "truth". It's the same circular logic you chided the guy about religiously. In fact, you spent the entire article simultaneously avoiding and unknowingly reaffirming his point the entire time. I'm not sure if you just missed that or if, perhaps, decided on an elaborate, long winded diatribe, dropping as many ten cent words as you could muster, in an effort to affirm his stance via sarcastic satire. If that's the case, then, BRILLIANT! Nailed it.

I will say, however, that this brought me back to a lot of "round table" arguments I used to have with my friends. So, in all sincerity, thank you and keep up the good fight, sir.

As for the sky being blue..."Sunlight reaches Earth's atmosphere and is scattered in all directions by all the gases and particles in the air. Blue light is scattered in all directions by the tiny molecules of air in Earth's atmosphere. Blue is scattered more than other colors because it travels as shorter, smaller waves. This is why we see a blue sky most of the time." -- NASA. I don't think it's really debatable any more. We, kind of solved it.

Now, the Zhuangzi butterfly dream, if you figure that one out, let me know.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

“"The Supreme Court or "the law", evaluates "law" every day”

If the supreme court (the law) is using its own rules to evaluate itself, then they are guilty of circular reasoning….a contradiction. It’s no different than Hitler using his rules to evaluate himself….or any Religion evaluating itself….or you giving an exam to yourself in University, and evaluating it yourself by declaring whatever you like. You cannot use your own rules to evaluate your own system founded on your own rules. It’s circular & contradictory. Basic Reasoning 101.

“there is no absolute truth. Which, is, in itself a paradox”

Oh, what is the paradox? Do you even understand or did you just discover the word ‘paradox’ today? Please showcase the Paradox with the luxury of detail.

“truth….you didn't actually argue about that (with any evidence)”

--- BEGIN LINGUISTICS & COMPREHENSION 101 LESSON FOR abyssinal

Evidence is a concept which invokes objects that are ‘evident’ to an observer. Evidence is empirical. Evidence is gathered using one’s limited bandwidth sensory system. As such, evidence is always subjective and resolves to one’s OPINION. Something might be evident to you….but a LIE to your neighbor. Jesus was evidenced to many….but not by you. So your opinion on the evidence of Jesus is irrelevant!

But ‘truth’ is a concept….a conceptual relation between objects as specified in the propositional statement which will be validated by an observer as being true/false.

Objects, like cars and chairs are subject to empirical evidence.

Concepts, like truth and love are subject to conceptual relations between objects, not to any alleged evidence.

Concepts are conceptual. It is impossible to give evidence for ‘a’ concept. Concepts are understood, not evidenced.

--- END LINGUISTICS & COMPREHENSION 101 LESSON FOR abyssinal

“Then, you went on to argue that...the truth is, there are absolutely no "absolutes"”

And now you start with the strawman attacks since you have no arguments. Straw puppets are easy to kill….unfortunately for you, my argument is not. You cannot even copy/paste where I argue for TRUTH. Truth is an OPINION. I never made any truth claims. I justify my arguments with a rational explanation which cannot be contradicted. Here, educate yourself on ‘truth’.

http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/There-is-N...

Do you understand the difference between ‘opinion’ and ‘non-contradictory explanation’?

“light …blue is scattered more than other colors because it travels as shorter, smaller waves”

Light is ‘a’ wave? Are you on crack cocaine or on carbon monoxide? Your Fallacy of Reification went 100 miles over head!

----- BEGIN PHYSICS 101 LESSON FOR abyssinal

‘Wave’ is what an object DOES….not what an object is. Wave is a verb/action….a concept. It is the object itself that exhibits wave-like motion; referred to as ‘a’ wave in layman’s terms.

If you say light is ‘a’ wave, then what entity is doing the “waving”? At the beach, it is the water that is waving. How about for light?

Wave is a dynamic concept in that it evokes motion in at least two static frames of an object. There is no motion in a single static frame of an object. You can illustrate an object, but you cannot illustrate ‘a’ wave. There is no such object as 'a' wave in the Universe.

Here, educate yourself:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/sound/t...

----- END PHYSICS 101 LESSON FOR abyssinal

You argument for light is an EPIC FAILURE. No wonder….ignoramuses will always copy/paste arguments from other sources without so much as understanding them. Nice!

“he nullified your entire argument, whether you like it or not. Which you obviously didn't.”

Actually, I would like someone to nullify my argument because I’m sick and tired trying to educate boneheads who can’t even grasp the basics. And I am glad I finally found someone; i.e. YOU, who can nullify my argument. So here is my argument explaining in detail why there are no absolutes. Hopefully you are better are reading and comprehending than our dear friend James:

http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/There-are-...

Now….without saucy emotion, bickering and doubletalk….can you please contradict it? Here, let me get you started…..

“Hi fatfist, here is the contradiction to your reasoning________________”

Fill in the blanks!


abyssinal profile image

abyssinal 3 years ago from Pennsylvania

“Hi fatfist, here is the contradiction to your reasoning________________”

I must say...that could almost pass for wit...if you weren't so blatantly awful at it.

Again, you've missed the point entirely. I should take part of that burden upon myself, as I should have known after reading your drivel that you'd miss it. I apologize.

I can see you believe yourself fully and see yourself to be of the highest order of intellect, you also like to hear yourself talk. So, let me deflate you a bit and say...you're absolutely not an intellectual, nor should you promote yourself as one.

Talking in moronic, pompous circles and talking down to everyone asserting, in an overly pretentious manner, that I find comical, that...because they don't understand it, they are at fault--that is an asinine stance. What I ascertained after reading this, was what I absolutely understand to be true; you convey ideas, concepts and the like, poorly. Your reader isn't at fault for not understanding, it's your fault for not explaining it better.

Upon reading this blathering you call...whatever it is you call it, I was intrigued to say the least. You going on and on, railing against some guy, denouncing his thoughts as idiot conjecture and promoting yours as superior. Actually, going so far as pronouncing your thoughts to be indisputable.

Plainly, you missed the point entirely. Here, I'll take your hand and walk you through it...I'll even use a confusing list like format, as you like to do...so poorly. I'll make sure to capitalize certain words, again, as you like to do...to poor effect.

1. Your "absolute truth" argument is completely flawed.

Why is it flawed? Because you don't take into account that "truth" as 99% of EVERYONE understands it, is relative to not ONLY YOU...but to another observer as well. The more observations, the more whatever is being observed is defined as "true". It's how humanity and it's ancestors have compensated for our "limited sensory" for...oh, the last few million years.

2. Your "truth" as "opinion" rationale is weak at best.

Why? People defining what something is or is not is based solely on the reality presented to them. A reality, that has been agreed upon by everyone else. Your "opinion" on what something "is" or "is not" produces diminished returns when outside observation, be it, by experimentation or observation by another entity, pronounces it as true. The more observers, the more "opinions" determine whether something is true or not. Your "opinion" proclaims something to be true to yourself, but, isn't "verified" until an outside entity determines it's "truth". So, for those playing along at home...you're almost right, though, you worded it in a ridiculous, backward fashion. All truths start as opinions, but, become "truth" after multiple "opinions" confirm it one way or the other. More or less, if you want to flip it around a bit, "If everyone else in the red room says the room is blue, something's probably wrong with you."

3. My "straw man" attacks, have still gone unanswered.

Why? Because "no absolute truth" arguments have never overcome that very question. Back peddling over definitions and mindless arguing while using the word "concepts" will never change that.

Relegating "truth" to "opinion" to your own definition of the terms doesn't answer the question, proposed logical or otherwise. It simply displays your inability to answer it and your awkward inability to talk your way out of it. Splitting hairs about whether you can define something better than an dictionary is escapist yammering.

You go on and on about how there is "no absolute truth", even going so far as to proclaim you can prove it, yet, you dodge the fact that your proclamation of "there is no absolute truth" is a confirmation. The very statement is...in fact a confirmation that there is an absolute truth.

4. The "no absolute truth" is hindered by the same "sensory limitation" as "absolute truth".

Because of limitations, "there is no absolute truth" loses it's reasoning, just as much as "absolute truth" does. You can't relegate objects or reality as only being defined via "empirical evidence", because you're using your limited capabilities, you're defining something as "a concept". You have no proof, one way or the other whether anything is an "absolute truth" or not, due to your limited faculties. A car is made of metal, plastics, etc., all of which may exist whether we are here to observe them or not. Are they "absolutely true"? Possibly. Saying one way or the other is to make a pronouncement beyond your limited senses and enters into conjecture.

By what means to you "know" there is no "absolute truth"? Is it simply using your own flawed, limited brain to generate flawed logic that may be over reaching?

What are those "limited senses" measuring? Are they not there and used to simply define and confirm truth in the world?

By the way...using your own article as a source to back your rebuttal, is in direct conflict toward your "using "law" to define "law"" logic. As with most of your muttering, it contradicts a statement you've already made in your defense. Your use of "conceptual" to define "concept" gave me the giggles. Practice what you preach...if you even understand what you're preaching.

Your "concept is not evidenced" was especially laughable. How would you know...ANYTHING without evidence or proof of concept? How would you conceptualize "love" without first being told to identify love...as love?

The sky is blue thing...that actually came from the good folks at NASA, which, I'm afraid--and this may bruise your ego a tad but, alas...it must be done...know more about it than you. No, no...I'm wrong, they ABSOLUTELY know more about it than you. That, I believe is absolutely true, as it can be confirmed via various degree holding physicists, scientists and their confirmation yielding experimentation. You might want to call them about a few physics courses. It's dreadfully apparent that your "Physics 101" failed you just as badly as every writing course you've ever taken. Though, I don't believe the people at NASA they abuse--carbon monoxide? Really? You couldn't think of anything else?

Though, if it helps you feel any better...there is the wave-particle duality thing...which makes you ABSOLUTELY wrong...twice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle...

Feel free to educate yourself.


monkeyminds profile image

monkeyminds 3 years ago from My Tree House

Abysimal Comedy! ha! Ha! HA! Or was that supposed to be serious?^^^


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

Abyssimal,

“you don't take into account that "truth"”

You’ve said nothing! I already explained to you WHY truth necessarily resolves to OPINION in my article. Just like James, you've ignored it and can’t even contradict what destroys your Religion. Hilarious.

“truth as 99% of EVERYONE understands it”

Oh, please elucidate for the audience what YOU and EVERYONE ELSE understands. Let’s see what you’ve got….here you go:

TRUTH:____________

But any observer-dependent definition you provide will automatically resolve to your opinion, i.e. that truth is SUBJECTIVE and then you’d be making MY argument by underscoring my article. How funny is that, huh?

So listen up whino…..if you want truth to be OBJECTIVE, please provide the audience with a definition which doesn’t invoke an observer.

Stop the girly-girly emotional rants and fill in the blanks!

“ A reality, that has been agreed upon by everyone else.”

Reality is not subject to agreement (subjective). Reality is objective and observer-independent. Reality is a synonym for existence…..what is real is what exists.

Real/exist: something somewhere (i.e. an object with location)

Object: that which has shape

Location: the set static distances to all other objects

The moon is an object with shape and location in the universe irrespective of what anybody agrees to or observes. The Moon is REAL (exists) objectively!

There you have it…..none of these definitions invoke an observer….they are OBJECTIVE, unambiguous and non-contradictory. If you don’t like ‘em because they destroy your Religion, then contradict them…but you can’t…Ha!

Continue whining like a little girl….

“All truths start as opinions, but, become "truth" after multiple "opinions" confirm it one way or the other.”

All you’ve said is that TRUTH = OPINION. Thanks for underscoring my argument!

If you want to amend your statement, please OBJECTIVELY define that which will set you free:

TRUTH:____________

Let’s agree that if you can’t do it by your next response, then you’re brain-dead bellyacher!

“definitions and mindless arguing “

Exactly! So stop your mindless arguing in front of the mirror and OBJECTIVELY define the key term that makes or breaks your argument: TRUTH. If you can’t define it, then you have NO clue what you are talking about whenever you invoke it in a sentence.

Those who can’t define just WHINE!

TRUTH:____________

Let’s agree that if you can’t do it by your next response, then you’re brain-dead bellyacher!

Abbysinal: “there is no absolute truth. Which, is, in itself a paradox”

Fat: “Oh, what is the paradox? Do you even understand or did you just discover the word ‘paradox’ today? Please showcase the Paradox with the luxury of detail.”

Abbysinal : “confirmation. The very statement is...in fact a confirmation that there is an absolute truth.”

You're off on your usual tangents, Abbysinal. Responding to ghosts that ain’t even there, answering questions that weren't even asked, prevaricating like a distressed lunatic and making assumptions that make you look like a fool.

Since you couldn’t even justify your previous paradox assertion, now you shift all the people of the sinking ship to the other side so as to keep it afloat longer. The sinking ship being YOUR unjustifiable argument.

Since you can’t justify your paradox assertion…..Now you claim that a confirmation is an absolute truth. Ummm….. Abbysinal….isn’t TRUTH supposed to be confirmation of a proposition to begin with? Hello!! So what the heck does your addition of the term ABSOLUTE accomplish? Do you even know? Let’s test out YOUR proposal of ‘confirmation’ then….

Absolute: without relation to other things.

If a confirmation is an absolute truth; i.e. an absolute confirmation; i.e. a confirmation without any relations…..then how did you CONFIRM it without relating it to something else? By definition, to confirm something you necessarily require a reference to a pre-determined standard by which to compare and decide whether it’s confirmed or not. Reasoning 101. Mighty EPIC FAILURE on your part…Ha!

“reality as only being defined via "empirical evidence"”

LOL, you love your strawmen! I never stated that. In fact, reality is INDEPENDENT of any evidence which necessarily invokes the biases and opinions of an observer and his limited sensory system.

--- BEGIN LINGUISTICS 101 LESSON FOR abyssinal

Evidence is a concept which invokes objects that are sensed/analyzed by observer. Ergo, evidence is empirical, observer-dependent and subjective due to the observer’s limited sensory system. What is evidence to you is a LIE to your neighbor. Evidence has nothing to do with reality! Reality is OBSERVER-INDEPENDENT.

Definitions are not empirical. You cannot find a definition under a rock. Definitions are conceptual. You need to use linguistic concepts to conceive of an objective and non-contradictory definition which doesn’t invoke any observers. Do you have any brains? Can you conceive? Do you know how to? LOL!

--- END LINGUISTICS 101 LESSON FOR abyssinal

“You have no proof, one way or the other whether anything is an "absolute truth" or not”

Exactly! What is proof to you is a LIE to your neighbor. PROOF is only empirical (i.e. based on one’s limited sensory system). Ergo PROOF = OPINION, just as we both justified prior.

Reality couldn’t care less about your opinionated proofs. In reality we explain exactly WHY there is no absolute truth. Truth is a concept. Ergo, any analysis of truth is pure a conceptual issue. This means that one requires BRAINS to critically reason it. Just as my article explains what truth is and how it resolves to opinion…..and how my absolute truth article explains WHY abs truth is impossible, but you conveniently dodged them both….lol. Epic failure.

“using your own article as a source to back your rebuttal, is in direct conflict toward your "using "law" to define "law"" logic.”

LOL, nice try to ignore what kills all your ramblings. The article explains exactly WHY there is no absolute truth. And it DOESN’T use absolute truth to do it….like YOU use in a circular attempt to justify absolute truth. My use of the text inside my article is not a circular argument, as I could just as well post it here, but is too long. You are sooooo brain-dead,… the ultra-basics escape you. Ha!

“Your use of "conceptual" to define "concept" gave me the giggles.”

After your giggles wear off….please copy/paste my definition of CONCEPT which invokes the word ‘conceptual’ within the definition, ok? Let’s agree that if you can’t do it by your next response, then you’re brain-dead loser!

“"concept is not evidenced" was especially laughable.”

Oh….after you finish laughing, please show the audience any evidence for any concept. A simple illustration will do, just link to a pic online. How about the concept love, will you illustrate it with a heart? How about justice, will you illustrate with a hammer? I wanna see what ‘a’ concept looks like…..any simple illustration or pic will do. Let’s agree that if you can’t do it by your next response, then you’re brain-dead loser!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

Abyssimal,

“The sky is blue thing...that actually came from the good folks at NASA, which,...know more about it than you.”

Oh, the authority argument…. the last resort of someone who just got their butt handed to him on a silver platter. Introducing Authority in an argument is the hallmark of a QUACK who has no clue what he is rambling about….and a Fallacy to boot.

The Bimbo has finally conceded that he was schooled on WAVES by the Fist….so his last resort to save face on the issue was to assert the Authority card and exit the conversation. LOL…you got your panties in a knot How pathetic you are, dude.

“it can be confirmed via various degree holding physicists”

It is the hallmark of a QUACK to begin his rebuttal by telling the crowd what great experts others are, meanwhile he doesn’t understand any of the arguments he invokes. This means that he came here not to explain rationally, but to shove his religion down the crowd’s throats on the basis of authority. The only thing this clown will tell the folk is that his experts warmed up a seat in college for 10 years, memorized what their forefathers bequeathed, and accept the catechism without recanting.

Introducing ‘authority’ in an argument is a tactic which consists in relying on an old cliché to induce gawking, impressionable and drooling readers to divert their attention from the issue at hand, which is that the presenter can’t explain SQUAT of what he parrots!

No authority can save you from your lack of basic English, grammar, concept ontology, Physics and comprehension skills. That's why you're such a numskull. You read superficially and think even shallower. There are no authorities or experts. Such conceited brainless clowns can only be found in YOUR Religion.

It’s funny how this simple refutation goes over your head,… but what you're admitting to is that if you would have been born in Biblical times you would have subscribed to the Flat Earth theory because that’s what your experts preached in your monastery! And you would have subscribed to an Earth-centric universe covered by a firmament and supported by pillars. You have ZERO thinking & reasoning ability, Abbysinal. That’s why you fell flat on your face here. Do you enjoy embarrassing yourself in public by using Fallacious arguments to contradict your position? Talk about shooting yourself in the face…Ha!

There are no celebrities in reality. The word ‘expert’ is a synonym of ‘authority’. It means that someone, usually the ‘expert’ himself, auto-designated himself as such. Ha!

Abbysinal: “light …blue is scattered more than other colors because it travels as shorter, smaller waves”

Abbysinal: “light….wave-particle duality”

Wow, so light USED to be ‘a’ wave…..but now that your ass was handed to you on a silver platter, you've recanted....and now light is suddenly BOTH ‘a’ wave AND a particle, huh? And what’s so sweet about this is how the Bimbo is oblivious to his contradiction.

You haven’t a clue what a duality is, here….educate yourelf:

----- BEGIN Concept of DUALITY 101 LESSON FOR abyssinal

To say that an object is ontologically both ‘a’ wave (i.e. a concept) AND an object, commits

1) Fallacy of Equivocation.

2) Ontological Contradiction.

3) You’ve just violated the Law of Identity which your Religion claims is absolute. POOF goes your absolute truth…Ha!

4) You have an impossible object. ‘A’ wave is NOT an object….it’s an action.

POOF goes your argument!

----- END Concept of DUALITY 101 LESSON FOR abyssinal

----- BEGIN PHYSICS 101 LESSON FOR abyssinal

‘Wave’ is what an object DOES….not what an object is. Wave is a verb/action….a concept. It is the object itself that exhibits wave-like motion; referred to as ‘a’ wave in layman’s terms.

If you say light is ‘a’ wave, then what entity is doing the “waving”? At the beach, it is the water that is waving. How about for light?

Wave is a dynamic concept in that it evokes motion in at least two static frames of an object. There is no motion in a single static frame of an object. You can illustrate an object, but you cannot illustrate ‘a’ wave. There is no such object as 'a' wave in the Universe.

Here, educate yourself:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/sound/t...

----- END PHYSICS 101 LESSON FOR abyssinal


abyssinal profile image

abyssinal 3 years ago from Pennsylvania

You're seriously mad? I'd like to think you're not. Anger is the first tell of a man who has truly lost an argument. Listen, I kind of understand why you'd want to appear angry. Inciting an argument is your "schtick". So, insulting the reader is the best way to draw him back and also a fairly good way to get readers to follow along. I get that. It's painfully obvious you trolled the internet, found some philosophy websites, adopted some half assed rhetoric and spew it on here. This in turn incites "colorful discussion" by people who understand the concepts even less than you and you get page views for it. I get that. Though, you should work on how long it takes for you to get all riled up. Drawing it out with more, with self contradicting blather and copy and pasted philosophy would help. Your timing in that department is dreadful.

I thought this was kinda fun. Look, I understand that, it's hard to be called out as a complete and utter failure. I hope I didn't ruin your con.

I read through your...rather inept insults. Nice touch. It's classic the way you chose to only read as far as your slow witted "pseudo-philosophy" can take you...and then ignore the rest or better yet, call it "religion" as a way to dismiss it, so that you don't have to answer or counter it with a well thought out...well anything...it's quaint. Is that your "character"? It's kind of hypocritical...in a grossly stupid way. It would be almost adorable in a "Aw, the slow kid is trying to philosophize." if it weren't laced with so much pretension. Still, the pompous "wrongness" of your character is what brings them back, isn't it.

I read your other nonsensical ravings. A sloppily put together, hodgepodge of various philosophical concepts relating to "absolute truth" is appreciable in an attempt to draw views. You are to be commended in that area. Genius move. It was just as chuckle inducing as this one. Your inability to accept any thoughts aside from the shaky few you've half-assed tossed together is pretty evident. Though, that is "the draw" isn't it? Again, your inciting arguments to bring in the views...fantastic idea. What are the great anger inducing factors in most men? Ah, that's right, insult his sexuality, his politics and his belief and you'll find the devil inside. Nice. Now, if I may ask, is what you write considered satire or a sort of method comedy (along the lines of Andy Kaufman)?

There is a thread of self importance running through your nonsense, however. If this is merely character related, then, bravo on the consistency. You seem to see yourself as the final authority on these matters, which is absurd, but, interesting. It's like you're a cult leader pretend, only without a cult to mumble to. Though, I think the "101" thing is highly ridiculous. Laughable, but, unremarkable.

Aside from all this, I'll play along for the moment. I'm bored and...well, what the hell, right? I'll even use your dumb list thing again because...why not.

1. "Concepts are conceptual." was in YOUR response, Captain Half Thought. Re-read it and marvel at your own stupidity.

Man, is this fun. Okay. Oh, right, truth. Let me see here...as it's obvious you couldn't counter ANYTHING I stated, you just high tailed it back to your own half baked drivel. So, let's try again.

2. Your NO ABSOLUTE TRUTH blather isn't as definite as you assume and is wrong.

The reason being, you're coming to your conclusion, using the same "limited sensory" equipment that everyone else has. You can't prove it, because there is ALWAYS the chance that ABSOLUTE TRUTH lies outside of your means of perception. Now, this is probably going to require that...one brain cell you have to glow a little brighter than normal, but, I'll take that chance--you seem like a big boy. Though, I'm fairly certain you'll try and ignore this and retreat to some nonsense you've already contradicted yourself in saying, so, let me finish by saying, REALITY IS SUBJECTIVE. You've already said and then un-said this, what must be half a dozen times, but, there it is. You can't say "there is no absolute truth" if you can't measure truth beyond your own faculties. If you were to do so, you'd have to take into consideration that every truth, even those outside of your limited abilities are wrong, which you can't because you have NO idea what those are. It's like saying, "There are only chocolate chip cookies." and never acknowledging the others, as your body only allows you to taste, smell and feel chocolate chip cookies. The view you take is pretentious and human-centric, which the universe and reality...obviously are not. Open your mind beyond that small brain of yours and you might realize that.

Ah, that could take all year, why not just bust your bubble with your own nonsense, as you like to do so much.

Prove there is "no absolute truth" without using sensory input, especially that "limited sensory perception" we all have.

Oh, and simply saying something is wrong...by saying it's wrong and CAPITALIZING words, doesn't make you sound smart. It demonstrates a short cut to thinking. Try the long route, it might be more enjoyable for you.

3. You've proved there is an absolute truth in your own nonsensical warblings.

How? Re-read your crap! You've said that, "reality is INDEPENDENT of any evidence..." which would make it absolutely beyond the recourse of any testing or measure. It just is, so to speak. Which would make it definite, certain...absolute. Now, determining reality is different entirely, but, since you've said that reality is independent of any evidence...we don't need any, right? So, it's apparent existence and the acceptance of all in and around it...is it's truth. It is there because we all agree that it's there. Truth is the opinion of multiple observers agreeing to accept something wholly and unequivocally which...you said reality is, given that it requires no evidence to the contrary. Ah, then, this..."Reality is objective and observer-independent." Oh, no, wait...let's do it in the imaginary "back and forth" style you like to invoke...which borders on insane.

Fat: "Reality is objective and observer-independent."

Abyssinal: "Whoa. So, that would mean, that whether someone is there to observe it or not is irrelevant."

Fat: "Correct."

Abyssinal: "So, using that logic, reality is a definite, a constant...and absolute and is...by applying the word truth, as a label to define whether that constant is false or true, it would be an "absolute truth" that reality is always there, regardless of observation or measure."

Fat: "Corre...HEY! You've dismantled my ass-faced attempt at settling a debate philosophers, far smarter than I, have been debating for years and still haven't resolved! How'd yuh do that?"

Abyssinal: "It was easy. I used my brain."

Fat: "What's that?"

Oh, wait, I just have to say that this was pretty funny.

"So listen up whino…..if you want truth to be OBJECTIVE, please provide the audience with a definition which doesn’t invoke an observer."

Though the "whino" thing was a bit juvenile and speaks volumes on the level of intellect you're actually on, isn't your little "provide the audience with a definition...", an allusion to the tree falling in the woods---thought exercise? How very novel.

Oh, man, okay...what next. Oh, "It means that someone, usually the ‘expert’ himself, auto-designated himself as such."...this...is patently retarded on so many levels, I think they'd have to redefine the word to include it. "Experts", as I have come to understand them are people that have extensive knowledge and have been educated, using the expertise of those more experienced in the field (teachers) and written experiences and lessons culled from human experience (books), to attain a degree which can be used to verify, as a testament to the time and acquisition of that knowledge. You seriously don't understand school or graduates of those schools?

Sure, you can bandy around and try to con people into thinking you're an "expert". You attempt to do it in everything you post. I understand that there are "experts" who may misrepresent themselves...ah, now you "approve comments". Wuss.


monkeyminds profile image

monkeyminds 3 years ago from My Tree House

"I understand that there are "experts" who may misrepresent themselves...ah, now you "approve comments". Wuss."

You mean like you? A washed out comedian turned consultant.

BTW, you must approve your comments in your Hubs, too. It's a good idea, because trolls can get you shut down. If not, I'll be right over.

...Because I've read your webpage, dude, and you ain't funny at all. Yer a clown. Probably scare little children.

Yer birthday party trix don't scare me.


monkeyminds profile image

monkeyminds 3 years ago from My Tree House

Here's what I posted in Abysmally stupid's HUB on how to make money on the internet with comedy:

"How to make money, when you aren't very funny:

Become a consultant.

Write an article about how to make money being funny."

Of course, it is awaiting approval. Wus.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

Waiting for approval? LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Princess Abyssinal is only here to protect his boyfriend's honor.....the little girly-girly James Stillwell who is extremely SCARED of the Fist!


monkeyminds profile image

monkeyminds 3 years ago from My Tree House

He approved me! Ha! He's got a better sense of humor than I gave him credit for. Or, maybe he didn't want folks to see his hypocrisy.

Thing is, not only is he not funny. He thinks he is an intellectual, but he's in way over his head. I guess that's why his name.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

“There is a thread of self importance running through your nonsense”

Agreed! So do yourself a favor and cut girly-girly emotional nonsense. You are bleeding too much estrogen and getting the place all messy/sticky here. And like a little woman, you continue to pretend that you are being abused and raped here in order to get attention from the fellas on the sidelines who are attracted to your hormones and waiting to take you home. But really…..all you’ve received here is an intellectual pounding like all the mental patients do. It’s good for your mind & soul. But I am here to help you. I am your friend not your enemy. I won’t hurt you …..I promise…..so don’t be SCARED of me like James Stillwill is, ok precious?

Fat: “Concepts are conceptual. It is impossible to give evidence for ‘a’ concept. Concepts are understood, not evidenced.”

Abyssimal: “Your use of "conceptual" to define "concept" gave me the giggles.”

Fat: “After your giggles wear off….please copy/paste my definition of CONCEPT which invokes the word ‘conceptual’ within the definition, ok? Let’s agree that if you can’t do it by your next response, then you’re brain-dead loser!”

Abyssimal: “ "Concepts are conceptual." was in YOUR response”

So you admit that you’re brain-dead loser because you lied about me posting a definition. I was explaining to you the categories. LOL…..nice try….you have no arguments so you resort to strawmen…SWEET!!!!!!!

Concepts are conceptual as opposed to EMPIRICAL,…. yeah, that was the context if you had read what I posted earlier! But either that went 200 miles over your head…OR…you cowardly launched another strawman because you are a failure in your pathetic life. But you don’t understand what a category is….conceptual vs empirical. And that wasn’t the definition of a concept. This is the def…

Concept: a relation between 2 or more objects

Epic failure, yet again on your part. Ha!

Abyssimal: “"concept is not evidenced" was especially laughable.”

Fat: “Oh….after you finish laughing, please show the audience any evidence for any concept. A simple illustration will do, just link to a pic online. How about the concept love, will you illustrate it with a heart? How about justice, will you illustrate with a hammer? I wanna see what ‘a’ concept looks like…..any simple illustration or pic will do. Let’s agree that if you can’t do it by your next response, then you’re brain-dead loser!”

So you cannot even provide a SHRED of evidence for ‘a’ concept, huh? Not even an online picture, huh? See I knew you were bluffing all along because you are extremely ignorant…Ha! So….by your own failure, you’re a brain-dead loser, like we both agreed….lulz!

"reality is INDEPENDENT of any evidence..."

Exactly! The Moon existed before a brain-dead humanoid like you evolved to give an opinion about it. The ultra-basics have eluded you far too long. Education is your friend.

“Truth is the opinion”

Exactly! Thank you! I asked you multiple times for a definition and you finally delivered. Kudos. See…..now you are making all my arguments for me because you finally see the ‘light’…ha ha, get it?

So here’s what we have from the little Bimbo’s irate mental breakdown:

Truth: opinion!

LOL….we’ve made progress.

“"Experts", as I have come to understand them are people that have extensive knowledge”

Oh, what is knowledge? Is it any different than one’s personal OPINION? We will soon find out… LOL. Do you even have a clue? Here, please tell the audience….

KNOWLEDGE:_______________

You will get the education you never got in your entire life. The Fist always delivers. Again, we will agree that if you cannot define ‘knowledge’ by your next post, then you are a brain-dead bellyaching loser!

“Experts …..and have been educated, using the expertise”

Fallacy of Authority….epic failure again…lol. Ha ha….the Bimbo made the same fallacy TWICE in row.

Face it…you are a crying little baby with no arguments. You are only here to protect your boyfriend’s honor….Mr. James Stillwell. Is she still SCARED of me? I promise not to hurt the precious Princess with the pony tail. The fellas at the bar would love to put a nice dress on her and yank her ponytail, ya know?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

“ there is ALWAYS the chance that ABSOLUTE TRUTH lies outside of your means of perception.”

Impossible! And now you will see why because the time has come to put an end to your raving lunacy.

Absolute: without relation to other things.

Anything you can conceive or perceive, whether a concept or an object, it doesn’t matter……it will necessarily have RELATIONS to something else.

The term ABSOLUTE has nothing to do with knowledge, belief, wisdom, faith, truth, proof, eye-witness testimony, experimentation/testing, authority, expertise, popularity, opinion, sensory perception, statistics, probability, predictions, etc. None of these concepts are embodied into the definition….LOL, obviously!!!! The term ABSOLUTE has to do with MEANING!!!!! All terms are defined to have meaning…it’s unavoidable….Linguistics 101.

Like any concept (and we are going to be fair and not going to specially-plead here), ….the term ‘absolute’ must first and foremost be DEFINED before it can be used in any sentence. Those who disagree should instantly be able to tell the audience what the term KLAMOKAPTICA means. If they can’t, or if they ask for a definition, then POOF goes their argument that words are not defined to have a meaning!

If you read the article, my dear Abyssimal, you will see that ‘absolute’ is a concept that was defined roughly 5000 years ago to mean: without relations to anything.

But, this is contradictory because all concepts are relations. It’s unavoidable. You cannot conceive of anything that is not related to something else. It is impossible to have anything in the Universe standalone without being related to something else…..just as it is impossible to have any term in language that has no relations to something else. Please give it a go and try to conceive of anything standalone in order to show an exception to my rational reasoning….you can’t.

Concept: a relation between two or more objects.

It goes without saying that “absolutes are impossible”. Not because I say so,… opinions and other subjectivities play no role here. This is an OBJECTIVE issue we have critically reasoned because the term ‘absolute’ contradicts the conceptual term itself (i.e. self-refuting).

LOL….you are sooooo done!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

Ha ha ha ha....so now abyssimal is approving your posts monkey....after you called him out on his hypocrisy? SWEEEEEEET!!!!

What an epic failure this Bimbo has been. Now he knows why absolute truth is impossible.

And to think....this Bimbo authoritatively told me yesterday that DUALITIES are real, which contradicts his Religion of the Absolute because it violates the Law of Identity. Ha! Only the mentally ill have soooooooo many epic failures in their posts.

I bet that he is breaking things in his room right now from all his ANGER. Ha ha ...I love getting people this agitated to the point where they lose all self control and go insane. Abyssimal will also be having MANY sleepless nights....AND....he will constantly be thinking of me, FATFIST,...he will never get me out of his mind, just like all my other Mental Patients. Ha! I just love it!


Jonas James profile image

Jonas James 3 years ago from Adelaide, South Australia

Gee, this abysmal guy spends a lot of time on the personal insults and practically no time on justifying his argument! Where are your definitions pal!?

Start with truth: _________?

IF you don't define your terms then you are just talking in circles.

This guy is obviously an a/theist. It is obvious because of the language he uses (truth, prove, evidence, expert, etc).


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

The Bimbo already conceded that Truth is nothing more than an OPINION.

And he already got schooled on WHY absolutes are impossible.

"This guy is obviously an a/theist. It is obvious because of the language he uses (truth, prove, evidence, expert, etc)."

Indeed....Atheists are the most Religious apes on this planet. All they do is BELIEVE....especially in contradictory 'absolutes'...hilarious.


Shoestring Democritus 3 years ago

"Those who disagree should try to conceive of anything standalone (i.e. without relations) in order to show an exception to my rational argument."

I don't disagree per se, but I'm interested in this challenge. So here goes:

The EM Rope Hypothesis proposes a model in which all "atoms" are comprised of "threads". Fatfist, you are fully acquainted with this proposal so I will leave it at that.

Isn't the "thread" (whatever it actually "is" isn't strictly relevant) a thing in itself standing alone? All of its "relations" are what we perceive as "atoms"; light is a consequence of the "thread" interacting with itself; and so on.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

Shoestring,

“Isn't the "thread" (whatever it actually "is" isn't strictly relevant) a thing in itself standing alone?”

Let’s concede to your hypothesis that there is only one thread object in the universe. The thread is a thing, like you said.

Thing: that which has shape

It is obvious that a ‘thing’ is already related to its antithesis, space, as the term shape points out….the relation between what is inside and outside of a border. It’s unavoidable, all lexical concepts (terms) relate at least two somethings. If you suddenly were the only object in the universe, the seconds you have left before you run out of breath and die, you could contemplate your shape by relating yourself NOT to yourself (impossible)….but to your environment. Now you have conceived of the term shape.

All terms are relations. Absolutes are impossible. And the Sophist gimmick “Is that absolutely true?” is pathetically laughable and ripped to shreds here:

http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/ABSOLUTE-T...

These tricks are 3000 years old. I’m surprised that Bimbos still fall for them. They have no argument, so what do you expect?

“All of its "relations" are what we perceive as "atoms"”

Atoms are not relations. Atoms are objects, not concepts.

“ light is a consequence of the "thread" interacting with itself”

No. It is impossible for an object to interact with itself. You cannot interact with yourself. Your components can interact with each other. But ‘you’ and ‘your arm’ are two different objects.

“You is You” and “Arm is Arm” as the Sophists say.

Light is a consequence of atoms quantum jumping and torqueing their interconnecting ropes. Try it out with your buddy….extend a rope between you while one guy torques it. The rope didn’t interact with itself.

It is impossible for any object to interact with itself or for anyone to establish any relations with an object and itself….all explained here in detail:

http://hubpages.com/education/Law-of-Identity-A-is...


Shoestring Democritus 3 years ago

"Let’s concede to your hypothesis that there is only one thread object in the universe. The thread is a thing, like you said."

Thanks for entertaining this and taking on my question in its strongest context.

"Thing: that which has shape"

"It is obvious that a ‘thing’ is already related to its antithesis, space, as the term shape points out….the relation between what is inside and outside of a border. It’s unavoidable, all lexical concepts (terms) relate at least two somethings. "

I fully agree with your definition of shape. But I'm confused by this statement. What are the "two somethings" here? You're proposing that "space" is the other thing? If yes, I am really confused as space cannot have shape (right?) If no, then we're back to just the *one* thing namely the "thread."

"If you suddenly were the only object in the universe, the seconds you have left before you run out of breath and die, you could contemplate your shape by relating yourself NOT to yourself (impossible)….but to your environment. Now you have conceived of the term shape."

Agreed in so far as the scenario depicted, but my hypothesis, which you've agreed to entertain, does not involve a human being subjected so such conditions; it's just that "thread" existing all by its lonesome. Also, "shape" seems to require an observer in this example. Is it not your position that "shape" is independent of any observer? Or am I wrong on that point?

"Atoms are not relations. Atoms are objects, not concepts."

I imagine that it's really just my failure to understand the EM Rope Hypothesis, but I have seen depictions of atoms that look like this:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread707183/p...

This model depicts magnetic threads that come together to form an atom. Why is it incorrect to view the atom as the product of a relationship between the magnetic threads? "The Moon" is the product of its constituent parts - compounds, molecules and atoms - that are in a particular relationship at this time. They did not always have the relationship they have now, nor is their current relationship permanent (though we may assume it will continue to exist as it does for a long long time.)

Doesn't the Moon, the Sun, the Earth, you, me and everything resolve down to those much tangled threads? Isn't an atom a conceptualization of how the thread(s) relate to one another?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

“What are the "two somethings" here? You're proposing that "space" is the other thing? If yes, I am really confused as space cannot have shape”

Anything you can conceive of will automatically embody a relation of 2 other things at least. To conceive of shape, you need to relate 2 somethings: what is inside with what is outside (i.e. the environment). Both need to be treated as nouns (i.e. AS IF they are something) in this phase of syntactical grammar in order to embody the term shape as a lexical concept. This is how we form concepts. In the second phase of contextual grammar, where we give meaning in context of reality,… the environment is reasoned to resolve to nothing when we define the term ‘space’.

Concept formation and the two phases of grammar are explained in detail here:

http://hubpages.com/education/The-Ontology-of-Lang...

“Also, "shape" seems to require an observer in this example.”

Nope, matter cannot lose it shape, length, width, height or border and morph into the void. An object has spatial separation irrespective of observers. The Moon doesn’t vanish when we look away.

“I imagine that it's really just my failure to understand the EM Rope Hypothesis”

It doesn’t matter. Any atom proposal must be an object with shape. It must have spatial separation, otherwise, the word ‘atom’ is a synonym for space. Look at the current 8 atomic proposals from the mainstream….they are all illustrated as objects, not nothing.

“Why is it incorrect to view the atom as the product of a relationship between the magnetic threads?”

An object is independent of its parts. The parts could be made of strings, blocks, water or whatever. It still remains an object with shape. Mereology has to do with Religion, where God is the son, father, holy spirit and other parts....and irrelevant as to whether God is an object or not.

“Doesn't the Moon, the Sun, the Earth, you, me and everything resolve down to those much tangled threads?”

How do you propose we prove that? How do you propose we prove an atom is little balls orbiting each other? Science does not prove. It hypothesizes. All 8 atomic models are hypotheses….none have been proven.

“Isn't an atom a conceptualization of how the thread(s) relate to one another?”

No. An atom is related to other atoms and how they interact. Either your relate an object's parts to each other or the object with another object. You cannot rationally relate an object to its parts. How can you relate your arm to your whole body? It’s not even conceivable since your body already includes the arm.


Shoestring Democritus 3 years ago

So conceiving of "a thing" without relations is impossible...by definition? The thing that confuses me about much of this is when you are claiming that something relates to reality and when it is a product of language.

"Any atom proposal must be an object with shape. It must have spatial separation, otherwise, the word ‘atom’ is a synonym for space."

No argument, but this does not relate to any claim, proposal or question I have raised. Is it you're claim that we must establish a particular context or frame of reference and then we cannot make comparisons, claims, relations etc. with regard to other frames of reference?

For example you say that "an atom is related to other atoms and how they interact." So if we've decided that today we're talking about atoms we cannot discuss molecules or any relationship between the two? This is not even conceivable since "molecules" already includes "atoms"? And so we cannot discuss the relationship between an atom and the magnetic strings that comprise the atom, because as soon as we discuss "atom" within the context of an EM rope model we are already including "magnetic strings"?

I asked - "doesn't the Moon...resolve down to [magnetic threads]"

You respond - how do you propose we prove that? how do you propose we prove an atom is little balls orbiting each other? etc.

How is this relevant? I'm not asking for proof of anything at all. What would the proof be? How can you prove your arm even exists?

My interest (and I thank you again for indulging it at all) is in your case concerning "anything standalone".

I've propose that *any* model you want to use - atoms, strings, etc. - reduces down to some fundamental thing that all other things are made of. What is interesting about the EM rope idea is that it implies that there is really only *one* thing: magnetic thread. Everything else is how we perceive that magnetic thread within "our particular bandwidth" to borrow your phrase.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

“So if we've decided that today we're talking about atoms we cannot discuss molecules or any relationship between the two?”

Can you not talk about how you threw a brick (i.e. atom) at a house (i.e. molecule) made of bricks? Do you need to consult me first?

“This is not even conceivable since "molecules" already includes "atoms"?”

The house you threw the brick at was not comprised of that same brick you threw….otherwise you couldn’t have thrown it, right? Why do you need to ask me such a redundant question?

“And so we cannot discuss the relationship between an atom and the magnetic strings that comprise the atom”

Now you have proposed a self-referential scenario. We no longer have two distinct entities in this context, like we did with a brick thrown at a house.

Please, tell me how the whole house relates to any individual brick comprising it. I honestly wonder if it’s even possible to establish a conceptual relationship between a whole house itself and a brick comprising it, since the house already embodies the brick in question. Perhaps I am wrong….please explain to me how you will discern house (already embodying the brick) with the brick, since it’s obviously self-referentially circular.

“I asked - "doesn't the Moon...resolve down to [magnetic threads]"”

That threads comprise all matter is a hypothesis. Your seem to ask if we can relate the object “Moon” to its constituents, regardless of what they are. I gave you an easier more digestible example of a house comprised of bricks, and asked you if you could explain the relation you speak of. Your response will answer all these questions about threads and what not.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

So much for ABSOLUTES, huh?

That abyssimal Bimbo went bonkers for nothing. Hope he didn't harm anyone in his rage. Perhaps this article was good therapy for him. At least it was a very good lesson!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

Hmmmmm.......someone isn't answering a simple question posed to them:

"Please, tell me how the whole house relates to any individual brick comprising it. I honestly wonder if it’s even possible to establish a conceptual relationship between a whole house itself and a brick comprising it, since the house already embodies the brick in question. Perhaps I am wrong….please explain to me how you will discern house (already embodying the brick) with the brick, since it’s obviously self-referentially circular." - Fist-o-Fury


Ricardius profile image

Ricardius 3 years ago

Wow! That Abysmal guy did everything he could in defense of his dear truth. He went on and on and on with these wordy replies when essentially all he said was this familiar statement, " Is it Absolutely True there are NO Absolute Truths?" Ha! Classic! Poor guy went on an insult rampage against the Fist when the Fist chewed him up and spit him out just by asking this numb skull to define the word that makes or breaks his argument. Poor guy will probably be unbearable to be around for a while after realizing that his beloved truth resolves to opinion.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

Indeed, Elton Edgar (aka abyssimal) is a self-proclaimed EXPERT in Philosophy. He tried to use the famous one-liner on me: "Is it true you stopped beating your wife?" in the form of "Is it true there are no absolutes?"

Say whaaaaaat? Haha! LOL….are you serious, dude?

This is a 5000 year old trick question called: AFFIRMING THE NEGATIVE.

Hence, no matter how you answer such questions, you are deemed guilty of its NEGATION because a YES or NO affirms it. Like I said, a very old linguistic trick which I spotted instantly and refuted it at the conceptual ontology level…..which set him off in a fit of rage btw…because he has no counter-argument!

If he'd only bothered to read this Affirming the Negative hub, he wouldn't have made a fool of himself:

http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/ABSOLUTE-T...

Unfortunately for Elton Edgar, he only had this superficial contradictory “jab” in his arsenal of weapons against the Fist. It backfired on him and he shot himself in the face. That’s why he got the intellectual pounding of his life and started cursing, insulting, had a tantrum fit and began crying like a little girl.

He couldn’t even answer a SINGLE question posed to him,…even after “agreeing” that if he couldn’t answer, then it indicates he’s brain-dead. So he is brain-dead by his own admission. All I did was hold his hand during the process to make him feel comfortable. Hey….who said The Fist isn’t caring??

He even pwned himself BIG TIME by admitting that the LOGIC he used in his response to me is NOT absolute! LOL….funny! He claimed that DUALITIES exist in reality which violate all of Logic. Wanna laugh at this Bimbo….here, read how Elton Edgar refuted his own argument:

1) Law of Identity (i.e. he claimed light is BOTH a particle AND ‘a’ wave, i.e. “A is B”. Hence “A is-not A”). Fail.

2) Law of Excluded-Middle (i.e. light is either a particle OR not-a-particle). Fail.

3) Law of Non-Contradiction (i.e. light CANNOT be BOTH a particle AND not-a-particle). Fail.

Elton Edgar is telling the audience in no uncertain terms that the Laws of Logic ARE NOT ABSOLUTE….and hence there are no absolutes since of course, reality is founded on logic.

POOF! goes his whole argument for absolutes, his education, his credentials, his fancy “Philosopher” title, and all the other LIES he posted. Epic self-refuting failure! My God, what an embarrassment he made of himself! I am just happy to get credit for it.

And the final ONE-TWO punch came after The Fist finished playing with Elton Edgar, and posted a few sentences explaining with the luxury of detail exactly WHY absolutes are impossible. LOL….that was it…..he went into a maniacal tirade after that, like all the mental patients do in the Insane Asylum. Needless to say….he checked himself in rather quickly.

Looks like his self-proclaimed expert wisdom in Philosophy failed him big time. He has nobody to blame by himself,…but of course….he blames his failure as an educated human to the rest of society. Yeah, shift the blame elsewhere! So he decided to quickly bolt from here after the most embarrassing exchange he’s had in his entire life.


abyssinal profile image

abyssinal 3 years ago from Pennsylvania

Wow. Just...wow. Do you have a thing against women or something? What's with all the weird estrogen talk? I don't know how you want me to react to that. I really don't. Your insults are like something I'd hear from a special ed third grader. I mean, I'd tell you they're ridiculous and harmless, but, I'm afraid you'd cry and punch yourself in the face.

Maybe, it's a postmodern thing, hating women.

Was...that concept...conceptual? No, no...maybe it's meaning was meaningful? lol.

It's pretty sophomoric. Did I rile you up that much? You were fumbling your fingers across the keyboard all red faced. You need to relax, my friend. These are just words on a screen. They can't hurt you. I can't undo what failing in philosophy has done. Nor would I try. I can just hope you don't rage yourself into a police assisted suicide.

Then, proclaiming yourself the winner...of what I don't know (being wrong?) or that you've bested someone at something, which is kinda strange. Still, it's your gimmick, I guess. who am I to judge?

Going bonkers? I get a kick out of reading pseudo-philosophy. It's like watching ghost hunters on tv...or Big Foot hunters. A bunch of guys stumbling around in the woods at night, measuring electro-magnetic levels and calling themselves experts. You are the same thing! I laugh the entire time. I've sent your blustering to a couple of people and they laugh too...a lot.

It's all entertainment really.

What religion? Sure, people have associated this "truth" business with religion, but, I certainly haven't. You have a hard time getting anything meaningful from your own mouth, stop putting words in mine.

Despite your "no absolute truth" argument being dismantled and made irrelevant ages ago and not so long ago...by yourself, I can't help but get a stick and poke at a caged puppy to watch him whine. I'll throw this at you...so, you can avoid it and whimper about something else.

TRUTH: Whatever is designated, by multiple observers, agreeing to be in existence or "be", after all beliefs, bias, desires, beliefs, ideas, perceptions, etc., originating from "opinion" have been eliminated. Whatever is left...is the truth.

The more observations made, the more truth. As more observations are made toward or about something, the more "opinion" regarding that object is transformed into the "truth" of that object. What is left, after all those factors have been identified and eliminated, either by process of elimination or logic in general, is truth.

The more, (whatever in question), holds up to the stripping away of opinion's elements, the more truth it gains. Then, after all is gone, it's said to be an "absolute truth". "Example: Your heart will stop beating eventually.". That will happen, there's no "opinion" about it, it's absolutely true.

Side stepping that indisputable example, with some slapped together redefining of "absolute", doesn't change that. The Sami have a 1,000 words for "reindeer", it doesn't change what a reindeer is.

It will happen, absolutely. Calling the "The absolute truth is there's no absolute truth?" question a "Sophist trick", means nothing. It absolutely nullifies your crap argument. If you can't answer it...then, fold up your tent and go home. Your circus sucks.

Hence, what I said before...starts as opinion...ends in truth. It doesn't "resolve to opinion" because, opinion is eventually eliminated altogether. Say, for instance YOUR moon example. The moon just is, because regardless of belief, perception and all those other things...it is still there. Opinion of it is eliminated. Whether you believe in it or have an "opinion" regarding it, it is absolutely there.

Still, despite it being there, whether we want it or not, we could go so far as to say that it would exist despite what we can physically observe and measure due to the limitations of our universe? Possibly, but, that would be conjecture, that not even your "no absolute truth" argument can hold up to.

So, are all truths absolute? No. Is there "absolute truth", yes. Otherwise, our agreement of reality, among ourselves, the denizens of reality...would resolve to opinion, individual opinion...and in turn madness or some kind of mind boggling fear humanity has yet to see. "Absolute truth" is the foundation and adherence to our accepted, unchanged reality.

Now, what you, you yourself is aping for, is for someone to come along and define "absolute truth" according to YOUR implausible explanation of it.

It's like the harping of some fruity, idiot standing on the corner with a twig between his legs, calling it his "big dick" and wanting everyone to prove him wrong about it (though he wants them to prove it, without mentioning: urination properties, skin, anatomy, the differences between trees and humans, etc.). When they try, he calls them names loudly and waves his hands around maniacally proclaiming himself to be "the winner".

So, quit preaching your gospel, zealot. You have a stick, not a dick.

Now, the wave, particle light thing, it seems that a new experiment reveals that not only are you more wrong, but, I am only partly wrong. Light travels as both particles AND waves, but, not at the same time.

Here, read something besides your own concocted mess: http://www.livescience.com/24509-light-wave-partic...

I won't even mention how insanely off you are about the sky being blue. My ribs are still hurting.

And your "lesson" thing. Priceless. You're a trip. lol

Oh, and thanks for the views Monkeyminds. Appreciate the support, man. Tell your Mom I said, "Hi.".

Wait. Before I'm off...let me give this a whirl. POINT, SET, MATCH! No, no...CHECKMATE! Um...I'VE TAUGHT A VERY GOOD LESSON!...hm...BIMBO! What is with that anyway? Is it the 1920's all of a sudden? How old are you? It would explain your antiquated mindset. Try something new...like. Hm..."douche'", you douche'. May this be good therapy for you. Now, get your favorite crying pillow, tell your shut-in pals you've got some sobbing to do...and have a good night.

That was fun. Gimme some more!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

“insults are like something I'd hear from a special ed third grader”

Then why do you continue posting 800 words of insults and only 200 words as a response to the issue at hand? Hmmmm…..because you have no argument, huh?

LOL…..the only one insulting here is YOU! I know I have this effect on folks with no arguments….but just relax, I promise not to hurt you, ok sunshine?

“rage yourself into a police assisted suicide.”

Of course…..when you can’t address and respond to your refuted argument….you hope that people DIE. That’s the only way you can WIN an argument in your little brain…rub out what ills you….LOL!

“TRUTH: Whatever is designated, by multiple observers, agreeing to be in existence or "be", after all beliefs, bias, desires, beliefs, ideas, perceptions, etc., originating from "opinion" have been eliminated. Whatever is left...is the truth.”

“multiple observers”…..have multiple limited and differing sensory systems. Ergo, multiple OPINIONS!

“agreeing to be in existence”…..Oh, where do you see provision for AGREEMENT in the definition of EXIST?

Exist: something somewhere (object with location)

Object: that which has shape

Location: the set of static distances to all other objects

The moon is an object as it has shape. In addition, it has location wrt all other objects.

There is NO provision for observers or their petty opinionated agreements in the definition of EXIST. Your definition of truth fails AGAIN….but I will continue ripping the next sentence apart….watch this:

“after all beliefs, bias, desires, beliefs, ideas, perceptions, etc., originating from "opinion" have been eliminated”

Oh, so you will rub-out and KILL all the witnesses, huh? Then who is left to VALIDATE the proposition?

“Whatever is left...is the truth”

LOL….Bimbo, whatever is left is NOTHING because there is no person left to use their beliefs, biases, opinions, etc. in order to VALIDATE a proposition as true. All propositions MUST BE VALIDATED before being declared ‘true’. Validation is a verb an observer must perform.

All you’ve said again is…..TRUTH ultimately resolves to OPINION!

Epic failure again! Got any more definitions up your sleeve so I can dissect them before your very eyes?

“The more observations made…”

….the more OPINIONS stemming from an observer’s extremely limited sensory system!

“As more observations are made toward or about something, the more "opinion"

Bingo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thank you for conceding that OBSERVATIONS = VALIDATION = TRUTH = OPINION. That’s what it ultimately boils down to. You are consistently making my argument because there is no other option but opinion.

“As more observations are made ….. the more "opinion" …… in general, is truth.”

Exactly! TRUTH = OPINION….is there an echo in here?

“Side stepping that indisputable example, with some slapped together redefining of "absolute", doesn't change that.”

Exactly!

“The moon just is, because regardless of belief, perception and all those other things...it is still there. Opinion of it is eliminated.”

Exactly! There is no provision for observer’s or opinionated agreements in the definition of EXIST. If you disagree, you are welcome to justify otherwise:

Exist: something somewhere (object with location)

“Is there "absolute truth", yes”

WRONG!

Impossible! And now you will see why because the time has come to put an end to your raving lunacy.

Absolute: without relation to other things.

Anything you can conceive or perceive, whether a concept or an object, it doesn’t matter……it will necessarily have RELATIONS to something else.

The term ABSOLUTE has nothing to do with knowledge, belief, wisdom, faith, truth, proof, eye-witness testimony, experimentation/testing, authority, expertise, popularity, opinion, sensory perception, statistics, probability, predictions, etc. None of these concepts are embodied into the definition….LOL, obviously!!!! The term ABSOLUTE has to do with MEANING!!!!! All terms are defined to have meaning…it’s unavoidable….Linguistics 101.

Like any concept (and we are going to be fair and not going to specially-plead here), ….the term ‘absolute’ must first and foremost be DEFINED before it can be used in any sentence. Those who disagree should instantly be able to tell the audience what the term KLAMOKAPTICA means. If they can’t, or if they ask for a definition, then POOF goes their argument that words are not defined to have a meaning!

If you read the article, my dear Abyssimal, you will see that ‘absolute’ is a concept that was defined roughly 5000 years ago to mean: without relations to anything.

But, this is contradictory because all concepts are relations. It’s unavoidable. You cannot conceive of anything that is not related to something else. It is impossible to have anything in the Universe standalone without being related to something else…..just as it is impossible to have any term in language that has no relations to something else. Please give it a go and try to conceive of anything standalone in order to show an exception to my rational reasoning….you can’t.

Concept: a relation between two or more objects.

It goes without saying that “absolutes are impossible”. Not because I say so,… opinions and other subjectivities play no role here. This is an OBJECTIVE issue we have critically reasoned because the term ‘absolute’ contradicts the conceptual term itself (i.e. self-refuting).

“So, quit preaching your gospel, zealot. You have a stick, not a dick.” - Elton Edgar (aka abyssimal)

Amen! LOL….you are sooooo done!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

“Calling the "The absolute truth is there's no absolute truth?" question a "Sophist trick", means nothing. It absolutely nullifies your crap argument. If you can't answer it...then, fold up your tent and go home. Your circus sucks.”

Ok….I see your point…..perhaps I was wrong. But let me just TEST your argument before I concede defeat, ok?

Q: “Is it absolutely true that you stopped beating a wife, girlfriend, sister or mother?”

PLEASE ANSWER THIS QUESTION YES or NO so we can test your argument, ok?

I mean….. Calling this question a "Sophist trick", means nothing. It nullifies your crap argument. If you can't answer it...then, fold up your tent and go home. Your circus sucks…..got it?

Only yes or no is possible, just like YOUR question above. Don’t bleed any more estrogen, ok little woman? Just tell us the truth!

Abyssimal’s answer is:___________

.

.

abyssimal: “Now, the wave, particle light thing, it seems that a new experiment reveals that not only are you more wrong, but, I am only partly wrong”

fat: “Now, about the pregnancy thing, it seems that a new experiment reveals that not only are you more pregnant, but, I am only partly pregnant”

Ummmm…..Elton Edgar…..do you have a single functioning neuron in that head of yours? Your contradictions are astounding.

“Light travels as both particles AND waves, but, not at the same time.”

So light TRAVELS (performs the action) as a particle, huh?

Please...Elton Edgar…..can you tell the audience how we can perform this ACTION you call ‘particle’? Do we roll our bodies into a ball? Particle is an object, not an action. Linguistics 101. Either light is a particle or not. Light cannot perform any alleged action you call ‘particle’, got it, Bimbo?

More so, WAVE is what a medium does as it undulates transversely, longitudinally or torsionally. No object is travelling in either case. If you disagree, please illustrate the object you allege that travels. The water in the ocean just undulates up/down. The ship does NOT travel forward when the water waves… it just bobs up/down. Science 101.

Again….you fall flat in your face when it comes to Science. Pathetic.

Regardless…..you have still violated these 2 Laws of Logic:

1) Law of Identity (i.e. you now claim light is BOTH a particle at times AND ‘a’ wave at other times, i.e. “A is B”. Hence “A is-not A”. Ergo….light is not light anymore at it changes IDENTITY....either one or the other). Fail.

2) Law of Excluded-Middle (i.e. light is either a particle OR not-a-particle. Pick one! Light cannot change ontology...either one or the other). Fail.

Hahahaha!.....brain-dead as usual! ZERO thinking ability.

Elton Edgar is telling the audience in no uncertain terms that the Laws of Identity and Excluded-Middle ARE NOT ABSOLUTE….and hence there are no absolutes since of course, reality is founded on logic.

POOF! goes his whole argument for absolutes, his education, his credentials, his fancy “Philosopher” title, and all the other LIES he posted. Epic self-refuting failure! My God, what an embarrassment he made of himself! I am just happy to get credit for it.

“I'VE TAUGHT A VERY GOOD LESSON!...hm...BIMBO! “

I sure have! Looking forward to your next 800 words of insults.


Jonas James profile image

Jonas James 3 years ago from Adelaide, South Australia

The part of the 'argument' I find the most amusing (and there are many) is this idea that truth is the outcome of a vote! If the majority vote for position A, then position A is true. It reminds me of the College of Cardinals.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

@Shoestring Democritus,

Hmmmmm.......someone isn't answering a very simple question posed to him:

"Please, tell me how the whole house relates to any individual brick comprising it. I honestly wonder if it’s even possible to establish a conceptual relationship between a whole house itself and a brick comprising it, since the house already embodies the brick in question. Perhaps I am wrong….please explain to me how you will discern house (already embodying the brick) with the brick, since it’s obviously self-referentially circular." - Fist-o-Fury

You know, Mr. Democritus…..when people go out of their way to answer your questions, the least you can do is return the courtesy and answer theirs. Don’t you think?

I mean….what will you report back to Sherwood Forest….that it’s impossible to relate a thing to itself due to the obvious circularity? Or….will you not report it because it destroys the delicate Religion they’ve built for themselves after their segregation from reality?

You don’t want to hurt their feelings, huh?


Shoestring Democritus 3 years ago

Sorry to get back to you to so late. I was busy with my university courses. After much thought and even asking my professor, I realize you can’t relate a thing or its component to itself. Yeah it can’t be done. And what do you mean by sherwood forest?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

No problem democritus, but the Fonz could have told you the same thing with a rational explanation to boot.

Self-Referentialism is a Religion....first invented by the Jews. Christians and their sidekicks, the Atheists, couldn't do anything more with this gem of wisdom than to parrot it like a mantra.

http://hubpages.com/education/Law-of-Identity-A-is...


FatFistupyourass 3 years ago

Cool idea Fatfist...but also, since there is no absolute truth, doesn't that mean that you saying there is no absolute truth isn't true, making absolute truth true, making absolute truth not true, making....well, you get my paradoxical point


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

Dude, if the article bothers you so much, I'll take it down. The last thing I want is for this to embarrass you and cause you mental problems. My articles have a way of doing that to people.

Anyway, no need to obsess over this article. All you have to do is ask nicely and I'll take it down.


Ricardius profile image

Ricardius 3 years ago

Poor James Stillwell still hasn't unblocked me from FB, so I guess he admits total defeat in his debate on https://www.facebook.com/groups/RationalScientific... since he will not be allowed back in the group until he does so. This truth thing really seems to be getting the best of him!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

James Stillwell is very lucky not to meet me in person. I am known to rip the ponytails off ladyboys and shove them down their throats when they don't answer questions. Well....let's just leave little Jamie suffer sleepless nights obsessing about me....just like others in his predicament do...lulz!


Jezus 2 years ago

Oh my. You are an asshole!

"LOL…..the only one insulting here is YOU! I know I have this effect on folks with no arguments….but just relax, I promise not to hurt you, ok sunshine?" -Fatfist

"Atheists are the most Religious apes on this planet. " - Fatfist

That's an insult!

"LOL….that was it…..he went into a maniacal tirade after that, like all the mental patients do in the Insane Asylum. Needless to say….he checked himself in rather quickly." - Fatfist

¡Insult!

"[...] Bimbo [...]" (x14) - Fatfist

(Better send him to the burn ward...)

"James Stillwell is very lucky not to meet me in person. I am known to rip the ponytails off ladyboys and shove them down their throats when they don't answer questions." - Fatfist

The last insult I feel like copying/pasting. Luckily, it was conveniently right above the comment box.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

"That's an insult!"

I know, Jezus.....I'm used to Mr. Stillwell insulting me. It's quite normal to insult someone rather than to define the terms that destroy their Religion: 'truth' and 'absolute'.

Thank you for agreeing with me, Jezus! And don't worry, insults just slide off my back. Thanks for supporting me ;)


Dr.SexiMexican 2 years ago

Dear Fatfist,

Is it absolutely true there is no absolute truth. If it is absolutely true there is no absolute truth, wouldn't that mean there is absolute truth?

.

Haha! Just joking ;)

Why do these fools keep on thinking they are geniuses for coming up with this nonsense?

Seriously, Abyssinal had some abysmal reasoning. Interesting they never answered that question of yours.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

Ahhhh....we need some comedy here. Some folks get extremely offended when they finally figure out that concepts don't exist.

It's not the end of the world. Have a drink and chill out ;-)


tguess 2 years ago

just a passerby and for the record; Fatfist put forth a more coherent argument while Stillwell in every sentence used circular reasoning. Entertaining rants coming out of Stillwell however.


Arthur 2 years ago

"Is it absolutely true there is no absolute truth. If it is absolutely true there is no absolute truth, wouldn't that mean there is absolute truth?

Haha! Just joking ;)

Why do these fools keep on thinking they are geniuses for coming up with this nonsense?"

What Dr.SexiMexian posted in jest, I post in seriousness. Relativism is self-defeating. Saying 'Just joking' isn't going to help with that.


Arthur 2 years ago

I'm not sure if my comment is being processed or not, but just in case I'll repeat it.

"Is it absolutely true there is no absolute truth. If it is absolutely true there is no absolute truth, wouldn't that mean there is absolute truth?"

The argument that Dr.SexiMexican posted is entirely correct, even if he put it forward in jest. Relativism about truth is self-defeating.

You can call it 'comedy', you can laugh, but if Appeal to Ridicule is all you have to offer your opponents you have work to do.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

Arthur: “What Dr.SexiMexian posted in jest, I post in seriousness.”

Let’s hope YOU are serious here, Arthur….cuz all the other clowns who post claims about ‘absolute truth’ haven’t the slight clue what the terms ‘truth’ & ‘absolute’ mean. Let’s see if “serious Arthur” does…..

.

Arthur: "Is it absolutely true there is no absolute truth. If it is absolutely true there is no absolute truth, wouldn't that mean there is absolute truth?"

Before you even begin to make IF…THEN statements to draw a claimed conclusion, you had better DEFINE the key terms of your dissertation….namely: ‘truth’, ‘absolute’

Here you go, Arthur, put your serious brain to serious use and tell the audience what these 2 terms mean in YOUR claim. Fill in the blanks!

Arthur’s definition of truth:______

Arthur’s definition of absolute:______

.

“Relativism about truth is self-defeating”

Exactly! If truth is self-defeating, then it goes without saying that anything you qualify truth with will be self-defeating!

Can you fill in the definitions above for the audience, Arthur? The audience thinks you are trolling like everyone else who comes here. Please be a “serious” dear and provide some serious objective definitions that can’t be contradicted, ok?

Submit a Comment
New comments are not being accepted on this article at this time.
Click to Rate This Article
working