My story isn't as interesting. Shiite Catholic mom (as Jim Gaffigan would say), atheist/agnostic dad. When they got divorced I lost all respect for Catholicism and Christianity (along with the rest of my family). Tried a bunch of other ways to keep life interesting and pretty much failed at all of them (Thank God!).

Suffice it to say that I tried to ignore, break away from, kick the habit of God many days in many ways but he seems to think he knows what I want better than I do. Imagine the nerve of that guy. I can see why a lot of people find Him off putting.

"Your reply to my next comment was fascinating. But I can't find it to respond."

I see it below. It has a red flag that says that spam is detected. Makes no sense to me.

Religion was never a big issue for me. I grew up in New York City in a very secular Jewish household. We celebrated Passover and Hanukah and that was it. Not even Yom Kippur. My Father was an educator, a teacher, then an assistant principal, and then a principal. He was the youngest of five brothers and had been sent to Yeshiva as a child. He taught me a great deal about tolerance and skeptisism. My mother as well.

"Don't get me started." is a line made famous by Billy Crystal in the film "Mister Saturday Night".

It was a time when flower children were all talking about brotherhood and construction workers were saying, "America, love it or leave it". I also remember the 1965 blackout and the broadcast of Neil Armstrong stepping on the moon. Not to mention the assassination of JFK. Pete Seeger, Joan Baez, Woodie Guthrie, and Library of Congress records of Tennessee mountain music played on the phonograph.

Television was important to us kids. My parents disapproved but they must have remembered radio. And snobs liked to say that they didn't own a television.

I distinctly remember being on the subway when I was about eight or nine years old on the way to school (it was a more trusting time) and looking up at the ads. I thought, "What kind of person would try to follow all of the commands given by those ads?" "Call this number.", Smoke this", "Use this dandruff shampoo". A person could easily lose themselves in the effort to obey every ad that they see. I probably became atheist right then.

My paternal grandfather was religious when I knew him but he had been quite irreligious in his youth. Whenever I saw him he gave me and my brother copies of"Science Digest" magazine. It's hard for me to imagine the struggles of many on these forums.

Some of my earliest memories are living on the lower east side of Manhattan. a land of pushcarts and pickle barrels. I don't want to romanticize it but it must have been very different from people's lives in the Midwest and in the South.

Now your turn. What's your story in a few lines?

Thanks. I've been studying the one liners of the greats, like Henny Youngman, Milton Berle, Groucho Marx, and of course Woody Allen. Their verbal music is just amazing. Check out Woody's stand up when you get the chance.

The so called 'bad words' are great because they're like magic. If you do it right you can set yourself up as a a prude and then throw in a scatological word or take the name of god in vain and make 'em laugh. (Singing In The Rain. Donald O'Connor and Gene Kelly. It doesn't get better.) Religious types are so serious, I sometimes think that they'll melt if they're left out in the sun too long.

"God will get you for that. Just kidding!"

I'm not too worried. If god's aim is anything like it was during Katrina...

At least form a certain point of view, "moral" is situational, or cultural, but "ethic" is universal. Maybe it could be good to replace the former by the later in the discussion.

I am in no way open to change mi worldview, and therefore I don't intend -anymore, at least- to change any body else's mind, on essential ideas or subjects. Specially, in this time of relativism and emotivism, is a waste of time beforehand. Nevertheless, with a"gentleman" attitude from both sides (sorry to ladies; I didn't find a more gender neutral term) it is always possible to have a conversation.

Part of that gentleman attitude is the understanding that, even if we convince the other -or the other convinces us- the persuaded side can still change again their mind later.

Everything around me may be said to have a history, or a function. But to say that it has an essence is absurd.

I am interested in hearing why you consider it absurd for computers, coffee, and telephones to have an essence? Why do you refer to the matter that makes a computer a computer rather than just a pile of circuits boards. When you say a telephone do you mean a rotary dial landline or an iPhone? Both have something that says to you that they are a telephone, that is the essence.
I'm not making assertions, I'm giving you my viewpoint, and I am open to hearing yours.

The mere fact that you don't see how Aristotelianism and Thomism can be "conflated" underlines to me the daunting task that it would be for me to try to explain the whole thing to you on a mere thread, especially when you tell me ahead of time that you "don't share" my "point of view."

For now, at least, I think it makes sense to postpone further discussion.

Perhaps, someday, you will understand why the famed essayist, Leon Bloy, once said ... well, I will put it in the original French so as not to offend anyone: "Il n'y a que deux types de philosophie: le thomisme et le bullshitisme."

"OK. You have convinced me."

We seem to have a slight misunderstanding here. I am not trying to convince either you or Mr. Abney or anyone else. What I am trying to to is to get a sense of what it would take to get you to acknowledge the value of thinkers other than the ones that have influenced you.

When you described Sartre's philosophy as being one-noted, you seem to me to be pointing out the mote in his (or my) eye while at the same time ignoring the beam in your own. (A Sermon on the Mount reference, I do depose.)

"I am not going to try to explain the whole of Aristotelian-Thomistic philosophy on this thread."

I'm grateful for that, at least. I'm still not sure how you can conflate the philosophies of two thinkers separated in time by about 1600 years and in space by about 650 miles without a great deal of mental gymnastics, But that's my problem, not yours.

"If you look back at some of the other articles I have contributed to this web site, they might make some sense to you. Or, they might not."

I think that I detect a note of condescension there. Nevertheless, I did check out your posts. The first thing that I noticed is that I was mistaken in referring to you as "Mister" I should have written "Doctor". The fact that you had the grace to not correct me is a point in your favor.

After that, what I read appears to me to be a slightly more scholarly version of the kind of assertions that Rob Abney has contributed to this thread. So I hope that you will understand if I lump the two of you together. I can understand your point of view, I just don't share it.

"Try to find one object/thing in your immediate presence that exists but doesn't have an essence? "

Everything that I see around me; the computer that I am typing on, coffee in a coffee cup, a telephone, is some matter that was put together in a very specific way through human contrivance. Everything around me may be said to have a history, or a function. But to say that it has an essence is absurd.

Your use of the word 'essence' is your interpretation of how you see things. If you want to be able to express your interpretation then I expect you to allow other people to express their interpretation. I'm sorry that you don't like it. But our society values the points of view of each and every human on this planet. You do not get to dictate who is right and who is wrong based on some 13th century rationalization.

"... although you could be erroneous in identifying the essence."

Of course I could be wrong. I've been wrong many times in my short life. I personally accept responsibility for each and every instance that I have been wrong. I have no need for Jesus' forgiveness. I don't want Jesus' forgiveness. If Jesus were standing before me right now and offered me forgiveness for my supposed sins, I would not hesitate. I would spit in his eye.

Now will you have the courtesy, the honesty, to admit that you could be wrong as well? Or will you continue assert, assert, and assert some more just as you have in every one of your responses to me? All the while responding only to the questions that fit your script.

Just to remind you, I also asked:

"Do I need you, or some other sectarian scholar to explain them to me? If I do then they can't be objective, can they?"

And you chose not to answer. I wonder why that is?