Pure souls beware! D&D is the way to perdition! [Archive]

AgeOfAbnegation

13-10-2004, 07:32 PM

I'll just shut this useless thread down now, and save us some time. Any activity will reinforce a certain wavelength. Wether this is going to church, playing D&D, or whatever. Wether its "real" or in the "imagination", it doesnt matter - its still part of "a" reality. THis thread started with childish mocking. Galron took it upon himself to poke fun at a comic that misrepresented a certain belief dynamic. If he wasn't already a fool, I may have reprimanded him. As a religious person myself, I don't feel that the comic, funny as it was, represented my personal outlook. As I mentioned, I've played D&D for years, and usually run my own chronicles. Some of you will recall I ran one a few months back, before I got into beta. In this case, that is neither here nor there.

Whats at stake first and foremost, besides the childish mockery elicited by the posters above (which would be offensive to some - I would think a few of you would know better - you know who you are), is first and foremost this post:

I'd be more inclined to believe religion alters one's sense of reality and logic.

THis just goes to show how the ignorance of this notion coincides with the general haze of ignorance surrounding this kind of thread. The key is in what's highlighted. ANY activity will alter one's perception of reality, but NOTHING can alter logic. Logic is - people simply participate in its use, or they do not. Let's face it - RPG's are a form of escapism. For those especially disposed to escapism, it will indeed cloud the mind to other realities. In some religious circles, similar things can be said. Yet, that doesn't offer grounds for an ignorant chiding of a particular form of belief. Instead of mocking, try asking mature questions to help discover if a given idea is folly.

Maullus

13-10-2004, 08:39 PM

Greetings,

I'll just shut this useless thread down now, and save us some time.
Actually, I don't think you have that authority. If you meant smother the amusement of other visitors by "shut this useless thread down," then I suppose, yes, you can attempt to do that.

And this thread is no more, and no less, useless then the vast majority of threads in the Off-Topic forum.

Whats at stake first and foremost, besides the childish mockery elicited by the posters above (which would be offensive to some - I would think a few of you would know better - you know who you are) I'll laugh at anything I find overwhelmingly ridiculous. This comic, if it represents a sincere belief, is overwhelmingly ridiculous. I can't help but find the presentation of D&D as subverting "good, old-fashioned, wholesome Christian ethics" by luring impressionable young children down a path of occult worship and/or suicide a laughable phenomenon. It doesn't help that the bloody DM looked like Elvira, Mistress of the Dark.

Let's not turn this into yet another religious debate.

Instead of mocking, try asking mature questions to help discover if a given idea is folly.
"Welcome, Elfstar. You're now a priestess of the craft, and of the Temple of Diana." ...
"It's my fault Black Leaf died. I can't face life alone. Marcie!"
I'm sorry, I think it was somewhere between those lines that I injured myself by falling out of my chair.

The only reasons I could possibly think of not to laugh at this trash are: One, it's far too disturbing to actually think about someone believing this, and; Two, you're offended by it. In which case, see reason number one.

Now, I don't mind people having beliefs that contradict my own. My schema is large enough to accept that. I can't abide stupidity though. I mean, unintentional ignorance is one thing. Willful stupidity is another. What basis does this comic have on reality? Even setting aside the blatantly ignorant usage of Diana, (I can only assume he means the Roman/Greek amalgamation of Diana/Artemis, the Goddess of the Moon, Hunting, and Chastity? :scratch:), and the inappropriate usage of a Pentagram (http://altreligion.about.com/library/weekly/aa100102a.htm) (which Hollywood and popular media have demonized, severing it from its actual meaning), this comic is obviously only loosely grounded in reality.

By all means, show me a correlation between DnD and anything even remotely resembling any of the nonsense this cartoon portrays and I'll retract my statements.

AoA, I know you're going to open the floodgates here. One simple request: tone the erudite philosophy down a notch so that I can understand you.

Pietoro

13-10-2004, 08:58 PM

Chick Tracts are notoriously fundamentalist, biased, and often ridiculously ignorant. They've been around for years, and nothing they say is new.
There have been people calling D&D dangerous for years, most of them barely know anything about what they're bashing.

AgeOfAbnegation

13-10-2004, 08:58 PM

Greetings,

Actually, I don't think you have that authority. If you meant smother the amusement of other visitors by "shut this useless thread down," then I suppose, yes, you can attempt to do that.

I cannot smother the amusement of other readers, people will either find it funny, or they wont. My beef was in accord with the mockery of a faith. Even I won't go so far as to critique a belief or system, without offering a rationale. All that was posted was mockery.

And this thread is no more, and no less, useless then the vast majority of threads in the Off-Topic forum.

I suppose it would indeed fall to personal preference, but I hope we can all agree that wholesale laughter over a matter as personal as faith is detremental to the good reputation the site has as a WoW community.

I'll laugh at anything I find overwhelmingly ridiculous. This comic, if it represents a sincere belief, is overwhelmingly ridiculous. I can't help but find the presentation of D&D as subverting "good, old-fashioned, wholesome Christian ethics" by luring impressionable young children down a path of occult worship and/or suicide a laughable phenomenon. It doesn't help that the bloody DM looked like Elvira, Mistress of the Dark.

Nobody can take that from you, or anyone. We will find funny, what we find funny. I however can offer an argument on the other side, for those interested.

The only reasons I could possibly think of not to laugh at this trash are: One, it's far too disturbing to actually think about someone believing this, and; Two, you're offended by it. In which case, see reason number one.

FYI, I do have grounds for belief in the influence of spirits, and other such content seen by many to be mumbo-jumbo worthy of mirth. I'm capable of offering commentary to elucidate this if you or another party so wishes.

Now, I don't mind people having beliefs that contradict my own. My schema is large enough to accept that. I can't abide stupidity though. I mean, unintentional ignorance is one thing. Willful stupidity is another. What basis does this comic have on reality? Even setting aside the blatantly ignorant usage of Diana, (I can only assume he means the Roman/Greek amalgamation of Diana/Artemis, the Goddess of the Moon, Hunting, and Chastity? :scratch:), and the inappropriate usage of a Pentagram (http://altreligion.about.com/library/weekly/aa100102a.htm) (which Hollywood and popular media have demonized, severing it from its actual meaning), this comic is obviously only loosely grounded in reality.

Realistically, most, if not all, would mock at the comic. It's presentation even gave me a few chuckles. My argument is the fact that there is an "aspect" of reality to the comic that I don't believe should be mocked. THis aspect is the notion of spirits, and also the mention of the Christ.

By all means, show me a correlation between DnD and anything even remotely resembling any of the nonsense this cartoon portrays and I'll retract my statements.

I can't blame you for laughing, but I can ask of readers to take a more serious look at some of the issues therein. I obviously don't have an issue with DnD - we're both gamers. But the comic made reference to other mediums such as divination and witchcraft, which some parties assent a connection to DnD. I personally do not, but some do. Having more than a rudimentary knowledge of the former, as well as knowledge of the faith, I can attest to some real issues. If you've ever seen someone under the infulence of an "evil spirit", like I have many times, this may be more clear. To underpin this however, we can discover by means of speculative reason as to why this topic deserves to be taken seriously. In accord with your request, I will adress these only if asked.

Pietoro

13-10-2004, 09:01 PM

These tracts have nothing to do with faith... it is not a Christian docrinal decree that 'D&D is a stronghold of Satan'. It is nothing more than the opinion of a man who happens to be Christian, who justifies his opinion with his personal interpretation of what is 'godly'.

No matter what religion a person is, there are always differing personal views of things. Frankly, as a Christian myself, I'm more offended when someone like him takes his OPINION and tries to pass it off as God's Own Truth.

Honestly, people like him try to accuse things like Pokemon and Harry Potter of having the EXACT SAME 'evil' aspects he accuses D&D of having. I've read their rants and justifications, and it still boils down to ignorant misinterpretations.

Galron Kincaid

13-10-2004, 09:05 PM

Eh, it's too late for me. Having played D&D as well as having not gone to church for twenty years has already damned me. :lol:

See you in hell, Galron! There'll probably be some great players down there. ;)

Should we ever meet in hell, can i play a Balor Cleric?

MWAHAHAH!

And AbA...... loosen up, dude.

besides, who the hell are you to talk about me, and the threads i open, like that?

AgeOfAbnegation

13-10-2004, 09:13 PM

And AbA...... loosen up, dude.

besides, who the hell are you to talk about me, and the threads i open, like that?

You can expect more of the same if you continue to post trash threads. Being "cool" is not an enemy of being respectful and tasteful.

Pietoro

13-10-2004, 09:18 PM

He's just mad because he wanted a free 'lets mock religious idiots' thread and didn't like being called to actually have to talk seriously about the issues he brought up.

Seriously, though, when you're in a forum with as many diverse people as this one, you can't expect to bring up issues (even just to laugh at them) that have complex views, and expect to not have anyone address them. People *do* look differently at the same things, and what you happen to think is frivolous and unworthy of discussion, someone else takes seriously. Don't get all defensive because of it, that's just how things are.

Maullus

13-10-2004, 09:23 PM

Greetings,

I suppose it would indeed fall to personal preference, but I hope we can all agree that wholesale laughter over a matter as personal as faith is detremental to the good reputation the site has as a WoW community.
I agree completely. And I would be among the first to stand up for someone if their faith was indeed being trampled on. However, I think the mockery was directed at the narrow-minded and intolerant portrayal of DnDers as Witches and Warlocks in training, and DMs as evil demagogues.

Simply put, I would have laughed just as hard if the foundation of the comic was based on any other religion or ideological belief, so it was in no way directed towards the "faith" aspect. I have nothing but respect for people that sincerely believe, and practice, their faith. So long as that faith doesn't lead to intolerance, persecution, or denegration of others.

FYI, I do have grounds for belief in the influence of spirits, and other such content seen by many to be mumbo-jumbo worthy of mirth. I'm capable of offering commentary to elucidate this if you or another party so wishes.

Realistically, most, if not all, would mock at the comic. It's presentation even gave me a few chuckles. My argument is the fact that there is an "aspect" of reality to the comic that I don't believe should be mocked. THis aspect is the notion of spirits, and also the mention of the Christ. Again, for me, it wasn't the presence of occult elements that I found amusing. I can neither confirm nor deny the existence of such things, and so I remain comfortably neutral. I'm the Switzerland of the paranormal. I don't know if such things exist, and I am usually skeptical of people that claim to have had experiences with such, simply because they are usually full of it. I admit the possibility, however, that they are not all full of it. In fact, I quietly hope they aren't all full of it, as I find the concept intellectually and ..spiritually? fascinating.

I can't blame you for laughing, but I can ask of readers to take a more serious look at some of the issues therein.
I agree, there were serious issues presented in the comic. Suicide, especially among teenagers, is a very serious subject. If I don't laugh at the comic, though, I'll start to get a bit upset with the fact that they paint a very direct link between D&D and youth suicide. That is just an inflammatory and completely unsupported attack. Even if someone has taken their life and left behind a note that said, "I can't go on. My D&D character has died, and I have nothing else to live for," I would be far, far more concerned with the "I have nothing else to live for" then I would be with the "My D&D character has died" bit. Suicide is hardly ever directly related to a single incident, regardless of how awful and depressing such an incident might be. Rather, it's the culimination of numerous, often countless, events and representations of events from the skewed perspective of the person. To lay something like that at D&D, or Video games, or violent movies, doorstep is just ignorant and slothful. It shows a complete lack of care for uncovering the real motivation behind the action; it only serves to bury the real problem even deeper then it already was.

This thread has become far too serious for the original intent. For my part, I'm sorry. If anyone would like to get the thread back on track with a little pointless laughter, by all means, do so.

Unreg!stered

13-10-2004, 09:41 PM

You can expect more of the same if you continue to post trash threads. Being "cool" is not an enemy of being respectful and tasteful.

While I can't say I know Galron I don't think his intention was to disrespect Christianity. We can all laugh at the zealots. :) Someone who's serious about his faith and understands it through reason and experience is much, much different than that Chick fellow who uses his religion as an excuse for ignorance. No one's laughing at Christ but we are laughing at the poorly presented, pathetically supported arguement Mr. Chick tried to present through his comic. Although in all fairness the essays he linked too were probably worse than his comic. ;)

I think everyone needs to cool their jets a bit. No one's laughing at Christianity, we're just laughing at the people who use it to "support" faulty claims. :thumbsup:

xXxDraGoNxXx1123

13-10-2004, 09:45 PM

This thread has become far too serious for the original intent. For my part, I'm sorry. If anyone would like to get the thread back on track with a little pointless laughter, by all means, do so.

*runs streaking naked through the thread with his incredibly small penis flopping in the wind*

WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!! CHOOO CHOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

*not paying attention, DraGoN runs face first into a tree and is knocked unconcious*

AgeOfAbnegation

13-10-2004, 09:53 PM

You should have left town while there was still time..

While I can't say I know Galron I don't think his intention was to disrespect Christianity.

Of course it wasn't. He's an ignoramus. I doubt anyone would have intentionally posted that on these forums. THere have been a few who are averse to Christianity to the point of openly slandering it, but these forums aren't too bad when it comes to tolerance. He, and now you, need to know that this kind of tread is unacceptable.

We can all laugh at the zealots. :) Someone who's serious about his faith and understands it through reason and experience is much, much different than that Chick fellow who uses his religion as an excuse for ignorance.

Perhaps it's not zealotry.. THat's an assumption you have made. You now fall into a similar boat as Galron, in the sense that you could research the topic a bit more, so as to avoid blanket ignorance of the subject. I'd hardly call a tenet concerning the spititual realm "light".

No one's laughing at Christ but we are laughing at the poorly presented, pathetically supported arguement Mr. Chick tried to present through his comic. Although in all fairness the essays he linked too were probably worse than his comic. ;)

Even so, you now call it poorly represented, but what if it isnt? There really is no excuse for childish mockery. Point things out certainly, but people can do without mockery.

I think everyone needs to cool their jets a bit. No one's laughing at Christianity, we're just laughing at the people who use it to "support" faulty claims. :thumbsup:

If there was anything remotely redeeming in that post, it's wiped away by this frivilous comment. THere's absolutely no excuse to mock a religion to "cool off". Pathetic.

Tevush Kasht

13-10-2004, 10:11 PM

My story starts back in the old days. In those days we didn't have no fancy things like Christianity, morals or, well, fire. We worshipped boom-room, the thunder god. We'd better because he'd strike us down with his mighty lightning if we didn't.
Ten years ago I played in a D&D campaign that was very immersive, with a character I felt really connected to. At some point I would think for days about it (I was 15 years old then), and it was a bit too serious. Now I lead my own campaign, two actually, one in Warcraft and one in a homemade world. It takes a lot of work and a lot of time and thinking to prepare an adventure, especially since I like to set up intrigues and complicated plots that cannot be solved by combat. This makes me look at D&D more like a job I do to provide my friends with a pleasant experience, than as something I can escape in. I now use MMORPG's for that.

Unreg!stered

13-10-2004, 10:24 PM

You should have left town while there was still time..

It's nice to see you too, AoA. :)

Of course it wasn't. He's an ignoramus. I doubt anyone would have intentionally posted that on these forums. THere have been a few who are averse to Christianity to the point of openly slandering it, but these forums aren't too bad when it comes to tolerance. He, and now you, need to know that this kind of tread is unacceptable.

I would agree this kind of thread is unacceptable if there was rampant slander against a particular faith. I don't see it, and I'm pretty sensitive to such things. I'm sorry if this thread and its posters have offended you but you are making connections that aren't there. It would be one thing if people are making fun of particular tennets of Christianity and told you "look, don't take offense" but that is not the case.

Perhaps it's not zealotry.. THat's an assumption you have made. You now fall into a similar boat as Galron, in the sense that you could research the topic a bit more, so as to avoid blanket ignorance of the subject. I'd hardly call a tenet concerning the spititual realm "light".

The zelotry comes from how he presents D&D. He clearly knows little to nothing about what the game is about. Instead of learning so he can make valid arguements he instead makes assumptions of what the game is about and what it does to people based on what best furthers his aims. The issue is not his knowledge of scripture but his knowledge (or lack there of) of the game he's trying to discredit.

Even so, you now call it poorly represented, but what if it isnt? There really is no excuse for childish mockery. Point things out certainly, but people can do without mockery.

How is it not poorly represented? Where are the facts? Where is the reason? Again, this is not in reference to Christianity but his demonization of a game. As for "childish mockery" everyone does a little of that from time to time, even you. The distinction that needs to be made is that neither his faith in Christianity nor Christianity itself is being mocked.

If there was anything remotely redeeming in that post, it's wiped away by this frivilous comment. THere's absolutely no excuse to mock a religion to "cool off". Pathetic.

Again you are either connecting dots that aren't there, or simply connecting them out of order. I never said "Let's mock religion for some light hearted fun," I said let's all cool down the arguements. I then tried to placate the situation by pointing out that no one is attacking Christianity, apparently you assumed I meant something different.

AgeOfAbnegation

13-10-2004, 10:27 PM

Unreg!stered

13-10-2004, 10:45 PM

I'm not going to bother picking you apart - this thread has gone on long enough, with everything said that needed to be said. I explained in my thread to Maullus the problematics involved. If you can't see that, than I truly feel sorry for you.

I read your response to Mallus and I again tell you that no one is mocking Christianity, Christ, the existance of spirits, or anything like that. Your whole arguement has been that we shouldn't mock the faith and that we should take some of the things Mr. Chick says about it seriously. I think everyone agrees that faith and religion should not be mocked, and as I have attested, no one is. I have told you what I found humerous in the comic and it had nothing to do with his religion, his faith, your faith, or Christ. The issue, again, is his blatantly ignorant portrayal of D&D.

As for not bothering to pick me apart, isn't your duty as an enlightened intellectual to correct me if I am wrong? If I am wrong I need to be corrected. It seems that the problem is in interpretation and assumption in which case nothing will be reconciled until we get on the same page. Using the tired old "high ground walk out" tactic of debating won't help solve anything.

Xaf

13-10-2004, 10:54 PM

Lol the internet is great for bringing out the wackos. That site could be used as the poster child for why people dont like christians. Its like the extremist islams.

AgeOfAbnegation

13-10-2004, 11:17 PM

I read your response to Mallus and I again tell you that no one is mocking Christianity, Christ, the existance of spirits, or anything like that. Your whole arguement has been that we shouldn't mock the faith and that we should take some of the things Mr. Chick says about it seriously. I think everyone agrees that faith and religion should not be mocked, and as I have attested, no one is. I have told you what I found humerous in the comic and it had nothing to do with his religion, his faith, your faith, or Christ. The issue, again, is his blatantly ignorant portrayal of D&D.

And I mentioned that the D&D aspect wasn't what was truly at stake. I also posited that there was content in the comic that I believed had substance, such as the deliverance of evil spirits. This aspect was mocked, as it typically is. As you've heard me say before, there are answers. Pietoro put it most succinctly as far as I'm concerned - it was a lame, trash-talk post. Why are you still here trying to label it differently? Are you trying to say I wasn't (or other christians werent) offended?

As for not bothering to pick me apart, isn't your duty as an enlightened intellectual to correct me if I am wrong? If I am wrong I need to be corrected.

Apparently I believed that it was useless to repeat what I had spoken.

AgeOfAbnegation

13-10-2004, 11:19 PM

Lol the internet is great for bringing out the wackos.

Who are these wackos?

That site could be used as the poster child for why people dont like christians. Its like the extremist islams.

It could also be a poster child to demonstrate ignorance.

Xaf

13-10-2004, 11:25 PM

Who are these wackos?

It could also be a poster child to demonstrate ignorance.

The wackos who wrote that comic, and run that site. By wacko i mean has a really scewed sense of reality. And i guess that goes right along with ignorance.

Semidi

13-10-2004, 11:33 PM

http://www.cybermoonstudios.com/8bitDandD.html

Xaf

14-10-2004, 12:19 AM

http://www.cybermoonstudios.com/8bitDandD.html

LOL, that was great.

Raistlin Majere

14-10-2004, 12:26 AM

http://www.cybermoonstudios.com/8bitDandD.html

Yes, blame the Gym Teacher.

Then Durf.

Booms

14-10-2004, 05:31 AM

:lol:

Haha, both of those were funny. AoA, lighten up.

Havard

14-10-2004, 05:36 AM

I just have one question:

Where does Tom Hanks come into this "road to perdition" stuff? Is he the ferryman across the river of fire? :scratch:

Andarcel

14-10-2004, 05:54 AM

Damn, Semedi, you beat me to it.

Drakeon

14-10-2004, 06:22 AM

http://www.cybermoonstudios.com/8bitDandD.html

LMAO

That was funny as hell.

A Thousand Lies

14-10-2004, 06:23 AM

THis just goes to show how the ignorance of this notion coincides with the general haze of ignorance surrounding this kind of thread. The key is in what's highlighted. ANY activity will alter one's perception of reality, but NOTHING can alter logic. Logic is - people simply participate in its use, or they do not. Let's face it - RPG's are a form of escapism. For those especially disposed to escapism, it will indeed cloud the mind to other realities. In some religious circles, similar things can be said. Yet, that doesn't offer grounds for an ignorant chiding of a particular form of belief. Instead of mocking, try asking mature questions to help discover if a given idea is folly.

So now I am ignorant for believing some aspects of Christianity are illogical? Perhaps it is you who should cease the mocking as well as myself.

AgeOfAbnegation

14-10-2004, 06:31 AM

So now I am ignorant for believing some aspects of Christianity are illogical? Perhaps it is you who should cease the mocking as well as myself.

What aspect are you referring to, just for the sake of clarity. You were likely caught up in the toon, which was funny. As I mentioned, it's got nothing to do with D&D. What I was referring to was criticizing aspects of christianity you don't understand.

Lazzmodai

14-10-2004, 06:50 AM

None of this is even coming near what I think to be the most dangerous part of fundamentalism like this, especially Christian.. It is completely slanderous and derogatory of what is recognized as a perfectly viable spiritual path. From wiccan to druidry to native religions worldwide, There are hundreds of millions of pagan practitioners who have been mocked and desecrated by **** like this for hundreds of years. And yet, we're the bad guys.. go figure. Maybe I'll come around when the large majority of christians embrace an ecological and (God forbid) open sense of the sacred.

A Thousand Lies

14-10-2004, 07:03 AM

What aspect are you referring to, just for the sake of clarity. You were likely caught up in the toon, which was funny. As I mentioned, it's got nothing to do with D&D. What I was referring to was criticizing aspects of christianity you don't understand.

The fact that people are positive that "God" exists and sometimes try and force this belief on others when there is no concrete proof would be the main point.

AgeOfAbnegation

14-10-2004, 07:08 AM

The fact that people are positive that "God" exists and sometimes try and force this belief on others when there is no concrete proof would be the main point.

Ok. I can't prove God exists, so there. Nobody can prove it. To offer a proof that you demand can only come by means of the scientific method. The scientific method asks for data that comes from things "below us", such as sensibles, and the concepts that come from that. The only way we could "prove God" is to become God. Interestingly enough, that is a principle doctrine in Christianity, the Holy Spirit. As for forcing belief, there have indeed been unenlightened zealots, who have done this out of fear, and not for love - as love cant be forced. If there were something to be forced however, it's the sheer "reality" we live in, with its own inherent laws.

Lazzmodai

14-10-2004, 07:15 AM

The fact that people are positive that "God" exists and sometimes try and force this belief on others when there is no concrete proof would be the main point.
Proof dispels faith. Spirituality is the study of faith. Read the Hitchhiker's Guide for a good anaogly employing translator fish.

A Thousand Lies

14-10-2004, 07:19 AM

But am I still ignorant?

AgeOfAbnegation

14-10-2004, 07:31 AM

The ignorance comes in with mockery. The act of mocking implies a certain knowledge, or "mastery" over a given subject. With this power over that subject, mocking comes easily if that subject is deemed unworthy of respect. The problem here is the fact that the mocking came unfounded. Fact of the matter is, nobody should mock realities that are higher than them, such as reference to spirits, etc - there is no grounds for it. Furthermore, it's also folly to mock the lack thereof, as that too cannot be proven and mastered by means of the scientific method.

Galron Kincaid

14-10-2004, 10:57 AM

You can expect more of the same if you continue to post trash threads. Being "cool" is not an enemy of being respectful and tasteful.

Laughable.

You do NOT know me.... yet you call me a fool, an "ignoramus" (how dare you call me ignorant, you ineducated troll?).... then other people try to discuss with you, and you call them pathetic......

and then you start talking about RESPECT?

You have respect in NO ONE and NOTHING. On what basis? Oh yes.... your almighty intelligence.

:lol:

I opened that thread because i found something f-u-n-n-y. And i thought it could amuse others.

And the funniest thing is that the people who did that funny thing are SERIOUS about it.

But no! You had to take the topic to ANOTHER ball-disgregating philo-religious argument to write PILES OF KRAP about. Just because you are irritated by what you call "mockery" (i for one, call it Genuine Laughter).

On top of that, you pretend to know the ultimate motivations behind my post..... according to you i post stuff like that to "be cool".... ppppffffff laughable again.
I post stuff like that because it's funny to me (and to all the other people in this thread, it seems.

AoA.... you indeed ARE smart and acculturated.... and i envy that.

But if being smart and acculturated makes you lose any DECENCY as a person..... then i think i'll stick with my "average brains/lots of brawn" configuration.

:)

ScytheNoire

14-10-2004, 11:21 AM

Ok. I can't prove God exists, so there. Nobody can prove it. To offer a proof that you demand can only come by means of the scientific method. The scientific method asks for data that comes from things "below us", such as sensibles, and the concepts that come from that. The only way we could "prove God" is to become God. Interestingly enough, that is a principle doctrine in Christianity, the Holy Spirit. As for forcing belief, there have indeed been unenlightened zealots, who have done this out of fear, and not for love - as love cant be forced. If there were something to be forced however, it's the sheer "reality" we live in, with its own inherent laws.

The ignorance comes in with mockery. The act of mocking implies a certain knowledge, or "mastery" over a given subject. With this power over that subject, mocking comes easily if that subject is deemed unworthy of respect. The problem here is the fact that the mocking came unfounded. Fact of the matter is, nobody should mock realities that are higher than them, such as reference to spirits, etc - there is no grounds for it. Furthermore, it's also folly to mock the lack thereof, as that too cannot be proven and mastered by means of the scientific method.

you are like some rubber man, whatever you say bounces off of me and smacks you upside the head. :lol:

God can not be proven or disproven, thus, the term i use is Agnostic, as i don't know and may never know. but that's okay, i can wait until i'm old and then get religious, as most elderly tend to do, or so it seems.

but, if God does judge one by their deeds, then i'm in good standing. if the most important thing is how you treat your fellow person rather than how much you pray or go to church, then i'm in good standing. but if the only way to be a good person is to go to church and spread the word, that's where i start to have issues.

here's what i find interesting. if someone can believe in UFO's, ghosts, aliens, the Lochness monster, and any number of unproven things, then why wouldn't they be able to believe in God? by nature, to believe in any and all of those, especially ghosts, would require the acceptance of things that cannot be proven to exist. there is as much proof in any of those that there is in God.

so what went wrong? why are there people who are turned off by religion, such as myself?

Zealots. the idea that their way is the right way and all others are wrong. the idea that you have to believe in what they believe, there is no personal freedom of thought, and so there is only one way. this is what turns people off, this is where problems arise.

when you have someone of power, such as Bush, who forces their religious beliefs onto others, this is when problems arise. by forcing their views onto others, they are only making the fight worse, the seperation more prominent.

so that is where the problem arises. i personally find Catholics less offensive than Christians, but i think a lot could be learned from Buhdists.

but when you see people slaughtering others in the middle-east in the name of religion, it really makes you question the validity of it all. there have been more people killed in the name of Gods than over any other purpose, ever.
so if so many people die for various Gods, how can that make it right? i thought God was suppose to love all? all the violence goes directly against the Bible. so if it's okay to go against your teachings in this matter, what other things are being ignored in the name of their self-righteous goals?

this is where religion fails. religion fails when it becomes absolute and inflexible. religion fails when it becomes law instead of a moral compass. religion fails when it is forced upon those who do not want it to be forced upon them.
and this is why mankind is falling apart.

WiglyWorm

14-10-2004, 11:49 AM

We can all laugh at the zealots. Someone who's serious about his faith and understands it through reason and experience is much, much different than that Chick fellow who uses his religion as an excuse for ignorance.

Excuse Mr. Chick for looking out for everyone's soul. How dare someone try to spare you eternal damnation by telling you the -in his eyes- essentials everyone needs to do to get to heaven. Accept Jesus, keep away from sin and temptation.

So now I am ignorant for believing some aspects of Christianity are illogical?

Pardon me for asking.. but would you be willing to offer me some instances of Christianity that are illogical? I hear constantly from anti-christians that "the bible contradicts itself" so forth and so on, yet i have yet for anyone to give me two contradictory bible verses. I've read not all, but a fairly decent portion of the bible, and i've yet to uncover anything.

Yet, at the same time i understand why people sometimes look down at christianity, unfortunatley, most of it is misunderstanding, misconception, and/or looking at the radicals and thinking they are the majority. This is the same sort of ideals that leads to people saying "All Islamics are violent" or "All blacks are ignorant/dumb/criminals" and it is just plain false.

Yes, there are certain people in Christianity who will "shove their religion down your throat" I'm sorry though if you either lack the open-mindedness to hear them or the courage to tell them (or perhaps it wouldn't be the truth to tell them?) that you have your own religious ideals, wich you believe with 100% of your very being and that you don't need or want to hear their veiws.. Of course.. what's wrong with hearing someone elses veiws in a mature and sensible manner if you are 100% commited to your views? I'm Christian, my sister is Wiccan, we can have theological conversations with no problems, and i'm sure you can do the same with most any Christian if you have an ounce of respect for others opinions.

Ok. I can't prove God exists, so there.

No man can prove God's existence to another. That is not to say there is no proof of God's existence. I've seen it, as have many others. The trick is, it can be given to no one except through God himself. I went through a long period of my life where I doubted Christianity, tried out agnosticism, Wicca, atheism, WiglyWorm Custom Faith® v1.0, WiglyWorm Custom Faith® v2.0, and finally back to Christianity. Through my years of soul searching I finally found "the truth" (in quotes simply not to offend anyone here because i know some people don't want to see my version of the truth as their own, wich is find) everyone must find God for themselves. It's as simple as that. No one can have faith handed to them, I wish it were that easy, it would have saved me many mistakes.

Anyway..
I've read most of the Chick's Tracts posted on that site, and yes.. he's a loon in some repsects. He has a very conservative view, one that i've seen in others and I believe I can understand. Granted he is not well informed on some of the issues he tries to tackle, but from people of that mindset (or at least the mindset I've seen that I think best corrolates to his own) think it better to avoid any shot at temptation than risk falling into it. I can't say I blame him. I can respect his views, though I do find the Tracts themselves to be laughable in most instances you should understand that he is doing what he can in the way he feels he should to reach out to people and help to save them from going to Hell. Is that worth mockery? I think not. Is that worth peoples scorn and cruel laughter? I think not.

Not long ago on the GU forums, there was a discussion about Chick Tracts not too long ago, and people were much more.. civil? informed? I'm not sure the exact word I should use but suffice it to say, rather than just laugh they engaged in actuall discussion of [url=http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1053/1053_01.asp]the tract[url].

In short, while I see the majorities point in all this, I have to side with Pietoro, and even if i don't agree with the style, with many of AoA's points as well.

Edit:
Scythe.. you beat me to a well formed (in your typical style :thumbsup:) post, however.. at first glance it practically begs for personal opinion from a Christian.. I'm more than happy to share my views without a flame-fest, i just want to make sure that your questions were not rhetorical first.

AgeOfAbnegation

14-10-2004, 12:55 PM

Laughable.

You do NOT know me.... yet you call me a fool, an "ignoramus" (how dare you call me ignorant, you ineducated troll?).... then other people try to discuss with you, and you call them pathetic......

My commentary is not based on knowing a person, but rather on their text.

and then you start talking about RESPECT?

You have respect in NO ONE and NOTHING. On what basis? Oh yes.... your almighty intelligence.

I'd be more inclined to offer you more respect if you refrained from making sweeping statements like that. Who's to say what I respect and do not, and furthermore, what is it to you?

I opened that thread because i found something f-u-n-n-y. And i thought it could amuse others.

And the funniest thing is that the people who did that funny thing are SERIOUS about it.

But no! You had to take the topic to ANOTHER ball-disgregating philo-religious argument to write PILES OF KRAP about. Just because you are irritated by what you call "mockery" (i for one, call it Genuine Laughter).

I can't see that offering any remedy to the situation. If you wanted to clear things up, you may wish to attack my argument.

On top of that, you pretend to know the ultimate motivations behind my post..... according to you i post stuff like that to "be cool".... ppppffffff laughable again.
I post stuff like that because it's funny to me (and to all the other people in this thread, it seems.

Actually I mentioned in an earlier post that I didn't believe anyone - including you - would have done something out of malice. You may want to look at your tendency for sweeping remarks more closely.

AoA.... you indeed ARE smart and acculturated.... and i envy that.

But if being smart and acculturated makes you lose any DECENCY as a person..... then i think i'll stick with my "average brains/lots of brawn" configuration.

:)

You do that, but in doing so, don't expect to be going anywhere fast. After all, you did step on a few toes, not only mine. I don't start rediculous threads, I only finish them. As for decency, I've never been one to detract from a human person's dignity. Most, if not all my commentaries have to do with building up the human race, not shutting it down. Remember that when the next abortion thread or w/e arises. "gg".

AgeOfAbnegation

14-10-2004, 01:03 PM

this is where religion fails. religion fails when it becomes absolute and inflexible. religion fails when it becomes law instead of a moral compass. religion fails when it is forced upon those who do not want it to be forced upon them.
and this is why mankind is falling apart.

If I ascribed to that particular outlook on religion, I would agree. It would fail if forced, most certainly. What has humanity done (or failed to do) to lose the true essence of religion? Or perhaps it's there after all, but what have we individuals done (or failed to do) to lose sight of it?

Galron Kincaid

14-10-2004, 01:54 PM

Fine. It ends here.

Thanks for ****ing up my thread anyway :thumbsup:

Xaf

14-10-2004, 01:59 PM

this is where religion fails. religion fails when it becomes absolute and inflexible. religion fails when it becomes law instead of a moral compass. religion fails when it is forced upon those who do not want it to be forced upon them.
and this is why mankind is falling apart.

Ok i know this has nothing to do with what you guys are talking about, but im just wondering how mankind is falling apart. I mean are we worse off than we were 100 years ago, or 1000 years ago? The only real difference in my opinion is that we have better technology.

A Thousand Lies

14-10-2004, 02:16 PM

ScytheNoire

14-10-2004, 02:41 PM

Ok i know this has nothing to do with what you guys are talking about, but im just wondering how mankind is falling apart. I mean are we worse off than we were 100 years ago, or 1000 years ago? The only real difference in my opinion is that we have better technology.
we aren't progressing in many fields beyond medical and technology, and even those fields are being threatened by religion. that's what i take issue with, when religion wants to dictate science. i think they can get along, as science will never be able to prove or disprove the existance of a God. but when religion dictates what science can and cannot do, i take issue with that.

it's odd how some people fight so hard for human life, in the name of their God, and yet they'd think nothing of killing someone like an abortion doctor or shock jock. they think they are above the law, that they can kill because they are morality police. this is what people take issue with, and this is one way mankind is falling apart.

religion is causing wars, as it always has. it is the backbone of the power of terrorism, and that is something so many are failing to realize. you cannot win the war on terrorism because it is a religious war. this is a problem, yet no one wants to stand up and admit that it's a religious war and one that is very deep and at the very heart why Bush is bad for America.

Kronious

14-10-2004, 03:34 PM

You are right in many of your statements on "religion" ScytheNoire. But what you forget or dont know ScytheNoire is that "religion" has two fronts Almight God's and Satan's. Almight God's religion is sending a positive message of hope for the future of mankind thru His Kingdom and doesnt mettle in human politics or violence. Satan's on the other hand is trying to destort the true "religion" with his false christian beliefs doing two things 1. Making many forms of "religion" Diverting people away from the truth one 2. Making the counterfiet "religion" seem in the end hypcritical and worthless or blatanly wrong in the end confusing and angering people.
This was prophesied in the so called "story book" the Bible a 900yrs ago.
quote:
"For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself keeps transforming himself into an angel of light. It is therefore nothing great if his ministers also keep transforming themselves into ministers of righteousness. But their end shall be according to their works."

Kronious

14-10-2004, 03:37 PM

Fine. It ends here.

Thanks for ****ing up my thread anyway :thumbsup:

sorry but had to answer

Umm ya go!!! D&D ya woot :thumbsup:

AgeOfAbnegation

14-10-2004, 04:02 PM

we aren't progressing in many fields beyond medical and technology, and even those fields are being threatened by religion. that's what i take issue with, when religion wants to dictate science. i think they can get along, as science will never be able to prove or disprove the existance of a God. but when religion dictates what science can and cannot do, i take issue with that.

It would depend on what particular religion, but for the record, I don't recall any disagreement with Christianity to science in contemporary times. Islam and Judaeism usually don't discuss any conflicts either, as their faiths emphasize the temporal life, which kept at its own, avoids discussion of metaphysics. Eastern religions are the opposite, with an attempt at the theoretical only, yet this unspeculative venture is still wrought from empiricism.

it's odd how some people fight so hard for human life, in the name of their God, and yet they'd think nothing of killing someone like an abortion doctor or shock jock. they think they are above the law, that they can kill because they are morality police. this is what people take issue with, and this is one way mankind is falling apart.

religion is causing wars, as it always has. it is the backbone of the power of terrorism, and that is something so many are failing to realize. you cannot win the war on terrorism because it is a religious war. this is a problem, yet no one wants to stand up and admit that it's a religious war and one that is very deep and at the very heart why Bush is bad for America.

I think the term "religion" need not be inserted here, as there will always be a cause, or desire that people will fight for, even if that's a passive, disinterested lifestyle. What you're attacking here is a crystallized representation of an inherent reality.

ScytheNoire

14-10-2004, 06:37 PM

It would depend on what particular religion, but for the record, I don't recall any disagreement with Christianity to science in contemporary times. Islam and Judaeism usually don't discuss any conflicts either, as their faiths emphasize the temporal life, which kept at its own, avoids discussion of metaphysics. Eastern religions are the opposite, with an attempt at the theoretical only, yet this unspeculative venture is still wrought from empiricism.

I think the term "religion" need not be inserted here, as there will always be a cause, or desire that people will fight for, even if that's a passive, disinterested lifestyle. What you're attacking here is a crystallized representation of an inherent reality.
crystallized representation of an inherent reality?
does your mother know you talk like that? shame on you.

i do recall recent disagreements between Christianity and science. Creationism being forced into schools in the southern USA and being taught as though it is a science. yes, it has happened and continues to happen. and then there is that whole stem-cell research thingie.

but to deny that religion is the cause of more conflict is silly. please tell me something that has caused more wars and deaths than religion.

Sage the Mage

14-10-2004, 06:43 PM

The World Wars, and the Civil War?

ScytheNoire

14-10-2004, 06:46 PM

The World Wars, and the Civil War?
ah, nice try, but incorrect.
there were religious undertones to the WW's, but i would agree that they are more social related than anything else. but, there was still religious persecution based on race, since it would be hard to deny that Jews or Japanese were following the same religion as those who were fighting them.

and the Civil War was much like today's political climate, and religion was a focal point. if the south had won, it would be a much different America, one without even 1/10th of the freedoms people have today. while it did have social and political reasons, religion was also involved very deeply.

AgeOfAbnegation

14-10-2004, 07:09 PM

i do recall recent disagreements between Christianity and science. Creationism being forced into schools in the southern USA and being taught as though it is a science. yes, it has happened and continues to happen. and then there is that whole stem-cell research thingie.

Creationism is a term that has many meanings attached to it these days. Evolution is not problematic, so long as it allows for an initial creation of species (this can be demonstrated by means of reason).

but to deny that religion is the cause of more conflict is silly. please tell me something that has caused more wars and deaths than religion.

More than cigarettes, in some cases :p.

Blackmoon

14-10-2004, 08:36 PM

Maullus

14-10-2004, 08:42 PM

Greetings,

but to deny that religion is the cause of more conflict is silly. please tell me something that has caused more wars and deaths than religion.

Money.

Or, if not exactly money, economic interests. I think many wars, even those with religious overtones, can be explained from an economic standpoint, with religion being dragged into the middle as a scapegoat and justification.

"We're going to war... with the infidels!"
"Why?"
"Well, we want their gold/resources/land/oil... but really, it's because they're infidels!"
:scratch:

This might seem contradictory, but I agree with just about everything else you'd said, Scythe.

Excuse Mr. Chick for looking out for everyone's soul. How dare someone try to spare you eternal damnation by telling you the -in his eyes- essentials everyone needs to do to get to heaven. Accept Jesus, keep away from sin and temptation.

I'm sorry, but using the justification of "redeeming" people and "saving their souls from eternal damnation" can excuse an awful lot of nasty stuff. In this case, it's being used to explain an unwarranted attack on an innocent hobby, pagan (non-Christian) religions, and, peripherally, rock music. Just look to history for more examples... people have a tendency to shift things around until their desires coincide with their beliefs. Such as wanting a piece of land, and saying that it is ok to take it because it is only occupied by heathens. Eradicating cultures, eradicating people... that's just the tip of the iceburg.

I'm not saying religion is inherently bad. I'm not denying the vast amount of 'good' that has resulted from religious institutions. I am, however, saying that I see nothing but negative consequences when people, like this Mr. Chick, take it to the extreme.

Lazzmodai

14-10-2004, 09:27 PM

AgeOfAbnegation

14-10-2004, 09:31 PM

Before I reply to this.. are you actually serious, or just kidding?

Out of curiousity, why would you be scared if he were serious?

Lazzmodai

14-10-2004, 09:33 PM

AgeOfAbnegation

14-10-2004, 09:36 PM

Not scared. Upset. Violated, even. Referencing what I deeply consider divine in conjunction with some quasi-personification of absolute evil who is really just a bastardization of the pagan horned god is offensive to me.

Perhaps what you consider divine IS a quazi-something something.. If so, could you handle facing up to that?

Lazzmodai

14-10-2004, 09:47 PM

See, this is where faith comes in. I know that my beliefs are my spiritual truth. Now as hard as it is to accept it, I have to believe that christian fundamentalism is there for some people to believe in as the absolute truth. And that's fine. What I can't abide by is the desecration or disrespect of any other path one might take. ANYONE who claims to be religious or spiritual must have questioned their faith. In doing so, they must realize that coming to one's road spiritually speaking is a long and very hard process. It hurts, and it takes patience. So.. knowing that, they should innately be respectful of anyone's claimed concept of divinity, if that person is indeed exressing it seriously and truthfully.

So when someone starts in on counterfeit religions and apostles and satan and all the other rhetoric I'm so likely to hear here and out in the real world, I take it personally. It is a flat and blatant dismissal of what has truly been a life quest. HOW DARE ANYONE so casually dismiss what I have pondered and questioned and fought for my entire time as a person on this earth??

There are two conclusions that I can see. One, this person has not come to this faith, but blindly follows it for whatever reason. Two, it is a display of absolute zealotry, which is quite frankly disgusting.

AgeOfAbnegation

14-10-2004, 10:02 PM

I'm in a socratic mood..

See, this is where faith comes in. I know that my beliefs are my spiritual truth.

Rather, your perceived experience that you've accepted as a truth for your life. That term would be more appropriate, as "spiritual truth" sounds objective.

Now as hard as it is to accept it, I have to believe that christian fundamentalism is there for some people to believe in as the absolute truth.

Don't all Christians believe in absolute truth?

And that's fine. What I can't abide by is the desecration or disrespect of any other path one might take. ANYONE who claims to be religious or spiritual must have questioned their faith. In doing so, they must realize that coming to one's road spiritually speaking is a long and very hard process. It hurts, and it takes patience. So.. knowing that, they should innately be respectful of anyone's claimed concept of divinity, if that person is indeed exressing it seriously and truthfully.

A person's life is indeed their own, but could it be possible to be deceived? Scripture is very prolific about deception and false teachers. It also explains that these people will believe their correct (indeed, everyone does believe they are correct, or they would change their position).

So when someone starts in on counterfeit religions and apostles and satan and all the other rhetoric

Again, it may not be rhetoric. Can you be open and honest enough to be objective?

I'm so likely to hear here and out in the real world, I take it personally. It is a flat and blatant dismissal of what has truly been a life quest. HOW DARE ANYONE so casually dismiss what I have pondered and questioned and fought for my entire time as a person on this earth??

lol, it happens all the time on these forums :lol:. One thing I'd add, and if you forget everything else, remember this.. The truth neither fears, nor is offended by, its detractors. Your detractors are still a part of your path. It is yours, and it also is not yours. Only God holds onto reality in its fullest extent.

There are two conclusions that I can see. One, this person has not come to this faith, but blindly follows it for whatever reason. Two, it is a display of absolute zealotry, which is quite frankly disgusting.

Well, I'll say that all posters here are zealots. Zealous for a particular aspect or understanding. The most "tolerant" people are the most zealous. An adherence to a moderate outlook is zealous, in the emaciation of certain fundamental tenets. Do we truly have power to detract from these? What purpose do our beliefs serve? WHy be offended at this? This is part of your journey.

Lazzmodai

14-10-2004, 10:26 PM

See, now you've gone and quoted all of those sentences and stuff, and I can't do anything but quickreply cause I'm posting from work, but I'll give it a shot....

Rather, your perceived experience that you've accepted as a truth for your life. That term would be more appropriate, as "spiritual truth" sounds objective.

This is where we differ. I believe that everyone finds their own path to God, to the sacred. And whatever path you choose, and you follow is your spiritual truth. The cool thing about spirituality is that many different and even contradicting approaches can all be right. Because of faith.

Don't all Christians believe in absolute truth?

Yes. Or at least all those serious about their faith. And I have no beef with that. In fact I respect this.

A person's life is indeed their own, but could it be possible to be deceived? Scripture is very prolific about deception and false teachers. It also explains that these people will believe their correct (indeed, everyone does believe they are correct, or they would change their position).

Embracing spirituality should imbue one with a certain sense of tolerance. Contrary to what we see every damned day across the globe, true spirituality of whatever creed, dialect, faction or flavour should foster and promote peace and understanding. Interfaith dialogue is more important now than it ever has been. And that sure as heck won't happen with people running around trying to set fire to people who don't think exactly as they do. I've been publicly accused of heresy, and had holy water thrown at me. Seriously.

Again, it may not be rhetoric. Can you be open and honest enough to be objective?

Absolutely. And when a person gives their opinion rationally and without malice or insult, I will gladly entertain it, listen to it, and ponder it. It can only help my spirituality evolve and grow in search of truth. And this is what I mean by challenging your faith. When someone waves crucifixes in front of me and backs away, they are obviously showing a great deal of fear.

lol, it happens all the time on these forums . One thing I'd add, and if you forget everything else, remember this.. The truth neither fears, nor is offended by, its detractors. Your detractors are still a part of your path. It is yours, and it also is not yours. Only God holds onto reality in its fullest extent.

Truth does indeed not fear. I'm offended because of the all out mockery of my faith. It doesn't really have anything to do with a challenge of my beliefs, so much as the journey and effort I've put in to get there. It's like if I were to spend a good portion of my life building a house by hand and by myself, and then someone comes along and starts spouting off about how it's in the wrong zone and it's bad and should be torn down. I don't question the quality of the workmanship of the house, but I am upset that it is so blatantly dismissed. A poor analogy, I know, but I think it gets the point across.

Well, I'll say that all posters here are zealots. Zealous for a particular aspect or understanding. The most "tolerant" people are the most zealous. An adherence to a moderate outlook is zealous, in the emaciation of certain fundamental tenets. Do we truly have power to detract from these? What purpose do our beliefs serve? WHy be offended at this? This is part of your journey.

No argument here. But you're citing a textbook definition, while I refer to the common accepted definition which is roughly religious fanaticism and fervor. Which is again something I have no beef with, as long as it remains respectful of everyone else.

The arguments you've put forward re: fear and truth and acceptance of a new viewpoint might better be directed to my opposition. I think you might find them more appropriate to their original post.

Andarcel

15-10-2004, 01:03 AM

please tell me something that has caused more wars and deaths than religion. Money. Power. Land. Trade. Imperialism. Nationalism.

The world wars ha religious undertones? Religion was the cause of the Pacific War? Religion caused the Civil War?

See, I could on about how the Jews were persecuted because of their ethnicity, how the ****s shunned and derided anything having to do with Christianity, how religion never even entered into the calculations of the Japanese in attacking Pearl Harbor, and how both sides of the Civil War were predominantly Christian, buit there's no point. You don't care about facts, and when you do employ them your logic is so bad you might as well stick to making them up. Like, "There would be different religious attitudes in the US today of the South had won, therefore religion was clearly the cause of the war!"

Oh, well, I guess there has to be a powermonger for the liberal side, and you've filled that role ably for a long time. Of course, had you been born in Texas, I'm sure you would have held the opposite views with equal conviction.

Lazzmodai

15-10-2004, 01:14 AM

AgeOfAbnegation

15-10-2004, 01:16 AM

You've done a good job answering (except for the textbook definition thing). This is the only real point of contention, though it is a very potent one.

This is where we differ. I believe that everyone finds their own path to God, to the sacred. And whatever path you choose, and you follow is your spiritual truth. The cool thing about spirituality is that many different and even contradicting approaches can all be right. Because of faith.

The question is faith in what. Truth, as you attested to, is universal. From what I gather here, each person "participates" in their own share of the "divine". The problematic enters the picture with the highlighted part. This could be accurate only insofar as that there are different starting points, but all leading to one solution or "truth". If you're of this persuasion, than there's no disagreement. However, if each "personal truth" does not coincide with the "eternal, universal truth", your outlook is in dire need of revision.

ScytheNoire

15-10-2004, 01:18 AM

this thread hurts my head
i like cheese

Lazzmodai

15-10-2004, 01:25 AM

The question is faith in what. Truth, as you attested to, is universal. From what I gather here, each person "participates" in their own share of the "divine". The problematic enters the picture with the highlighted part. This could be accurate only insofar as that there are different starting points, but all leading to one solution or "truth". If you're of this persuasion, than there's no disagreement. However, if each "personal truth" does not coincide with the "eternal, universal truth", your outlook is in dire need of revision.

You've pinpointed it exactly. Anyone who takes their faith seriously should be investing a great deal of themselves into it. It's like a mountain. You can choose whichever path you would like to follow. Some people travel path A, some path B, etc. And each person will find a path that works for them, although it won't for everyone. But the pinnacle, the top, is still the goal. You can call this enlightenment or whatever, I honestly haven't come close to tackling exactly what the endgame of the sacred involves, and I probably won't reach that point for many years, but the point is the same. No one path is better or worse than another objectively speaking, but each must find his/her own path.

The inherent difficulty is that very, very few people actually take their faith seriously, whatever faith that may be.

Havard

15-10-2004, 01:26 AM

You need to go back a ways. Check the history books. If you take the last 5000 years and look at the reasoning for the very large majority of wars, is indeed religion. remember, it really hasn't been that long since we've separated church and state.

Religion, like any ideology (e.g., Naz ism, Fascism, Communism, Imperialism), is just the excuse despots use to rally the people. The real motivation is always POWER.

Kronious

15-10-2004, 02:38 AM

Not scared. Upset. Violated, even. Referencing what I deeply consider divine in conjunction with some quasi-personification of absolute evil who is really just a bastardization of the pagan horned god is offensive to me.

I didnt say Satan was at all equal to God Almighty, Satan didnt challege God's power, but he challege God's right to rule and thats what it comes down to sovereignty,who has the right to rule. Remember there was the tree Adam and Eve was not allowed to touch which was called the tree of good and bad which was a simple test to show that God decides what is right and what is wrong for us hence rulership. Satan lied and said if you eat from that tree your eyes are bound to be open and be like God hence self rulership. And that reason that why God has not not done anything until now, He has allow Satan and man to try every form of rulership & without success.

Lazzmodai

15-10-2004, 02:41 AM

You're speaking to me as if you assume I'm Christian. I'm not. I don't believe in *any* kind of absolute evil, or in the concepts of heaven and hell. So if you believe what you're saying, that's fine. But please keep respect for others' faiths. We're not all christian. Additionally, it might do you some good to read up on some of the more esoteric faiths of the world. Empowering yourself with knowledge of differing takes on the divine can only serve to strengthen your faith.

AgeOfAbnegation

15-10-2004, 02:45 AM

God has not not done anything until now

I know you know this, but God "did alot" :p. As for trying every other form of rulership, that's inaccurate. Do you think human nature would ever learn? We don't care what system is in place, only that there's a system that offers us some measure of sanity/stability. Rather, Eternal life is in our hands "now", and the rulership that's already in place by Christ, is present in a new dynamic that's called the transformation of our inner selves (and ultimately the whole self). It can work in many political schemas, since they are composed of people. Ultimately however, new political establishments can and will arise in time, if the personal is attended to first. Anyway, I'm sure you somehow meant to get the point across.

AgeOfAbnegation

15-10-2004, 02:47 AM

BTW Lazz there has to be an "absolute evil", defined only by the lack of an absolute good or truth, which you ascribe to. :p

Booms

15-10-2004, 02:52 AM

I didnt say Satan was at all equal to God Almighty, Satan didnt challege God's power, but he challege God's right to rule and thats what it comes down to sovereignty,who has the right to rule. Remember there was the tree Adam and Eve was not allowed to touch which was called the tree of good and bad which was a simple test to show that God decides what is right and what is wrong for us hence rulership. Satan lied and said if you eat from that tree your eyes are bound to be open and be like God hence self rulership. And that reason that why God has not not done anything until now, He has allow Satan and man to try every form of rulership & without success.

I thought it was the Tree of Knowledge.

Lazzmodai

15-10-2004, 03:02 AM

Not so. Truth does not nessecarily correlate with "good". At least as far as my belief goes, there is a duality to life and everything that encompasses. There is good and bad, male and female, light and dark. All things in balance. No representation of absolute good, no representation of absolute evil. Only the struggle for balance. Sacred encompasses all aspects.

Sage the Mage

15-10-2004, 03:07 AM

Religion, like any ideology (e.g., Naz ism, Fascism, Communism, Imperialism), is just the excuse despots use to rally the people. The real motivation is always POWER.

Yeah power struggles are the source of most international conflicts I'd say. Then again, Hitler did love his cocaine, meth, and laxitives!

However, I see zero connection between religion and WW1. You can sorta make the claim that religion was a little part of the basis of the American Civil War, but its not that much. Then we get to Scythe saying that the Civil War would have limited freedoms if the South won...I don't think we need to discuss that :)

Lazzmodai

15-10-2004, 03:09 AM

Yeah power struggles are the source of most international conflicts I'd say. Then again, Hitler did love his cocaine, meth, and laxitives!

However, I see zero connection between religion and WW1. You can sorta make the claim that religion was a little part of the basis of the American Civil War, but its not that much. Then we get to Scythe saying that the Civil War would have limited freedoms if the South won...I don't think we need to discuss that :)
As the world becomes more and more seccular, so do its' conflicts.

Raistlin Majere

15-10-2004, 03:19 AM

I thought it was the Tree of Knowledge.
It matters on what branch of christainity you look at.

crap, this thread is turning into a religous debate. :rant:

Andarcel

15-10-2004, 03:33 AM

Booms

15-10-2004, 03:34 AM

It matters on what branch of christainity you look at.

crap, this thread is turning into a religous debate. :rant:

Oh. I only have the Jewish perspective when it comes to this stuff, so I don't know what changes the Christians made to the Torah. Of course, I come from a very reform temple, so I don't really know too much about the Torah either.

AgeOfAbnegation

15-10-2004, 04:49 AM

Not so. Truth does not nessecarily correlate with "good".

Yes, it most certainly does. You've stayed under the radar for a while, but it was only a matter of time. "The good" is in accord with what is. Truth, is in accord with what is. Your problematic comes in when you consider what "good" is. Good is not ordered to personal taste, as some would have it, but is reflective of an objective reality. As such, it is inseparable from truth.

At least as far as my belief goes, there is a duality to life and everything that encompasses.

You may not like to hear this, but eastern mysticism has clouded your judgment. What's at stake here is the nature of duality. This flows from the concepts of the universal and the particular. You would assert what the easterns do, which to be frank, is total folly. In essence, the argument is that everything - good, bad, light, dark, etc, is all part of a universal whole. As such, it must be all. Yet, they assume that the temporal, conceptual, and dynamic universe is eternal. This cannot be. To be eternal, there must be no concepts, no definiton, no change, no movement. The folly of eastern paths is a metaphysical one. I sincerely hope after all the posts that follow this (cuz I'll answer each one), you'll rescind your following of whatever eastern doctrines you've adhered to, because they can't stand up to reason. Please don't be like some others, and end up stating in the end that you "don't care", because I know you do.

There is good and bad, male and female, light and dark. All things in balance. No representation of absolute good, no representation of absolute evil. Only the struggle for balance. Sacred encompasses all aspects.

Unbelievable, sweeping assertions. You sound like a yoga guru. This is terribly ironic, as I just posted that an eternal reality would have no concept of definition. You've just posted that this world of concept, definiton, and temporal movement and change is like (or is) an eternal reality!

Anyway, the subject of the eastern religions can be touchy around here, because many of my readers are adherents to them, in one way or another - mostly adherents of a pop culture-eastern mysticism phenomenon. This offers a cathartic "haze" and glazing over an otherwise seeming chaotic and problematic world. It's an intellectual heroin shot.

Lazzmodai

15-10-2004, 05:54 AM

Give me one example besides the crusades. The hundred years war would serve, I believe.

And AoA, sorry, I'm leaving for the evening and don't have time to properly answer. But I will, and I look forward to continuing this discussion! :)

Semidi

15-10-2004, 05:59 AM

Oh. I only have the Jewish perspective when it comes to this stuff, so I don't know what changes the Christians made to the Torah. Of course, I come from a very reform temple, so I don't really know too much about the Torah either.

We use the same copy to the word.(translated to english)

We use the Law, Prophetic books, and histories also.

Catholics use a few others that I can't remember 1&2 macabees comes to mind.

WiglyWorm

15-10-2004, 08:56 AM

Remember there was the tree Adam and Eve was not allowed to touch which was called the tree of good and bad which was a simple test to show that God decides what is right and what is wrong for us hence rulership. Satan lied and said if you eat from that tree your eyes are bound to be open and be like God hence self rulership.

Just a couple corrections. The tree was called "The tree of knowledge of good and evil" the ramifications of wich are pretty stagering. As long as we (humans) didn't eat from that tree we'd all be as innocent as babes to this day. Unfortunatley, the devil came and tempted eve, who ate the fruit and got adam to as well. God then threw them out of the Garden for fear they'd eat from the tree of life and thus become like God.

AoA.. hate to say it.. but IMO change, the stuggle for balance [is] an eternal reality. God was up in his heaven, and made the angels, the highest of wich rebelled and there has been a struggle ever since. Granted, yes, it's a struggle for the domination of good on one hand, and a stuggle for the domination of evil on the other.. but they do (or rather would, explanation in a second) equal out to balance in the end were it not for one thing. Lucifer is not God. God is more powerfull and thus in the end will win. One thing though.. if "eternity" is for all time.. and since God comes at the end of time, struggle with have taken place from the very beginning to the very end of time, so.. in a sence, eastern philosiphers are right, even if they don't know it. :lol:

Good is not ordered to personal taste, as some would have it, but is reflective of an objective reality. As such, it is inseparable from truth.

Only as much as time is inseperable from space, from a physics standpoint. They are 2 different things, even if they do coincide with each other. It can be argued that lies for a good reason, or lies that cause good in the end are not evil, if they have the best intentions at heart, I can understand that. Though, not everyone can understand the meaning of the saying "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions".. a shame.

Galron Kincaid

15-10-2004, 09:16 AM

LoL.... looks like i accidentally planted the seed of another umbelievably insightful and deep god-thread.

I don't now if this is ironic or beautiful....

According to what Wigly says about the banning of Adam and Eve (to prevent them eating from the tree of knowledge and becoming like god).....

....can we hazard to define that as an act of.... fear?

Tevush Kasht

15-10-2004, 09:26 AM

ScytheNoire

15-10-2004, 10:46 AM

AgeOfAbnegation

15-10-2004, 04:58 PM

AoA.. hate to say it.. but IMO change, the stuggle for balance [is] an eternal reality.

heh, don't apologize :lol:. You're caught up in pop-christian platitudes. THe only "struggle" is amongst humans, not amongst things outside time and space, like angelic host, or God himself. I chided you a few months back about being a dogmatist. Sometimes I'd rather be dealing with a sage or a Xaf than a dogmatist lol..

if "eternity" is for all time.. and since God comes at the end of time, struggle with have taken place from the very beginning to the very end of time, so.. in a sence, eastern philosiphers are right, even if they don't know it. :lol:

What is this "end of time" BS? God is not ruled by time, that idea was presented in scripture for childish readers to grasp. God does not only come "at the end", but he's here now. THe end referred to here is the next "age" in the progression of the human being, when Christ returns to earth. As for the connection to the eastern "philosophers" *cough*, I don't know where the hell you made that connection..

Only as much as time is inseperable from space, from a physics standpoint. .

uhh? :cheesy:. W/E, but time and space are inseparable. Space is the theatre of motion and definition, which time offers measurement.

AgeOfAbnegation

15-10-2004, 05:03 PM

There is no such thing as an objective reality for someone living within that reality, since you change reality by observing it. Likewise, good and truth are just a matter of perspective. Knowing the truth is knowing the facts about the objective reality, which doesn't exist for you, therefore absolute truth cannot exist within the confines of your existance, only subjective truth.

lol First I dealt with a dogmatist, now I move to the skeptic. Both are foos. I already posted a hunderd-godzillion times that to deny an objective, absolute truth is still making reference to an objective, absolute truth by denying it "its TRUTH that there's no TRUTH" for instance. Dumb... Wish you posters would get some new frikin eyeglasses.

WHat I'll touch on here though is the highlighted part. How the hell does one "change reality" simply by observing it? YOu think your puny little mind has any say whatsoever? Monkey-see-monkey-do?? Rediculous. I think I'll make the sky pink today.. :p Now tell me what you "really meant to say" :flip:.

Havard

15-10-2004, 05:54 PM

We use the same copy to the word.(translated to english)

We use the Law, Prophetic books, and histories also.

Catholics use a few others that I can't remember 1&2 macabees comes to mind.

They are: Tobias (Tobit), Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, I and II Machabees. The ancient Greek Old Testament known as the Septuagint was the vehicle which conveyed these additional Scriptures into the Catholic Church. The Septuagint version was the Bible of the Greek-speaking (Hellenist) Jews, whose intellectual and literary centre was Alexandria.

The Protestant Reformers, following St. Jerome's catalogue of Old Testament Scriptures, one which was at once erroneous and singular among the Fathers of the Church, applied the title "Apocrypha" to the excess of the Catholic canon of the Old Testament over that of the Jews. Naturally, Catholics refuse to admit such a denomination, and we employ "deuterocanonical" to designate this literature, which non-Catholics conventionally and improperly know as the "Apocrypha".

xXxDraGoNxXx1123

15-10-2004, 06:01 PM

WHat I'll touch on here though is the highlighted part. How the hell does one "change reality" simply by observing it?

I was going to ask him to clarify that line as well, though I want no part of the debate, I did want to see what he meant as that line in and of itself just doesn't make sense. If I see a rock on the ground in my yard today, turn schizophenic tomorrow and the rock hence grows a tail and legs and begins barking at me, by virtue of its existance the rock is still just a rock, not a dog as I percieve it.

AgeOfAbnegation

15-10-2004, 06:06 PM

Dont lie Dragon, we know j00 can make the r0xx0rz grow a tail :lol:.

WiglyWorm

15-10-2004, 06:21 PM

How the hell does one "change reality" simply by observing it?

Uncertainy principle, I believe is what the poster was getting at. If you observe an atoms speed you change its trajectory, if you observe its trajectory, you change its speed. Schrodinger's Cat is another example.

What is this "end of time" BS? God is not ruled by time, that idea was presented in scripture for childish readers to grasp. God does not only come "at the end", but he's here now. THe end referred to here is the next "age" in the progression of the human being, when Christ returns to earth. As for the connection to the eastern "philosophers" *cough*, I don't know where the hell you made that connection..

I hope you're not accusing me of having a child-like mind... Let me explain a bit more clearly what I meant.
Yes, correct. God is here now, everywhere. However, he's also in heaven. Jesus comes back at armeggedon, and creates a new heaven here on Earth, correct? Ok, if God creates a new heaven here on earth, it's the end of Earth as we know it and the beginning of the eternal reign of God on Earth. The beginning of this eternity would thusly be the end of this time and, from a certain point of view, the end of time, period. (If we're all around for eternity time has no meaning). So, if eastern philosiphers speak of the struggle of balance untill the end of time, then they're right in a way.

heh, don't apologize . You're caught up in pop-christian platitudes. THe only "struggle" is amongst humans, not amongst things outside time and space, like angelic host, or God himself.

Hmmm, Lucifer wants to usurp God's throne, is banished from heaven down to the earth, and currently Satan tries to get as many souls as he can out of God's grasp, and in the future Jesus is going to come back and quash the Devil? sounds like struggle to me, and indeed it sounds like a struggle right up untill the above described "end of time".

According to what Wigly says about the banning of Adam and Eve (to prevent them eating from the tree of knowledge and becoming like god).....

....can we hazard to define that as an act of.... fear?

You misquoted me, there's 2 trees. Tree of knowledge of good and evil, and the Tree of Life. Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge, and were kicked out so they wouldn't eat fromt he tree of life.

Fear? Well, if you believe God is omnipotent then you have to believe that he knew from the beginning exactley what would happen and has everything quite under controll.

lol First I dealt with a dogmatist, now I move to the skeptic. Both are foos.

What, precisely, does this make you? :)

AgeOfAbnegation

15-10-2004, 07:34 PM

Uncertainy principle, I believe is what the poster was getting at. If you observe an atoms speed you change its trajectory, if you observe its trajectory, you change its speed. Schrodinger's Cat is another example.

wtf? :scratch: Nothing changes. It may change conceptually in our minds, but reality per se does not change in its objective content.

Let me explain a bit more clearly what I meant.
Yes, correct. God is here now, everywhere. However, he's also in heaven. Jesus comes back at armeggedon, and creates a new heaven here on Earth, correct? Ok, if God creates a new heaven here on earth, it's the end of Earth as we know it and the beginning of the eternal reign of God on Earth. The beginning of this eternity would thusly be the end of this time

Eternity does not have a beginning or end. YOu're too caught up in our own visualization of it. Eternity is now, and what's at stake is the degree to which we partake in it. For now, we partake of it by means of our intellects, and after death, by means of our release from the corporeal.

and, from a certain point of view, the end of time, period. (If we're all around for eternity time has no meaning). So, if eastern philosiphers speak of the struggle of balance untill the end of time, then they're right in a way.

'Sif. THe eastern philosophers do not place "end of time" into the equation AT ALL. For them there is no end of time, and further, there is no balance - thats a western idea. Balance implies a weighing of different concepts, while the easterns maintained that diversity is contained within the single object - and I've already demonstrated how that idea was foolish. Try knowing what you discuss before posting again plzkthx.

Hmmm, Lucifer wants to usurp God's throne, is banished from heaven down to the earth, and currently Satan tries to get as many souls as he can out of God's grasp, and in the future Jesus is going to come back and quash the Devil? sounds like struggle to me, and indeed it sounds like a struggle right up untill the above described "end of time".

No, its not a struggle at all, save for linguistics. Struggle can only be between two forces that are capable of interaction. God is infinitely above angelic spirits (including demons) in being. There is no struggle, save for language which offers us a concept. Struggle in your use of the term would detract from God's being. Struggle is only with the humans.

Andarcel

15-10-2004, 08:29 PM

The hundred years war would serve, I believe.

And AoA, sorry, I'm leaving for the evening and don't have time to properly answer. But I will, and I look forward to continuing this discussion! :)
What? No, let me rephrase: WHAT?!

My understanding of the Hundred Years' War was so different from yours, I decided to look it up just to be sure. Here's what I found on wikipedia:

"The effective beginning of the war was the decision of King Edward III of England to make a claim to the throne of France following the death of King Charles IV of France in 1328. Edward's claim was through his mother, Isabella of France, Charles's sister. However, the French quoted the Salic law in order to bypass female heirs. Edward refused to do homage to Philip VI of France in 1337 and war began soon afterward."

Pure realpolitik.

Andarcel

15-10-2004, 08:32 PM

No, its not a struggle at all, save for linguistics. Struggle can only be between two forces that are capable of interaction. God is infinitely above angelic spirits (including demons) in being. There is no struggle, save for language which offers us a concept. Struggle in your use of the term would detract from God's being. Struggle is only with the humans. Incorrect. God and Satan are in opposition over the disposition of souls. There is therefore an arena in which they can contend. WiglyWorm is correct to characterize it as a struggle.

Cripe

15-10-2004, 08:41 PM

wtf? :scratch: Nothing changes. It may change conceptually in our minds, but reality per se does not change in its objective content.

I believe he's referring to Quantum Theory. Here ya go:

[from http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci332247,00.html]

The Copenhagen Interpretation and the Many-Worlds Theory
=============================================
The two major interpretations of quantum theory's implications for the nature of reality are the Copenhagen interpretation and the many-worlds theory. Niels Bohr proposed the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory, which asserts that a particle is whatever it is measured to be (for example, a wave or a particle), but that it cannot be assumed to have specific properties, or even to exist, until it is measured. In short, Bohr was saying that objective reality does not exist. This translates to a principle called superposition that claims that while we do not know what the state of any object is, it is actually in all possible states simultaneously, as long as we don't look to check.

To illustrate this theory, we can use the famous and somewhat cruel analogy of Schrodinger's Cat. First, we have a living cat and place it in a thick lead box. At this stage, there is no question that the cat is alive. We then throw in a vial of cyanide and seal the box. We do not know if the cat is alive or if it has broken the cyanide capsule and died. Since we do not know, the cat is both dead and alive, according to quantum law - in a superposition of states. It is only when we break open the box and see what condition the cat is that the superposition is lost, and the cat must be either alive or dead.

The second interpretation of quantum theory is the many-worlds (or multiverse theory. It holds that as soon as a potential exists for any object to be in any state, the universe of that object transmutes into a series of parallel universes equal to the number of possible states in which that the object can exist, with each universe containing a unique single possible state of that object. Furthermore, there is a mechanism for interaction between these universes that somehow permits all states to be accessible in some way and for all possible states to be affected in some manner. Stephen Hawking and the late Richard Feynman are among the scientists who have expressed a preference for the many-worlds theory.

Quantum Theory's Influence
=====================
Although scientists throughout the past century have balked at the implications of quantum theory - Planck and Einstein among them - the theory's principles have repeatedly been supported by experimentation, even when the scientists were trying to disprove them. Quantum theory and Einstein's theory of relativity form the basis for modern physics. The principles of quantum physics are being applied in an increasing number of areas, including quantum optics, quantum chemistry, quantum computing, and quantum cryptography.

AgeOfAbnegation

15-10-2004, 08:41 PM

Incorrect. God and Satan are in opposition over the disposition of souls. There is therefore an arena in which they can contend. WiglyWorm is correct to characterize it as a struggle.

My last sentance in that post was that the struggle was concerning humans. I pointed out that God and Satan can't really have a struggle by means of God's infinite power - the battle would thus be over before it began. Both GOd and Satan desire souls, this is definitely true. Yet, I can only call this a struggle on our part. God's grace is always there for us, but the struggle on our part is to enter into that dynamic. I hope I've cleared it up ok.

AgeOfAbnegation

15-10-2004, 08:47 PM

believe he's referring to Quantum Theory.

This perception/reality thing is hardly new. It came about by means of a 14th century misfire by F. Bacon and Descartes. THe idea was that we could not correctly apprehend reality on our own, thus the scientific method was wrongly associated with the inherent methodology of perception. Others, such as leibniz most notably, created an entire a priori system of the universe based on mathematical and geometric concepts. Kant took us back to the inherent powers and limitations of reason, which is why I continually ask posters here to read him. Aspects like quantum theory still make that mistake of tying the empirical method (complete in of itself for the sole purpose of data collecton) into the inherent power of reason, and knowing. These people overstep their boundaries.

Cripe

15-10-2004, 09:02 PM

Aspects like quantum theory still make that mistake of tying the empirical method (complete in of itself for the sole purpose of data collecton) into the inherent power of reason, and knowing. These people overstep their boundaries.

Actually, I think you overstate what they're trying to prove. Quantum theory only tries to explain the physical nature of Reality; Reality being defined as those things which can be measured and documented. Quantum theory makes no attempt to make any inroads to reason and knowing in the purest of senses.

Many people try to use concepts from Quantum Theory in philosophical discussions since the concepts of reality are often discussed in both. However, do not confuse what QT actually states with what people try to make it say.

Now, QT does make concrete inroads on describing the nature of reality from a physical viewpoint. Since you don't seem to feel that reality can be properly measured from a physical viewpoint, you can feel free to ignore the implications of those conclusions. However, many people who have practised much more than you and spent lifetimes examining the nature of reality do feel that there is much to be learned from QT. It is interesting to note that even those who actively attempt to disprove QT only end up in supporting it further with their final analysis.

Just because you (AoA) believe you have found the answer in Kantian theory doesn't mean that everyone else agrees that he and his methods are the correct way of determining reality. I'm sure you feel that all others are mistaken (for reasons you've already mentioned), but the way you causually dismiss all other processes than yours as inferior shows great hubris on your part. Many of these people who don't use Kant methods are great thinkers in their own right. You dismiss them too casually I think.

Blackmoon

15-10-2004, 09:12 PM

The hundred years war would serve, I believe.Hmm... don't you mean Thirty years war? As Andarcel pointed the hundred years war wasn't particulary religious war. The Thirty years war instead has its base on the schism between Lutherism and Catholics.

Cripe

15-10-2004, 09:46 PM

As much as AoA would like people to believe that studying Kant will help them become more enlightened, people should realize first that Kant was far from unbiased himself. He was writing from an ascetic Christian viewpoint, and as such, much of his writing is geared towards proving a certain position that he believes before even applying any rationale. AoA would like to believe that only other people or lists or facts have agendas that they are trying to prove, but even Kant had a basis upon which he built his theories. Here are some of the more disdained thoeries Kant had.

Kant was a very misogynistic man. He felt women were amoral, and slaves to their passions.

http://rideau.carleton.ca/philosophy/cusjp/v16/n1/khirdaji.html

I think he's likely just displacing his own repressed desires that he never indulges in.

Furthermore, his life was devoted to removing purities from his body through various orifices, and he further denigrates women as "grotesque".

http://www.ingenta.com/isis/searching/Expand/ingenta?pub=infobike://sage/bod/2003/00000009/00000001/art00004
"A self-confessed hypochondriac, Immanuel Kant was prolific on the topic of his own corporeality, diligently recording the details of his ‘ Ditetik’–a physical regiment intended to ensure long life. The ‘ Ditetik’ reveals a Kantian body in which the orifices–the ways in and out of the body–are problematized, and exchange with the world of objects via these orifices is strictly regulated. The Kantian body is a ‘classic’ body in Bakhtinian terms; its ‘grotesque’ counterpart–the feminine body–is explored in a range of Enlightenment and Romantic texts–philosophical, medical, sociological. The Enlightenment is a turning point in the history of gender difference, when the naturalness of incommensurable sexual difference is asserted. The Kantian body is part of this project. The motif of bodily fluids, and their transgression of corporeal boundaries, is considered within the context of an emerging consumer economy, and the changes being wrought on the ‘body politic’."

Finally, the assumptions of Kant's for what an individual are totally impractible, as well as dangerous. He would have us all as monsters.

http://www.shikanda.net/general/gen3/kant_afrika.htm
"In the first place, as I have already indicated, the strictly rational consciousness of Kant’s individual make that individual a sociological monster if not (as a whole range of philosophical critique has argued, from the Marburger Schule, Scheler, Freud, Sartre right down to Robin Schott)[ix] a philosophical monster.

Secondly, the community which is implied in that individual’s aesthetic judgement is supposed to extend infinitely so as to encompass the whole of mankind, without subdivisions of a racial, national, ethnic, regional, professional, class or gender nature. This is the only answer Kant can give if he is not to make nonsense of his transcendental project. However, if we were to mistake Kant’s philosophical exposé for an empirical description of the social processes of aesthetic production and aesthetic reception, such a view of social life would only apply in closed and homogeneous, totally autarkic local communities

Situating the individual in this kaleidoscopic social process of incessant construction and dissolution of multiple communities, immediately brings to mind the third objection: not only Kant’s community but also Kant’s individual is too monolithic, too much integrated and consistent, which is in line with the consistent rationality attributed to that individual. In social practice, it would not even be correct to say that people are aware of the plurality of communities, beyond the one community to which they have committed themselves totally. In fact, most people turn out to have committed themselves to more than one community, cherishing several identities in that connexion, in such a way that each identity is either activated or latent depending on the social expectations and pressures to which the person is subjected in a particular place and at a particular place."

Overall, Kant had some very interesting things to say, but the ascetic nature of his being and the denial of his more carnal desires does slant his writings to an extreme that is undesirable as well as unrealistic. To entirely deny your carnal existence is to deny your own humanity. If Kant denies his own humanity, then he has nothing to offer me.

I personally feel that there needs to be a balance between reason and emotion. Too much of either will imbalance a person to an extreme extent. There needs to be a function in a person that will allow them to judge what is and is not appropriate. Examples of this philosophy can be seen in Aeschylus' Oresteia (Apollo/Athena/Furies), Plato's The Rupublic (Philosphers/Warriors/Commoners), Freud's Id/Ego/Superego, Christianity's Father/Son/Holy Ghost, or as we can all understand the concepts reason/judgement/carnal lusts. In all of these cases, any emphais on one sole portion of the whole will imbalance the person/society to which it is applied. To much reason means a lack of development and creativity. To much carnal lust and anarchy runs rampant. To much judgement and the system goes into stasis being unable to move forward.

I hope that helps people understand why I dislike Kant as a basis for reasoning.

Bhs Crew

15-10-2004, 09:59 PM

My understanding of the Hundred Years' War was so different from yours, I decided to look it up just to be sure. Here's what I found on wikipedia:

"The effective beginning of the war was the decision of King Edward III of England to make a claim to the throne of France following the death of King Charles IV of France in 1328. Edward's claim was through his mother, Isabella of France, Charles's sister. However, the French quoted the Salic law in order to bypass female heirs. Edward refused to do homage to Philip VI of France in 1337 and war began soon afterward.
That coincides with everything I've read about it. It was just a game of thrones, not much to do with religion at all. I guess we could say monarchy was the problem here.

AgeOfAbnegation

15-10-2004, 11:15 PM

Actually, I think you overstate what they're trying to prove. Quantum theory only tries to explain the physical nature of Reality; Reality being defined as those things which can be measured and documented. Quantum theory makes no attempt to make any inroads to reason and knowing in the purest of senses.

I did not claim that quantum theory did this. What I claimed was that its adherents made the mistake of overlooking the limits of reason and employing an empirical theory as a replacement for reason.

Just because you (AoA) believe you have found the answer in Kantian theory

Another example of your less than rudimentary reading habits. My reference to Kant is useful for the type of posters that would challenge me lately, yourself included. Further, Kant never proposed any theory - only uncovered laws of reason, and its practical application in his 3 critical texts.

doesn't mean that everyone else agrees that he and his methods are the correct way of determining reality. I'm sure you feel that all others are mistaken (for reasons you've already mentioned), but the way you causually dismiss all other processes than yours as inferior shows great hubris on your part. Many of these people who don't use Kant methods are great thinkers in their own right. You dismiss them too casually I think.[/QUOTE]

Cripe

15-10-2004, 11:33 PM

Further, Kant never proposed any theory - only uncovered laws of reason, and its practical application in his 3 critical texts.

You call them laws, I call them theories. Unproven or unaccepted laws are generally considered theories.

If it walks like a theory and quacks like a theory....

I've provided several reasons why I believe Kant writings are not an appropriate method to determine truth. I've quoted not just my reasons, but other fairly well respected thinkers who view his applications of reason to be sketchy at best and dangerous at worst.

I eagerly await your intelligent discussion on the validity of Kant's principles.

Apollo

15-10-2004, 11:34 PM

*Doesn't touch this thread with a 10 foot barge pole*

AgeOfAbnegation

15-10-2004, 11:55 PM

As much as AoA would like people to believe that studying Kant will help them become more enlightened, people should realize first that Kant was far from unbiased himself.

This post has come from someone who has obviously not read his texts. You may have tried, but I doubt you got further than a few pages before feeling a headache. Kant is the last philosopher in the past number of centuries to build his arguments from the ground up, and clearly setting forth the definitions for each. Your post, as I will show you subsequently, is filled with google-search rhetoric. It's like a blind man trying to fix a car. :cheesy:

He was writing from an ascetic Christian viewpoint, and as such, much of his writing is geared towards proving a certain position that he believes before even applying any rationale.

Kant never claimed to be christian, and never attended church. In fact, he offered stinging rebukes of the religious establishent in his time. What's amusing is that most who regard Kant see him as being against Christianity. These are wishful undergrads who can barely scratch the surface of a text of philosophy. Kant started his works in reply to Hume's skepticism.

AoA would like to believe that only other people or lists or facts have agendas that they are trying to prove, but even Kant had a basis upon which he built his theories. Here are some of the more disdained thoeries Kant had.

Good job in explaining my motives. You've gone from fool to stool in my opinion. You dare come to these forums and try to trash talk me with posting bull$hit about material you don't have a clue about? Give me a break..

Kant was a very misogynistic man. He felt women were amoral, and slaves to their passions.

http://rideau.carleton.ca/philosophy/cusjp/v16/n1/khirdaji.html

I think he's likely just displacing his own repressed desires that he never indulges in.

I happen to live 4 blocks from Carleton university in ottawa. We call it "bronson st. high". Kant lived alone in Germany all his life, never travelling. That does not make him a neurotic. Kan't personality doesn't come through much in his texts, but it does in his pre-critical writings. Ref. "on a newly arisen superior tone". What you've done is what most wannabes do - bypass the actual text for a pop-psychological view of his person, and simply dismissing his works altogether. This is why culture is confused in matters of objectivity these days, because they're too damn lazy to read. Any intellectual worth their salt, after having spent time with Kant's texts, will soon realize that his reasoning was flawless. I suppose you'd have to actually crack the cover of his texts to realize that.. "gg".

Secondly, the community which is implied in that individual’s aesthetic judgement is supposed to extend infinitely so as to encompass the whole of mankind, without subdivisions of a racial, national, ethnic, regional, professional, class or gender nature. This is the only answer Kant can give if he is not to make nonsense of his transcendental project. However, if we were to mistake Kant’s philosophical exposé for an empirical description of the social processes of aesthetic production and aesthetic reception, such a view of social life would only apply in closed and homogeneous, totally autarkic local communities

For someone who did not even posit the physical world (only postulated), this critique comes out of nowhere. Kant chose not to discuss matters of empirical export, rather staying with the methodology of pure reason in his commentaries, as logic demanded.

Overall, Kant had some very interesting things to say

You've read the texts? (or is this part of your google paste :lol:). What are these things of interest?

but the ascetic nature of his being and the denial of his more carnal desires does slant his writings to an extreme that is undesirable as well as unrealistic. To entirely deny your carnal existence is to deny your own humanity. If Kant denies his own humanity, then he has nothing to offer me.

Kan't critque of practical reason (dealing with the objects of the will), and his critique of judgement offers gratuitous explanation of desire, including the carnal. Carnal desire is an inherent draw to the familiar, which not only deals with the sexual appetites. These idiots you quoted from took Kant's treatise on the pure reason and carried it 100 miles off course - they completely forgot about his 2nd and 3rd critiques, which offer discourse on the appetites. Kant's view was not to discard reality (indeed he couldn't do that due to reason), but to discover its correct ordering.

Your last sentance is extrordinary however - you're willing to take your pick on what to read based on your own base needs? Is that being human? Sounds like an animal to me..

I personally feel that there needs to be a balance between reason and emotion. Too much of either will imbalance a person to an extreme extent.

Reason and emotion are two different things. Emotions come from thoughts and concepts, conditioned with habits. They "follow" reason. However, one will always lead. If you do not follow the path of reason, you will succumb only to feeling, with only the most basic tenets of reason offering guidelines.

There needs to be a function in a person that will allow them to judge what is and is not appropriate. Examples of this philosophy can be seen in Aeschylus' Oresteia (Apollo/Athena/Furies), Plato's The Rupublic (Philosphers/Warriors/Commoners), Freud's Id/Ego/Superego, Christianity's Father/Son/Holy Ghost, or as we can all understand the concepts reason/judgement/carnal lusts.

The Holy Trinity is not an object of philosophy, but a revelation. Perhaos your idea of philosophy comes from other sources than thinking, which would indicate much.

In all of these cases, any emphais on one sole portion of the whole will imbalance the person/society to which it is applied. To much reason means a lack of development and creativity.

What? creativity and development are devoid of reason? Is not reason through all human activities?

To much carnal lust and anarchy runs rampant. To much judgement and the system goes into stasis being unable to move forward.

I know what you're saying, but you really are using these concepts very loosely, and I've pointed out a few inconsistencies. If there's anyone here who needs to read Kant, it's you. This is because he builds his argument in stages, and takes up ALOT of time discussing definition and concept before moving forward.

I hope that helps people understand why I dislike Kant as a basis for reasoning.

All it helps clarify is your utter ignorance of the given subject matter. Come back after you've accrued a modicum of philosophical erudition.

AgeOfAbnegation

16-10-2004, 12:04 AM

You call them laws, I call them theories. Unproven or unaccepted laws are generally considered theories.

Proven in accord with what methodology? Scientific? You want an empirical proof for an a priori concept?

I've provided several reasons why I believe Kant writings are not an appropriate method to determine truth. I've quoted not just my reasons, but other fairly well respected thinkers who view his applications of reason to be sketchy at best and dangerous at worst.

It was more an example of emoting, rather than reasoning. Kant's detractors could not argue against his postion, but danced around it. I suppose that would be considered worthy of respect these days... :uhhuh:

Lazzmodai

16-10-2004, 12:27 AM

Dang! I'm gone for a day, and I'm a page and a half back.. Where in the hell did you crazy forumers take this?? :D :D

Andarcel

16-10-2004, 02:39 AM

Good job in explaining my motives. You've gone from fool to stool in my opinion. You dare come to these forums and try to trash talk me with posting bull$hit about material you don't have a clue about? Give me a break.. You're overreacting.

You call them laws, I call them theories. Unproven or unaccepted laws are generally considered theories.

If it walks like a theory and quacks like a theory....

I've provided several reasons why I believe Kant writings are not an appropriate method to determine truth. I've quoted not just my reasons, but other fairly well respected thinkers who view his applications of reason to be sketchy at best and dangerous at worst.

I eagerly await your intelligent discussion on the validity of Kant's principles.
A law is a relationship found among variables. A theory is an explanation of that relationship (uniting multiple laws). The laws of reason Kant discovered are not empirically based and do not admit a deeper explanation. They're no more theories than "the angles of a triangle sum to 180" is a theory. They may be wrong, but only if the reasoning behind them is wrong.

And the notion that because Kant held some odd views this is a reflection on his epistemology is pure baloney. In fact, we call it an "ad hominem" attack. Rather than attempting to deal with the arguments, you're trying instead to impugn the arguer. Kant could have been a homicidal madman and his Critique of Pure Reason could still be correct in every detail.

On Quantum theory: the basic problem simply stated is that everything unmeasured has multiple outcomes yet we only ever measure one outcome. Why does measurement pin down particles?

In my opinion, quantum theory is philosophically incoherent. It is nothing more than a set of mathematical relationships which function correctly but for which we have no real explanation. People have tried a number of different solutions, and I think they're all flawed. I'll take on the two above:

The many worlds theory has two major issues. The first is that, while it employs the notion of interference among worlds, it doesn't provide any criteria for that interference. Why can't we have a state in which our measurements themselves are in a state of indeterminacy?

The second problem is more subtle. "Many worlds" holds that there is a world existing for each possible state - this is why quantum mechanics is a matter of probabilities rather than fixed causality. But consider an simply hydrogen atom. There are worlds in which the electron is orbiting the proton in a more or less circular path. There are, however, infinitely more worlds in which the electron shoots off in random trajectories and goes wandering between the galaxies. In quantum mechanics the odds are heavily stacked in favor of the electron being in a spherical orbital, that being the lowest energy state, but in many worlds no such weighting device exists. So, logically, the odds of ever finding an electron in an orbital would be ridiculously small.

The problem applies macroscopically as well. When I drop a cup, for every world in which it falls straight down there are hundreds in whcih it falls in some other random direction. Therefore, if there is one and only one world for each state, we should expect the cup to fly off in some random direction other than down. Yet obviously it doesn't.

As for the Copenhagen interpretation: quantum mechanics does not know that we are actually taking a measurement. All it cares about is whether we could, in principle, take one. It's not human knowledge but particle interactions that determine the state of a system. Therefore, obviously subjectivism doesn't follow.

Coltaine can tell you more, I'm sure.

The notion that quantum theory presents a challenge to any major pieces of Kant's epistemology is silly. It does challenge the transcendental aesthetic, but I think the aesthetic is flawed anyway, and non-Euclidian geometry illustrated why long before QT.

Finally, I think I should mention in reply to all the hits on Kant that he was also an excellent physicist, and if anything to hard-nosed about how far reason can extend.

AgeOfAbnegation

16-10-2004, 02:49 AM

You're overreacting.

I suppose. I suppose I'm not a vulcan after all.. The content of Cripe's post was not in accord with the fervor it was presented in.

You could offer some commentary on Kant's aesthetic if you wish. His Aesthetic is the first aspect he deals with en masse.

Xaf

16-10-2004, 03:43 AM

Sometimes I'd rather be dealing with a sage or a Xaf than a dogmatist lol..

Hey dont be bitter just cause i always won our discussions :lol:

frostbite199

16-10-2004, 04:09 AM

good thing i got board as a stick when i played this game and burnt my game and all the pieces and books so i couldnt remember anything of it!

AgeOfAbnegation

16-10-2004, 05:22 AM

Hey dont be bitter just cause i always won our discussions :lol:

heh, its more like the "argument heard but I dont care" thing lol :p.

bleachy

16-10-2004, 05:31 AM

Dungeons and Dragons.....Kant......Quantum Theory????????

http://clear.msu.edu:16080/dennie/clipart/headache.gif

Galron Kincaid

16-10-2004, 11:01 AM

Sage the Mage

16-10-2004, 05:53 PM

Oooh boy this is gonna be fun to watch AoA reply to you :)
Just one thing: Philosophical LAWS??? Don't be ridicolous. Only SCIENCE has laws.

True there's no philosophical (as you put it) laws. However, for an argument to valid argument, aka those arguments that are actually logical, you must adhere to certain rules.

Philosophy has lots of very interesting point of views.... but they're all subjective.

Lets see if I can echo AoA here: Truth is not subjective. To attest that all things are subjective is to adhere to a truth. :lol: You mental midget you!

Anyway, AoA will eventually get to the point where he says that reason points us to one path, but that the path is still unknown. Of course this is a folly, since the only way for one path to exist is for it to be completely known.

Galron Kincaid

16-10-2004, 06:36 PM

Are you sure?

You don't need to perfectly know a road in order to travel it.

Anyway, i also am eager to read Abe's reply (casts: Polite Flame Shield on: Self)

Andarcel

16-10-2004, 06:52 PM

It's got to be the 39 degrees flu i have right now.... but i'm actually reading all this dogbarking about Kant.... and finding it interesting.

I never learned anything about this Kant guy, and always found philosophy nothing more than a very, very sophisticated mental masturbation.

To me.... philosophy is like a really, really well-decorated sword: cool to show around.... but pretty useless nowadays.

Just one thing: Philosophical LAWS??? Don't be ridicolous. Only SCIENCE has laws.

Philosophy has lots of very interesting point of views.... but they're all subjective.

Now, let's take someone far simpler, and less pen-happy than Kant: Talete.

He thought the Arkè, the substance from wich everything originated, was water.
Now we study this opinion of his at school, but, thanks to Science, we know it's definitely NOT real.

It was his OPINION, his point of view. His philosophy.

I could start thinking that everything originated from peanut butter. And that would already be a philosophy. Anyone wishing to become my follower?

Enjoy the chaos, Bleachy. Courtsey of AgeofKantism :lol:
Wow, you're quite remarkably undereducated.

Philosophy is the study of how one should live. There is no more useful field. Our country's structure and laws are based on one particular branch of philosophy, ****ism was based on another, monarchy on still another. It's one of the driving forces in the world - it's just that, since you know nothing at all about it, you don't recognize the impacts of Aquinas, Nietzsche, Rousseau, Hobbes, Hume, Descartes Locke, Mill, Kant, et al. Yet their writings are the basis of our public life. Care to guess where the notion that all men have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happines came from? How about the notion that democracies make the world more peaceful and stable? Or why we have a law against prostitution?

More importantly, philosophy offers a means to critically evaluate our own judgments and beliefs. Of course, if you would just prefer to believe what you're told, that's mroe a disadvantage.

Philosophical laws - or rules if you prefer - not only exist in an absolute form but are necessary for there to be science. Here's one: a proposition cannot be both affirmed and denied at the same time. Without that, science would be gibberish.

And since it's universally accepted, that kind of trashes your notion of subjectivity.

There was a time when scientists believed with intense fervor that nature abhors a vacuum. Then someone made a vacuum, using glass tubes and mercury. In response, some scientists invented a mystical substance, rather like ether, that was supposed to pervade everything and fill up that space between the glass and the mercury.

So it seems scientists have said absurd things as well. Guess we should throw out science along with philosophy. So what does that leave us? :scratch: :scratch: :scratch:

Galron Kincaid

16-10-2004, 07:05 PM

Man, i understand most of what you said, except for that gratuituous insult at the beginning (if choosing what to know and what to ignore is being under-educated for you.... then....la dee da. You and AoA are really affine in this sick urge to judge others) and that last one weird example about the ether theory.

Lemme sum that up.... you'd throw out science only because of that failed experiment with mercury and stuff... or because of ANY OTHER failed experiment/theory?

Scientifical history is PACKED TO THE BRIM with tragical errors and bogus theories.

But it is through those mistakes that it came closer, and closer, to the truth.

Or at least, to a large portion of it (yes, there is still lot to be explained, but that's only a matter of scientific time).

The same way a human person learns.

Coltaine

16-10-2004, 10:15 PM

How when Kants text are so great and without error, does my first philosophy class in university picked his text apart and showed the points in his text where he left out critical steps and made assumptions that must not be true?
And that was a class from a professor that was of lack of better words a fan of kant.

Its a bad discussion habbit to say it was proven by xxx in this and that book. Read it and you will agree.
that way you end every discussion since how can i or someone else argue with that without reading every book the arguer read? And frankly i don't have the time for that.
I could say Steinworth disproved that kants "a critic of pure reason" is without logical errors. Just visit his class "Grundkurs Ethik" at the University of Hamburg. It begins October 19.
Have we gained anything by this?

Coltaine

16-10-2004, 10:21 PM

Andarcel

16-10-2004, 10:43 PM

It is already widely acepted, that the model of Quantum Physics describes reality very well. Also that an observer changes the probability of an event.
But this mostly does not referst to uncertanty, where observation of one parameter only changes the best possible knowlege of the other parameter.

You have a system of particles with two possible values. You start with A and after 1d all particles have value B. If you look after half a day, half the particles have value b the other half a. After another half of the day 75% have value B and 25% have value A. So you changed something purly by observing it.

Nice to see how a thread can evolve.
Not accurate. You could use whatever system you would normally use to check the status of the particles and then not check - for example, bouncing photons of them without actually recapturing the photons. You would still get the same effect. Or if you take an interferometer, you don't actually have to know what path the particles took to eliminate fringe effects, as long as the system would allow you to find out in principle.

Of course Kant's critique has some errors. Anything that revolutionary is bound to. But I haven't identified any that are essential to his system.

Man, i understand most of what you said, except for that gratuituous insult at the beginning (if choosing what to know and what to ignore is being under-educated for you.... then....la dee da. You and AoA are really affine in this sick urge to judge others) and that last one weird example about the ether theory. Yes, I do ignoring an entire branch of knowledge means you're poorly educated. La dee da. Also, I take calling philosophy a form of mental masturbation as an insult. I'm not much for rising above insults here, as I haven't seen it produce any useful result. Well, replying in kind at least relieves blood pressure.

As for affine... Do you mean that AoA and I are related by marriage? Or that we refine? :lol:

Lemme sum that up.... you'd throw out science only because of that failed experiment with mercury and stuff... or because of ANY OTHER failed experiment/theory? Sigh...

Irony and sarcasm are totally lost on some people. You were willing to discredit philosophy because of a junk philosopher, I was pointing out that by that logic we'd have to discredit science as well.

Coltaine

16-10-2004, 10:55 PM

Not accurate. You could use whatever system you would normally use to check the status of the particles and then not check - for example, bouncing photons of them without actually recapturing the photons. You would still get the same effect. Or if you take an interferometer, you don't actually have to know what path the particles took to eliminate fringe effects, as long as the system would allow you to find out in principle.

Where in my post did i excluded these possibilties?
Sure, you can't always look at the thing with your eyes but you measure something. And thats the important thing. you observe something and that changes the outcome of the system.
Oh and if you know the path the particle took in an interferometer, it does not interfere anymore.

Andarcel

17-10-2004, 01:25 AM

Where in my post did i excluded these possibilties?
Sure, you can't always look at the thing with your eyes but you measure something. And thats the important thing. you observe something and that changes the outcome of the system.
Oh and if you know the path the particle took in an interferometer, it does not interfere anymore.
Er... yes, that what "eliminating fringe effects" means. No interference.

You said the observor changes the outcome. This is incorrect. Particle interactions that might allow us to observe in principle are what change the outcome. There doesn't have to be an actual observor.

We don't have to actually look at Schrodinger's cat to end the superposition; we can just shine a flashlight into the box and let the light bounce back out, and that would work just as well.

Therefore, reality is not subjective, because it does not depend on our observation, only on whether we employ tools that could be used for observation.

AgeOfAbnegation

17-10-2004, 01:51 AM

Oooh boy this is gonna be fun to watch AoA reply to you :)

True there's no philosophical (as you put it) laws. However, for an argument to valid argument, aka those arguments that are actually logical, you must adhere to certain rules.

Yes, but laws can be referred to in the laws of the actual processing of reason (its method of composing, dividing etc - it comes before actual content).

Lets see if I can echo AoA here: Truth is not subjective. To attest that all things are subjective is to adhere to a truth. :lol: You mental midget you!

Something akin to that.

Anyway, AoA will eventually get to the point where he says that reason points us to one path, but that the path is still unknown. Of course this is a folly, since the only way for one path to exist is for it to be completely known.

That's not accurate, as a path need not be knowin in its entirety - or at all - to exist. The path can be known to the degree to which its travelled, which will come more clear in time.

AgeOfAbnegation

17-10-2004, 01:54 AM

Are you sure?

You don't need to perfectly know a road in order to travel it.

Anyway, i also am eager to read Abe's reply (casts: Polite Flame Shield on: Self)

Yea, thats what I mentioned to Sage. He wants the security of total certainty, but this is impossible by means of a scientific method. The only totally certain thing is the processes and laws of reason. BTW, philosophy is the most "useful" thing, you'll find when you start reading the stuff.

Sage the Mage

17-10-2004, 01:54 AM

Paths branch. I win!

AgeOfAbnegation

17-10-2004, 02:02 AM

Andarcel - excellent reply.

How when Kants text are so great and without error, does my first philosophy class in university picked his text apart and showed the points in his text where he left out critical steps and made assumptions that must not be true?

Very likely because it was your first class. Be mindful of the fact that there were 200 years of philosophy after Kant's departure. I will attest that (with scholarly proof in the 20th century if need be) that Kant's detractors, inclucing those bubbleheads in your class, have not dug under the surface. If a person would critique, its first most important to discover the method and reason for critique. Kant's major detractors did not argue against his arguments, but rather superimposed a new method. As such, people these days are by and large skeptics and dogmstists, and kick and scream at Kant's call for hard work with texts, and the speculative use of reason. The key text to elucidate this is his "newly arisen superior tone". Its a lesser known work.. at least until I start promoting it in what I plan on writing.

And that was a class from a professor that was of lack of better words a fan of kant.

We can like things for their original feel or concept, without having refined knowledge thereof.

Its a bad discussion habbit to say it was proven by xxx in this and that book. Read it and you will agree.
that way you end every discussion since how can i or someone else argue with that without reading every book the arguer read? And frankly i don't have the time for that.

Progressive discussion on these texts is only met by a scholarly approach, and knowledge of the content. It's tough to do, but we can explain at least his most basic concepts here.

AgeOfAbnegation

17-10-2004, 02:04 AM

Paths branch. I win!

I didn't know it was about winning - thx for the reminder lol. "branced paths" are still paths, regardless of form. Its the principle that matters.

Sage the Mage

17-10-2004, 03:31 AM

Yes, but laws can be referred to in the laws of the actual processing of reason (its method of composing, dividing etc - it comes before actual content).
Just a miscommunication between terms, I think. Philosophy itself has no laws, but logic does.

AgeOfAbnegation

17-10-2004, 08:30 AM

heh.. what is philosophy, and what is logic Sage?

Galron Kincaid

17-10-2004, 12:15 PM

Talete was not a junk philosopher.

He was merely "A" philosopher.... one of the too many.

Andarcel.... what can i say.... i'm not really used to sarcasm. I usually speak to people whose tone is always true and pure.

(and anyway, your reply about the affinity issue is something i'd have expected from the Bnet forums. Certainly not from here).

I don't know philosophy because i --->CHOOSE<--- not to learn it. If that's still "poor education" for you i strongly suggest you start learning some good manners.

Sage the Mage

17-10-2004, 05:32 PM

heh.. what is philosophy, and what is logic Sage?
I certainly hope you can distinguish between the two :)

Logic - The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning.

Philosophy - Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.

Obviously Dictionary.com definitions.
In short, logic is a tool of philosophy and other fields.

AgeOfAbnegation

17-10-2004, 07:02 PM

I don't know philosophy because i --->CHOOSE<--- not to learn it. If that's still "poor education" for you i strongly suggest you start learning some good manners.

That's still a certian "philosophy" :).

AgeOfAbnegation

17-10-2004, 07:03 PM

I certainly hope you can distinguish between the two :)

Logic - The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning.

Philosophy - Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.

Obviously Dictionary.com definitions.
In short, logic is a tool of philosophy and other fields.

I wasn't so sure there was a demarcation between logic and philosophy.. But then again, everyone has a philosophy, but not everyone, indeed most dont - adhere to logic.

Andarcel

17-10-2004, 07:10 PM

Talete was not a junk philosopher.

He was merely "A" philosopher.... one of the too many. He was junk. Just as, if you started a philosophy saying creation was based on peanut butter, you would be junk. You cherish a post-modernist attitude towards philosophy that's totally unfounded. Philosophy can be good and bad, rigorous and sloppy, well-bounded and over-reaching. But since you've elected to know and learn nothing about it, I'm not surprised you know nothing about it.

I usually speak to people whose tone is always true and pure.

Ahahahah... Sorry. I meant to say, of course, the mark of pure and true soul is that he never uses sarcasm. And we can see that the majority of people on this forum are like the chivalrous knights of your, true and pure hearts that would never contemplate speaking in any other than the dulcet tones of sweet earnestness. Pardon me while I go and perform ritual self-flagellation for sullying the purity of these forums.

(and anyway, your reply about the affinity issue is something i'd have expected from the Bnet forums. Certainly not from here). Actually, people misusing words in their insults is what I expect from bnet forums. Kowing what "affine" really means, on the other hand, is something that would likely never be seen there.

I don't know philosophy because i --->CHOOSE<--- not to learn it. Yes, you said so already. Whcih pretty much removes all possible excuses.

If that's still "poor education" for you i strongly suggest you start learning some good manners. You're right. I apologize. In truth, choosing to be ignorant of the foundations of your culture, government, government's policies, and your own morality does not mean you are poorly educated. Nor does it make you totally unfit to comment on philosophy. After all, if being totally and deliberately ignorant of something meant you couldn't deride it to your heart's content, why, we'd have to start requiring people to know what they're talking about before we took them seriously. And that would be madness!