Oh no. Oh God no.

[ZeaLitY]

You, Krispin, and everyone else: don't fucking make assumptions about my life. I went to church every Sunday. I nearly became a missionary. I have reached to touch the face of God only to find nothing but air. As for Krispin, that is the saddest, most self-restricting fatalistic post I've ever witnessed.

I don't believe it is beyond their control at all, I think all humans are in control of their own decisions.

You just betrayed your savage ignorance. Beyond the defense of sexism, the defense of God's chosen, the defense of dogma, and the defense of considering humanity as evil (the scope of which trumps even Krispin's Christian revisionist history or Thought's self-hatred of humanity), the unwillingness to accept basic scientific correlation and evidence outs you as someone who is not bound by logic or reason. And someone who is not reasonable is not worth listening to or even acknowledging.

Some here are talking in such unfair extremes.  Both sides (looking at it from a Religious -vs- Secular view) are claiming the other side to be "this and that", when in fact such extremes that are, for the most part, untrue.

You believe in God, don't you? Because if you were an agnostic or atheist, you would not feel the slightest desire to defend an institution which has oppressed basic humanity for thousands of years. What is untrue about "there is no empirical evidence?" About "irrationality is bad?" Atheism has wrought nothing but humanism; a desire to create personal meaning on this earth, to develop ethics free from historical flaw, and to cherish our current lives because we know not what comes after. And if you believe China or the Soviet Union were or are truly atheist, you are sadly misinformed.

Religious fanatics are few and far between

Christianity and Islam are sexist. That is not fanaticism, but a ground truth, and perhaps worse than the few extremists. The perversion of thought condemns the entire lot, however. I can do nothing to make acknowledged what should already be clear if it were not for years of childhood religious conditioning most people on this earth go through. Nothing that I could say has not been already said better by philosophers across the entire scope of history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_religion is a starting point.

I never felt a natural impulse to do evil. I have always empathized and considered my actions. Perhaps my upbringing was merely a peaceful and educational one, but I know someone who lived in hell for most of her childhood and adult life, and is the same way. I will never, ever believe the idea that humanity is basically evil. There is animal instinct and nature, but that is supplanted by a budding intelligence and awareness. Some people may be too set in their ways or too far on a path of ethical bankruptcy to achieve that before their death currently, but intelligent, ethical behavior can exist and will exist in humanity's future. It will never come about, however, while human actions are focused through the lens of consequences in the afterlife, and neither while this quote remains true:

Those who can make you believe in absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

Behold the rocks; the grass; the water; the animals; the trees; the stars; the moon; the universe. We as humans have achieved what these lifeless things could never: consciousness; awareness; emotion; aspiration. That is why we are the gods in this world.

[Boo the Gentleman Caller]

You believe in God, don't you? Because if you were an agnostic or atheist, you would not feel the slightest desire to defend an institution which has oppressed basic humanity for thousands of years.

Guess what, Zeality: I'm agnostic.

[ZeaLitY]

Then it's too bad you don't feel more against these fundamental perverse tenets of religion.

[Thought]

That's right; we who believe in religion are a hideous and insidious lot. We are the fear that creeps into your mind at night. We are the knife that murders your dreams. We are Darkwing Duck!

... I mean, we are evil. Totally. Look out or we'll grind your bones for our bread. Rar.

[placidchap]

And so another religion thread turns ugly...what a surprise. 

[Thought]

You're right, Placid.

Terribly sorry, all, for the sarcasm in my last post.

[Daniel Krispin]

Out of curiosity, what do you live for, Daniel Krispin? What excites you, what makes you happy and hopeful and fulfilled? And, if I may ask, where do your passions lie?

Mostly, ancient Greek, myth, and the literature of many ages, from the Tragedy of Aeschylus to the epics of Homer, to the works of Shakespeare. Yes, literature more than anything else. But all forms of learning can at times enthrall me, and any in real life know that I can ramble as well on things like temporal mechanics and the like. And beyond this, philosophy, particularly the Stoics... never do I read Seneca and not come away feeling better for it. So there is where my passions lie, and what excite me... and often, my future in these fields, and the confidence of knowing what I do in them, knowing who I myself am, makes me happy and fulfilled. What I live for, however, is to do what God has called me to do, and that is to continually strive to make myself better, and be the best scholar I can be. All these things are under the aegis of God, and it is in part my duty to Him to strive to better myself, and work to benefit others in the things that I do. When I fail in that task (which I always do, lacking here and there) I fail both myself and Him, and, in proper stoic fashion, tell myself to learn from those mistakes. God will forgive me; and usually I can forgive myself; and most important then is to try my utmost to do better next. Those goals are what drive me, and what I live for. In is all interconnected.

I am still not following, sorry. Why does answering prayers negate the possibility of an omnipotent and logical being? Specifically, I am not seeing how logic applies here. In what way is granting a petitioner's request illogical? Or is it just that if the result (say, healing a person) is the most logical course of action, the being would have done so without the person's request, while if it is illogical, a logical being would not do it regardless of the individual's request? In which case, it might be more exact to say that a logical omnipotent god just wouldn't consider the requests of prayer.

Eh, well, because omnipotence means both ultimate power to act on all things, and an absolute deficience to be acted upon. Responding to petitions is being acted upon, ie. God is dependent on it, because a reply or answer is by nature a response. God, if He is Omnipotent, cannot respond. It would be illogical.

[Thought]

Eh, well, because omnipotence means both ultimate power to act on all things, and an absolute deficience to be acted upon. Responding to petitions is being acted upon, ie. God is dependent on it, because a reply or answer is by nature a response. God, if He is Omnipotent, cannot respond. It would be illogical.

Ah, I think I finally understand what you meant. I wouldn't agree with the definition, but given that defintion I can see that. Thanks for spending the time to explain.

[Daniel Krispin]

Oh, and ZeaLitY, you are beginning to sound for all the world like a Nazi. They too were humanists who thought certain groups were a bane upon the enlightenment of the rest.

And don't you even begin to dare to call me a Christian historical revisionist. I know far, far more about history than you do (and Thought more than I), and none of that comes from Chrsitian textbooks, but all regarded, mainstream, learning. How can you possibly even do this, calling me out on this when the only evidence you are even willing to consider is what which agrees with you? You've been embittered to a certain stance, and blind yourself to everything that disagrees. If anything has been revised, it's been the mainstream secular views. You, ZeaLitY, are a dogmatic fantatic. If you weren't, you could go 'really? Well, that does question my views...'

When was the last time you did that, eh? When was the last time you actually considered you might be wrong, eh? Or have you just come to sit there and go 'I've been enlightened, and everyone else is wrong!'? Is there anything more evidencial of a fanatic than refusing to see someone else's viewpoint? As for me, heck, I can readily say that certain things Hume says have rightly challenged my beliefs; and I have no such aversion to the reading of Nietzsche as you seem to have to the mere mention of religion. If there is something that I begin to question, either a.) maybe it's wrong or b.) maybe I didn't understand it as well as I thought. Either way presents no danger, but an opportunity. Yet you are entirely unwilling to see any change in what you believe. I am entirely certain that if time travel were possible and, say, we managed to disprove evolution (which is unlikely, as it may well be true, but this is an example), you would not be willing to believe that evidence because it disagrees with your worldview. In short, you are merely a religious dogmatic of a different creed called 'Pseudoscience.'

The Compendium is meant to be a place where we enlightened discuss our views. Not where one party is cut down because the ruling party disagrees with it. If you had your way, you'd bloody well turn it in to a Scientific Theocracy. And yes, theocracy. You're not treating science as science, you're treating it as religion. If you want to see a scientist, look to me or to Thought. Or heck, if you want to see an atheist who is as an atheist should be, look to RD. He might totally disagree with me, but he'll cut down my arguments... he won't try to cut me down. Why don't you try and be more like that?

[placidchap]

You're right, Placid.

Terribly sorry, all, for the sarcasm in my last post.

Didn't mean you Thought, sir.  Directed towards Zeality.

[Lord J Esq]

If you want to see a scientist, look to me or to Thought.

You have a singular wit, Daniel Krispin.

The Compendium is meant to be a place where we enlightened discuss our views. Not where one party is cut down because the ruling party disagrees with it.

Take heart. With my departure, and your new allies at your side—cunning Thought and the proud sexist Anacalius—the tides have turned here, and the day is yours. Enjoy it, as I once enjoyed driving you out of this city. Yet time flows like a river, and history grows. Now, with the persistence of a vandal, you have returned to this place with friends. As your weakened foes crumble beneath you or refrain from the engagement altogether, your longwinded claptrap goes unchecked, your hazardous blasphemies discolor the Compendium like seeping banners, and your regime of fallacy stands triumphant, its flags emblazoned on every street corner. You have even flanked and provoked alacritous ZeaLitY, king of this land, into becoming a horrible caricature of himself—he who, like the rest of us, is “only human,” as you might put it, and loses his temper from time to time. (How well you know of that, eh?) For the time being, all the privileges of victory are yours. I speak no longer as your opponent—I am done with that—but only as your conscience…a poor successor for that poorer little fool who must have, once upon a time, stood upon your shoulder honorably and shared with you the very wisdoms for which you ultimately cut out his tongue and buried him beneath the heel of your jackboot. I hold out hope you may yet recover your senses someday. In any case, you fascinate me. You are a study in villainy—a tragedy, and a pitiful mind made all the more so because you could have been, and perhaps may yet become, a great and kindred intellect. It is wisely said that people like you should not be ignored and left to fester unhindered. I believe Hitler did that, in between the wars.

Ah, yes, who was this Godwin who took your favorite line of reasoning and gave you only shame in return? Strewth, triumphant Krispin: I do not find ZeaLitY any more persuasive than you do, but you should reconsider your predictable charges of Nazism and theocracy. ZeaLitY is a young human being, like you and me, whose head is tilted upward and who holds a love for life and its wonders. His abrasiveness deserves your warmth. You shame yourself to shame him. He is a person of good character, a distinction which you yourself shall struggle to achieve but once in ten lifetimes. However poor his arguments may be—and they are poor—he has allowed you to remain a member in good standing of this Compendium. He quarrels with you only in the arena of debate; outside its walls you are free to move about in his demesne however you please. If anything, you owe him your thanks for graciously permitting you to continue on in your ascendant yet ever-wretched residency.

Mostly, ancient Greek, myth, and the literature of many ages, from the Tragedy of Aeschylus to the epics of Homer, to the works of Shakespeare. Yes, literature more than anything else. But all forms of learning can at times enthrall me, and any in real life know that I can ramble as well on things like temporal mechanics and the like. And beyond this, philosophy, particularly the Stoics... never do I read Seneca and not come away feeling better for it. So there is where my passions lie, and what excite me... and often, my future in these fields, and the confidence of knowing what I do in them, knowing who I myself am, makes me happy and fulfilled. What I live for, however, is to do what God has called me to do, and that is to continually strive to make myself better, and be the best scholar I can be. All these things are under the aegis of God, and it is in part my duty to Him to strive to better myself, and work to benefit others in the things that I do. When I fail in that task (which I always do, lacking here and there) I fail both myself and Him, and, in proper stoic fashion, tell myself to learn from those mistakes. God will forgive me; and usually I can forgive myself; and most important then is to try my utmost to do better next. Those goals are what drive me, and what I live for. In is all interconnected.

It was I who inquired…with thanks to the generous Ms Black for conveying the interrogative. I realized only too late my neglect in not asking you about this a long time ago. Perhaps we could have avoided a good deal of needless feud. With apologies for the subterfuge, I knew you would not answer the same way if you knew it was my question. Thank you for the courtesy of a reply.

I do wonder how much longer you will be able to retain your failing grip on this illusory existence you have woven for yourself. That famed Krispirian incuriosity is quite a becoming raiment for the person you claim you are, but it does not suit even the littlest toe of the person you ought to be. A “scientist” indeed. And a philosopher. And a historian. Tsk tsk.

The Compendium is meant to be a place where we enlightened discuss our views. Not where one party is cut down because the ruling party disagrees with it.

Carry on, then, my dear, ruling scientist.

[x_XTacTX_x]

Woah. o.o

I just read about 10 minutes worth of a heavy argument, both making great points. >.> but now it's getting just plain nasty with insults, I think I'll just stay out of this thread fer a while. ._.;

[Anacalius]

You, Krispin, and everyone else: don't fucking make assumptions about my life. I went to church every Sunday. I nearly became a missionary. I have reached to touch the face of God only to find nothing but air. As for Krispin, that is the saddest, most self-restricting fatalistic post I've ever witnessed.

Meh, people make assumptions, you as a humanist should know this. What we can't see, touch, feel etc. we use what little knowledge we have to fill in the gaps. I don't think anything I said was extremely out of bounds of common sense, when looking at your view of religion. So my assumption that you didn't have much education about religion was wrong. What's it matter? You still were saying incorrect things about my religion specifically and pawning them off as facts for the sake of your argument. I apologise if my assumptions offended you in any way, I meant no harm.

As for your Krispin statement, I think you need to chill out on the personal attacks. Posting a pic depicting a man with a bloody sword who looks like he is about to lop someone's head off and saying "This is the reaction you should receive for believing that" is absolutely out of bounds of etiquette, and strikingly familiar to the violent, fanatic behavior you hate.
You may as well have said "I should kill you for believing that", because that's the impression I got, and I'm sure others got it as well. You're sounding dangerously close to the violent fanatics you so hate, your attitude in this thread has been eerily similar to a "I am right, accept it, or else" attitude that NO ONE wants to hear, which is simply making you an invalid factor in this discussion. I am assuming this is not your intention (Whoops, forgot I shouldn't assume things about you), but it sure does come off that way. If you are unwilling to listen or discuss politely and ponder the other side's view, or at least show it a shred of respect, than you will not be taken seriously. You said it yourself:

the unwillingness to accept basic scientific correlation and evidence outs you as someone who is not bound by logic or reason. And someone who is not reasonable is not worth listening to or even acknowledging.

In exactly what part of ANY of your posts have you shown "Scientific correlation and evidence" that proves you right? Nowhere, none exists. You're unwillingness to accept this fact outs you as someone who is not reasonable. And as you state, someone who is being unreasonable is not worth listening to or even acknowledging.
You believe that religious people have no logic or reason? Fine! You don't want to acknowledge us? Fine! Then stop doing it. No one is making you take part in this conversation, no one is forcing religion on you, and no one is criticising you for not believing in it, and I, for one, don't give a shit either way. If you want to take part, I'm more than happy to listen to your views and show respect for them, but all you've done is barge in and say that we're wrong for believing in religion, and under your views, we are without logic or reason. You even attacked another atheist on this thread saying "Then it's too bad you don't feel more against these fundamental perverse tenets of religion." Yeah, too bad for YOU, which again, you are saying that your view is the only correct one and he is wrong for not agreeing. Give me a fucking break, man. Do you not realise how much of a hypocrite you are being?

Needless to say, it'd be in both of our best interests to just stop this argument before it escalates anymore than it already has. As you say, religious people are not worth listening to, so my speaking more would all be in vain, since you have pre-determined the path of resistance and closed-mindedness to me. And by the same token, I don't think I could take anything you say about this matter seriously anymore either, because I think it's just going to be the same, aggressive speaking as in your last post. So with this in mind, let's just agree to disagree, can we? I am truly, deeply sorry if I have offended you in anyway, for it was not at all my intention. And as I said in my last post to you:

I've seen you post in many other topics, seen your updates and work on the site, etc. and I personally think you are an intelligent person, ZeaLity, and I do not mean to insult you as a person in any way shape or form here.

Take care.




As for the posts after ZeaLity's, you're all just going off the deep end now with insults, and it's not even worth my time to respond. I offer you the same, let's agree to disagree and discontinue this thread. Certainly I was right several posts ago when stating that "Arguing about this is futile". You've just proven it.

[Kebrel]

Wow what a great conversation this was, now though you have all just fell apart to useless bickering. To be honest its sad, but hey it happens keep going if you think you can fix this discussion. Other wise this is just going to taint the compendium.

[BROJ]

(If you'd rather not read all that follows, basically it's just a correction. Actually, Broj, Kantian metaphysics IS the grounding for most of what you call respectable science and, if it limits it, it is because like it or not science does have its limits.

Definition of Metaphysics:

• speculative thought about matters outside the perceivable physical world

Those questions have to be asked, otherwise science becomes nothing more than a religion.

I agree, but what I meant was that Kantian metaphysics should hold itself to a higher standing, such as producing a verifiable correlation to some facet of reality, to be considered a science; I didn't mean it to be some wack-job's theory, just that it needs to mature a little more.

And far from creating some sort of ignorance loop, it does give us solid ground.

I didn't say that; I believe I said an "infinite logical loop" referring that it is not very "collaborative-science-friendly".

Look up Kant, and read some of him.

I did; do you honestly think I would be arguing with you if I hadn't.

On what grounds? That it held back science?

No, that it holds back collaborative science; in this world of technology--there's no more room for a 'renaissance man' anymore...

Actually, it's not nearly so sketchy. It's meant to dispel skepticism, rather than raise it, by showing us what philosophy can and can't say.

Again, did I actually say that; I think you were taking this science a little too personally.

You've gotta understand... the people at Kant's time were trying to use philosophy to tell us things about God and other nouminal concepts which, as he shows, is impossible.

I realize that, but that's not my point.

Finally, I don't think you understood that quite right. Quite the opposite, Broj, it DOESN'T break our scientific method, but rather reinforces what we can and can't know (ie. the scientific method works very well for our understanding of things as we perceive them in this universe), nor does it devolve into ridiculous overarching skepticism. The answer that it provides are far, far from etherial. In fact, they are the very opposite: he provides very grounded and solid, logical, answers. That's the sort of philosopher he is. Indeed, his very purpose is to COUNTER those who were giving etherial answers like those.

It does break the method, however, when applied to a collaborative effort.

So let's not be down on Kant. Like I said, he was leapfrogging off of Hume, who was the ultimate empiricist and supporter of those sciences. If there is any philosopher that would agree with sciences, it's Kant, whose work is essentially a victory of reason. Ie. within this world everything can be reasonably discerned. I'm not sure how you can possibly take that to be counter-scientific. Though, to be fair, at points it does show the limits of science. If you don't like that... well, honestly, then you're taking science too far. It does have its limits, and to not accept them is simply unreasonable.

I'm not. Sheesh! Can a person disagree with his methods without being called a basher.

Oh, and by the way, the 'holographic universe' concept... is nothing to do with Kant.

I was taking a leap of faith with that one, so yeah...

Is there anything wrong with limiting something to the bounds of what it can achieve?

Since when did anyone get to 'determine' that any science has limits as arbitrarily as you just did. Science, meaning "to know", is about exploring *unknown" barriers; if all barriers have been discovered, it then ceases to be a science.

Uh... no. That's not what I meant, Broj. What I meant is that it is impossible to determine such a boundary by mere logical grounds.

Well, obviously...

Tell me, how in the bloody world could you perceive the 'end' of space, eh? What would be the 'end' when 'end' itself implies space? You run into logical contradictions.

This may be intended as a rhetorical question, but I'll answer it anyways. Three possible ways exist, but only in a mathematical sense; after changing a certain coordinate for a required amount of time at a given rate you either a) start changing in another given coordinate, b) dissapear, or c) pop up on the opposing side of the domain.

Same thing with time. To tell me beginning you have to have a time when time didn't exist.

Prove that time didn't have a beginning; even with creation there was a t=0.

See the contradiction?

No.

? Not sure what you mean. All I meant to say is that some passages, and in particular the one you sighted, do actually have a literal meaning. Allusions...? What do allusions have to do with anything?

When one takes it in the literal sense it tells of a story of mutual combat--wow, I didn't think promoting violence against one's neighbor was the intended meaning.
What I meant was the Bible wasn't intended to be a history book in the classical sense; more of a book of codes, morals, lessons, and laws.

Oh, I know. It just came to mind and I thought it was interesting. And I thought your example was a bad one: that passage does have historical relevance, beyond simple mythical meaning.

Again; I'm referring to the message, not the story.

Alright, now I see where you're going with this, and I absolutely agree. Mainstream churches are definitely diong this (Which is the reason I don't go to church). Not ALL sects are doing so, however, but yeah.

I agree with you *entirely* then.

I believe you're taking my statement a little too literately and not taking the time to understand it's meaning.
What I meant was:
Society's original intention was to collaborate individuals via laws and out of mutual benefit in an attempt to bring peace and progress; lately many religions have been doing quite the opposite...

Well, first off, you're post was extremely short, so it's hard not to take such a short post with no explanation "too literally".
I still am going to say that's not religion's fault, that's people who are taking religion into their own hands and molding it to their will.[/quote]
Thats kinda what I meant; religion used to be a collective, yet personal matter--now it's turned into several 'unmodifiable', unquestionable molds. Though I'm not attacking Religion as a whole, as I am a Christian agnostic, but rather the corrupted components that "spoil the bunch", so to speak.

You, Krispin, and everyone else: don't fucking make assumptions about my life.

Woah, Zeality I'm not attacking you; I respect your opinion, so don't take me as an elitist biggot. And Lord J esq, I couldn't agree with you more.
I, myself, withdraw myself from this degenerated thread of false elitisms, insults, and outright bashing of other's opinions.
To quote the Zsnes board's policy page:

• Politics and religion/philosophy are not fun discussion topics. Just a note.