logo Sign In

darth_ender

User Group
Members
Join date
26-Apr-2011
Last activity
8-Oct-2025
Posts
8,815

Post History

Post
#963236
Topic
Religion
Time

Jeebus said:

darth_ender said:

Oooooh…I get it. It’s the atheist version of that “Hate the sin, love the sinner” thing. Caughtcha! How progressive!

The difference is that “Love the sinner, hate the sin” is usually referring to homosexuality. In that case, the ‘sin’ is a part of who they are, and something they can’t change. Religion is a belief, that can indeed be changed.

“Your sexuality is inherently sinful and wrong, but it doesn’t change my opinion of you as a person.”

vs

“I hate Christianity, but it doesn’t change my opinion of you as a person.”

So it’s only valid in cases where someone has a choice? By that logic, I can’t “hate the sin” of an individual attracted to the same sex, but I can “hate the sin” of someone having homosexual sex, right? Bear in mind that you probably don’t know my views on homosexuality (and others who’ve known me longer and think they do likely not either) so don’t bring me personally into this. It’s merely a question. Homosexual sex is in fact a choice.

Post
#963219
Topic
Morality--read the first post before posting or judging my posts
Time

Yes. I’ve read several folks say, “Well, I think that’s stupid because it’s not moral.” I find the arguments against the religious folks to be most striking. How do those who do not believe in any Supreme Being know what is right or wrong? I’m not saying they are not moral. I’m pressing them to define their morality. But likewise, why do we religious folks not exactly follow what our own scriptures do say? Where do we derive our morality?

Post
#963212
Topic
Morality--read the first post before posting or judging my posts
Time

Yes there is already a thread on morals somewhere around here. It’s not mine, it’s not run the way I want to run mine, so I will start my own.

I’ve read far too many unintelligent arguments lately about morals. Some people are convinced they know right from wrong. How interesting!

I don’t have the time to argue like I used to, but I assure you that I can argue with everyone who posts here, even if I actually agree with you. I will be playing devil’s advocate in this thread.

Remember, you don’t really even know what you believe to be right or wrong until you’ve tried to argue for the opposing point of view to the best of your ability.

So…

What is right?

What is wrong?

Explain.

Post
#960182
Topic
Religion
Time

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/11/14/religions-war-cause-responsible-evidence_n_6156878.html

Those of you who stated that religion is somehow the fount of so much evil, I encourage you to think a lot broader instead of looking for a single “common denominator.” I assure you, war will continue to exist as long as people cling to ideology, even if that ideology accepts or endorses atheism. Please read the article before touting your own ignorant bigotry again.

Post
#954229
Topic
Someone is posting the first draft of the Jurassic Park script on Facebook!
Time

Tyrphanax said:

56-59

Tyrannosaur.

The reveal is honestly a bit anticlimatic here, I feel like the goat bit in the movie really adds to it, as does the slower buildup. Regis is also a bit anticlimatic in the draft, the book was much more interesting. It’s interesting to see Crichton continually referring to the Rex as “he”, as well.

Again I’m pretty sure Wu even acknowledged they do that in spite of the fact that all the dinosaurs are female in the scene where he describes how they ensure that they are female. Maybe it was Regis who describes it. Can’t remember. Anyway, sounds like chrichton really wanted to follow his book as closely as possible.

Post
#953678
Topic
Someone is posting the first draft of the Jurassic Park script on Facebook!
Time

Tyrphanax said:

40-43

Nedry’s Delimma, the Anne B, a no-show Rex, and we move on towards the stegosaurus as the storm builds.

Looks like the sick animal will be a stego again, like the book, considering we passed the triceratops already. I’m wondering if Harding has become Muldoon this time?

I also realized that we had no scene establishing Nedry’s relationship with BioSyn in this draft, unlike both the book and the film. Crazy! I see how it makes sense to preserve the reveal, but I prefer knowing about it. There’s something about Jurassic Park where you understand how Malcolm’s Chaos Theory predicts the collapse of the park (and a lot of this is delivered on the pages as you see the iterations become more complex).

Read the book for the fifth time last summer (the first time since high school though), so it’s still pretty fresh in my head. As I recall, the BioSyn scene never actually states that Dodgson is meeting with Nedry. He’s just meeting with an unnamed man. Crichton may have described his physique, but we never surely make the connection till he implements his plans. Since Crichton wrote the first draft of the screenplay, I’m sure he was still trying to keep this reveal as best as one can in the film medium. I agree though, the final film version is better. It’s still a bit of a surprise in the movie when Hammond asks if Nedry had butterfingers and the same guy who met with Dodgson turns around in the swivel chair. Better reveal for a movie.

Post
#953032
Topic
Episode IV: A Ridiculous Hope
Time

Had an idea last night building off my Batman idea: make Porkins your Ric Olie of the OT. Give him a bunch of the Eckhart lines from Batman '89. Edit him shooting up TIEs left and right while saying things like:

“You’re an A-1 nutboy!”
“Ah, they’re drinking Drano.”
“These two slipped on a banana peel.”
“Shoot to kill.”
“You ain’t got no future, Jack!”

When Luke says it’ll be just like be just like Beggar’s Canyon back home, Porkins says, “I think you’re full of *bleep.”

When Gold Leader says they’re starting their attack run, Porkins says, “Why don’t you broadcast it?”

Could be a few more good lines in there. You could even have Porkins be the one to destroying the Death Star, after Luke misses.

Post
#950492
Topic
Episode IV: A Ridiculous Hope
Time

This is applicable to others in the OT, but mostly to ARH. Add as many Batman references as possible. For instance, Luke could have Joker dialogue from Batman: The Animated Series, and Biggs, Porkins, and Lando could borrow lines from Batman 1989 and their respective actors. For instance, Lando could easily say something like “We have enough problems in this city without having to worry about ghosts and goblins.” Maybe that’d go best after Han asks, “Aren’t you worried about the Empire finding out about this…shut you down?”

Post
#949773
Topic
Religion
Time

Lord Haseo said:

darth_ender said:

Lord Haseo said:

darth_ender said:
This is why I hardly post anymore because I get sucked into conversations I don’t have time for. However, you seem to have an extremely ignorant view of what morals truly are. They are not universal, set in stone, or permanent. They are arbitrary based on cultural acceptance. What you believe you hold as the epitome of morality demonstrates your ignorance. Sadly, I have no more time to talk to you, and you don’t provide very intellectually stimulating conversation anyway, so I will have to allow others to carry on the fruitless effort of pointing out your fallacious and foolish argument.

For the record, I have no problem with atheists. I respect so many of them and enjoy intelligent conversation. Sadly, this thread is lacking in that department at the moment from the atheist side. Bring back CP3S.

I apologize for not being more open to reprehensible viewpoints.

Actually you seem to be a subscriber to them. You tout your tolerance of others, then demonstrate that you lack it. Well thought out.

Are you fucking kidding me? I am against women being oppressed, gay people being called abominations and anyone who is not a believer of Yahweh being killed and I have reprehensible viewpoints? Bitch how?

Do a little more research and a little less generalization and you might answer your own questions. I’m done conversing with you. You can stop having your tantrum now.

Post
#949772
Topic
Religion
Time

Darth Lucas said:

darth_ender said:

Darth Lucas said:

There is absolutely 0 evidence to support the existence of any god(s). It is a ridiculous ancient notion and I honestly can’t comprehend how intelligent, rational people in the modern age can believe in an invisible man in the sky who created everything and a centuries old man who rounded up two of every animal on a boat and a dirt man and a rib woman and a man living in a whale. It’s absolutely ridiculous. I’m sorry if this offends anyone but it’s all really silly.

Depends on what you call evidence. Not offended by you, but again, this is an age-old argument that any religious person has already addressed, so you score no points for originality. Sorry. To me there is ample evidence.

But empirical evidence is not a subjective thing. I call evidence the same thing scientists do, which is in essence, something observable that supports the theory. I’m not trying to be original I’m just trying to ask questions and have a discussion.
You say “to me there is ample evidence” well, such as? I genuinely want to know. Again, I know I can come off as somewhat stand-offish at times. I don’t mean to. Just wanting to discuss.

Truthfully you would be the most fun to engage in. I do apologize but I must limit my rare appearances. Perhaps I can resume the conversation later, but at the present I cannot. Thanks for at least being thoughtful while presenting your views. I don’t have time for Lord Haseo’s obviously “thorough” knowledge of Christian beliefs. I’ll try to get back with you at a later point.

Post
#949769
Topic
Religion
Time

DuracellEnergizer said:

Hey, ender! Glad to see you back.

Thanks Duracell. Wish I could stick around. Life remains busy and I cannot engage in this conversation as I’d like. I have debated this topic intelligently before, even in this forum, but it looks like sticking around to debate further would be a pointless endeavor and a waste of my scarce free time, given the quality of the opposition so far. Keep up the good work.

Post
#949766
Topic
Religion
Time

Lord Haseo said:

darth_ender said:
This is why I hardly post anymore because I get sucked into conversations I don’t have time for. However, you seem to have an extremely ignorant view of what morals truly are. They are not universal, set in stone, or permanent. They are arbitrary based on cultural acceptance. What you believe you hold as the epitome of morality demonstrates your ignorance. Sadly, I have no more time to talk to you, and you don’t provide very intellectually stimulating conversation anyway, so I will have to allow others to carry on the fruitless effort of pointing out your fallacious and foolish argument.

For the record, I have no problem with atheists. I respect so many of them and enjoy intelligent conversation. Sadly, this thread is lacking in that department at the moment from the atheist side. Bring back CP3S.

I apologize for not being more open to reprehensible viewpoints.

Actually you seem to be a subscriber to them. You tout your tolerance of others, then demonstrate that you lack it. Well thought out.

Post
#949765
Topic
Religion
Time

TV’s Frink said:

darth_ender said:

Darth Lucas said:

There is absolutely 0 evidence to support the existence of any god(s). It is a ridiculous ancient notion and I honestly can’t comprehend how intelligent, rational people in the modern age can believe in an invisible man in the sky who created everything and a centuries old man who rounded up two of every animal on a boat and a dirt man and a rib woman and a man living in a whale. It’s absolutely ridiculous. I’m sorry if this offends anyone but it’s all really silly.

Depends on what you call evidence. Not offended by you, but again, this is an age-old argument that any religious person has already addressed, so you score no points for originality. Sorry. To me there is ample evidence.

https://www.mormon.org/faq/faith-in-god

God has provided many evidences of His existence. One of these is the testimony of His creations: “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork” (Psalms 19:1). Have you ever looked in awe at the night sky with its billions of stars? Or studied the intricate details of a leaf or flower? Or marveled at the miracle of a tiny new baby? These beautiful and complex creations didn’t come about by chance.

Or maybe they did.

That’s nice.

Post
#949764
Topic
Religion
Time

HansiG said:

I can’t understand how religion still exists in 2016. In this modern age, we have computers, cars, internet, we have technology to see objects which are thousands of light years away from us, we have knowledge to figure out what something which happened billion years ago looked like from a piece of rock, we have recyclable Starbucks cups, yet people still believe there is a invisible man in the sky watching over everything.

Look, I’m not saying that the universe was not created by a intelligent being. Who knows what caused the Big Bang? Maybe some ultra-powerful high-intelligent super-being made the Big Bang out of a boredom and that’s how the universe happened. But that being sure wasn’t God, Allah, Visnu, Odin, Zeus or any other god which humans have made up throughout the millions of years.

Maybe because religion offers more than you recognize. Again, this feels like an ignorant statement. You don’t have to understand why it means something to someone else. The lack of appreciation for religion, even when you find it pointless, is folly. Religion has value, even if you don’t see it.

Post
#949755
Topic
Religion
Time

Darth Lucas said:

There is absolutely 0 evidence to support the existence of any god(s). It is a ridiculous ancient notion and I honestly can’t comprehend how intelligent, rational people in the modern age can believe in an invisible man in the sky who created everything and a centuries old man who rounded up two of every animal on a boat and a dirt man and a rib woman and a man living in a whale. It’s absolutely ridiculous. I’m sorry if this offends anyone but it’s all really silly.

Depends on what you call evidence. Not offended by you, but again, this is an age-old argument that any religious person has already addressed, so you score no points for originality. Sorry. To me there is ample evidence.

Post
#949751
Topic
Religion
Time

Lord Haseo said:

darth_ender said:

This whole disussion will not accomplish much I’m sure, but I will say that it takes as much intelligence to blindly discard an entire religion based on some passages of scripture written in an ancient context as it does to blidnly accept those same scriptures as the inerrant and uncorrupted word of God through the centuries. God was speaking to ancient prophets in an ancient culture, and the fact of the matter is that the ideals in Old Testament were quite progressive compared to the norms of neighboring civilizations at the time. It is literally idiotic to judge the morals of ancient Israel (or any other ancient culture) with modern day morals.

And your final sentence here confirms what I just stated, that your judgment is idiotic. Let’s get philosophical and assume there is no God. With that assumption in place, you must then recognize that morals are as arbitrary as words: they are literally nothing more than culturally-accepted norms among humans interacting in a complex system. And since human understanding changes, so do morals. I guarantee you, if you wrote a book ennumerating what you believe to be the perfect moral system, and this book were to be read in 3,000 years, you would in fact be viewed as barbaric and backwards, particularly by the ignoramuses of that time who would expect your views to align with theirs.

I am glad you have morals. But your morals are what you feel is right, based on cultural norms and your own experience. You cannot measure ancient cultures by your own yard stick any more than you can judge a Muslim woman for wearing a burqa.

There are many other outlets that preach similar things that the good passages in the Bible teach and has none of the repugnant shit that the Bible has as well. So why not dismiss it? Also my book wouldn’t be seen as barbaric and backwards because I wouldn’t be chastising people for being different than me and I wouldn’t be calling for these people to die. So don’t even because I don’t want to hear that stupid shit.

This is why I hardly post anymore because I get sucked into conversations I don’t have time for. However, you seem to have an extremely ignorant view of what morals truly are. They are not universal, set in stone, or permanent. They are arbitrary based on cultural acceptance. What you believe you hold as the epitome of morality demonstrates your ignorance. Sadly, I have no more time to talk to you, and you don’t provide very intellectually stimulating conversation anyway, so I will have to allow others to carry on the fruitless effort of pointing out your fallacious and foolish argument.

For the record, I have no problem with atheists. I respect so many of them and enjoy intelligent conversation. Sadly, this thread is lacking in that department at the moment from the atheist side. Bring back CP3S.

Post
#949721
Topic
Ask the member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints AKA Interrogate the Mormon
Time

Meant to answer the Dr. Pepper discussion earlier.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Word_of_Wisdom/Cola_drinks_and_caffeine

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_of_Wisdom#Application_by_Joseph_Smith

The long and the short is that while some leaders have advocated against caffeine and others not, the fact of the matter is that coffee and tea remain the only caffeinated beverages disallowed by my church. Check the link for some interesting context, including the actual quotes by Joseph Smith’s brother Hyrum Smith that specify that the term “hot drinks” applies to coffee and tea.

But how do I as an individual understand the rules, including the seeming inconsistency between the no coffee/tea rule and the cola exceptions? Well bearing in mind that the revelation prohibiting coffee and tea was given in 1833, there were no cola beverages. However, it was clear that coffee and tea had some mildly addicting and stimulant properties. The revelation prohibited hot drinks, which were later clarified to mean exactly coffee and tea. The revelation was initially just a recommendation, but over time became more and more forceful, and about 100 years later became a commandment.

Now bear in mind that illegal drugs are not mentioned at all in the revelation, and yet we treat those as against our commandments and that revelation as well. You see, the spirit of the law states that one should avoid addicting and damaging substances or inappropriate substance usage. Later church leaders have added such drug usage to the list of prohibitions. Therefore we have a clear letter of the law ennumerated in the revelation itself and expanded upon by church leaders, and we have a spirit of the law, inferred by the intent. The letter of the law does not prohibit cola drinks, even though many do contain more caffeine than something like green tea. If the revelation were given today, I doubt tea would be disallowed, or else that cola drinks would be added to the list. But since neither is the case, and church leaders have avoided ruling out cola drinks, and therefore we are left to use our own judgment within the spirit of the law.

My solution based on this situation: I do drink caffeinated drinks, but not frequently, and usually when I am struggling to remain awake, such as when I’m stuck working night shift (every now and then I still have to). However, I do limit my intake, and I particularly avoid energy drinks and other highly caffeinated beverages. I tend to get caffeine hangovers too, and usually the easiest way to avoid them is by drinking more caffeine, so I usually go a few days between if I can. But I can see how it can become an addictive habit, and thus, even if not against the letter of the law, is at least breaking the spirit of the law with regular usage. So I tend to err on the side of caution. And that’s my philosophy. It took me a couple of hours to get it all down and my browser is displaying things weird, so hopefully this is coherent.

Post
#949647
Topic
The Place to Go for Emotional Support
Time

I am blessed to work in the behavioral health field as a nurse at our hospital (in fact, I’m using their computer right now! Shhhhh…). I therefore am a big believer in the benefit of medication as well. As Bingowings stated, beta blockers are effective. Designed as blood pressure meds, they bring down your BP and heart rate, but in so doing they also lower your fight or flight response, and thus reduce your anxiety. Inderal, or generically known as propranolol, is a good choice as it does not usually tank the BP of a person with normal blood pressure, but it will still reduce the heart rate and the anxiety. First generation antihistamines can also be effective, such as Atarax or Vistaril (slightly different compounds of hydroxyzine). Be wary of bezodiazepines, such as Xanax (alprazolam), Ativan (lorazepam), Klonipin (clonazepam), etc. While these medications are very effective, they are also addicting. Prescribers will often turn to them for long-term treatment of anxiety disorders, but the problem is, as with most addictive drugs, that not taking the medication on a regular basis will result in tremendous anxiety, even if the thing that used to trigger such anxiety is not present. They’re best only in brief treatments, while the others I’ve mentioned are better for the long haul.

But be aware that while I am an advocate for medication, I also do believe in the power of self. Not trying to sound harsh, but you are defeated before you begin. You talk about one step forward and two steps back and other statements with the expectation to fail. You do not even grant yourself the benefit of a doubt. You have already lost each day when you first wake up because you do not believe you can succeed.

I work with a number of addicts. Not one of them has ever successfully achieved sobriety from alcohol or drugs without relapsing, usually several times. But the fact of the matter is any time they have maintained sobriety for even a day, a week, a month, they have achieved a victory, even if they fall short again. When they relapse, they cannot tear themselves down, consider themselves worthless failures, and expect to keep on failing, or else they will fulfill their own prophecies. Every addict who states, “I can’t do this,” can’t do it. You are, in a sense, an addict with obsessive-compulsive tendencies. If you tell yourself daily that you are a failure, that you will continue to fall short, you will continue to fail and fall short. If you tell yourself daily that you will do better, and then fall short, at least you can count the hours you succeeded. Eventually the hours will turn to days, which turn to weeks, which can hopefully turn into a lifetime of stability. But you will never get to that point if you continue to get down on yourself.

Finally, counseling is indeed a good first step. It will help you work through and process your anxieties and their triggers. Don’t be embarassed. Even therapists have therapists these days. All of us could use an unbiased person to whom we can share our feelings. You can do this, but only if you believe you can.

Post
#949645
Topic
Religion
Time

This whole disussion will not accomplish much I’m sure, but I will say that it takes as much intelligence to blindly discard an entire religion based on some passages of scripture written in an ancient context as it does to blidnly accept those same scriptures as the inerrant and uncorrupted word of God through the centuries. God was speaking to ancient prophets in an ancient culture, and the fact of the matter is that the ideals in Old Testament were quite progressive compared to the norms of neighboring civilizations at the time. It is literally idiotic to judge the morals of ancient Israel (or any other ancient culture) with modern day morals.

Lord Haseo said:

Dek Rollins said:
I’m not sure what passages you’re speaking of, so I don’t know how many ways the text can be interpreted. (Also, about your parentheses, I don’t think a homosexual can effectively worship God.)

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. -
Leviticus 20:13

a raped virgin must marry her rapist

Well, I don’t recall it saying that in those terms, but people aren’t supposed to have sexual relation before marriage, and if that is committed, the parties are supposed to get married.

If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives. - Deuteronomy 22:28-29

and a woman should not have authority over a man

“I’m not sure what passages you’re speaking of…”

I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;[a] she must be quiet. - Timothy 2:12

how could I not hate it?

I have morals; that’s how. Not saying you don’t but the people who wrote these things had none or at least had a warped view of morality.

And your final sentence here confirms what I just stated, that your judgment is idiotic. Let’s get philosophical and assume there is no God. With that assumption in place, you must then recognize that morals are as arbitrary as words: they are literally nothing more than culturally-accepted norms among humans interacting in a complex system. And since human understanding changes, so do morals. I guarantee you, if you wrote a book ennumerating what you believe to be the perfect moral system, and this book were to be read in 3,000 years, you would in fact be viewed as barbaric and backwards, particularly by the ignoramuses of that time who would expect your views to align with theirs.

I am glad you have morals. But your morals are what you feel is right, based on cultural norms and your own experience. You cannot measure ancient cultures by your own yard stick any more than you can judge a Muslim woman for wearing a burqa.