This user has been banned.
Ziggy Stardust said:
I'll stop if you stop.
Quick, somebody start discussing religion before it's too late!
Hey, you started it...
... just an innocent suggestion: maybe if you ditched the silly "pledge" and instead just behaved reasonably (that includes responding reasonably to reasonable posts without trying to start a trainwreck), there would be no problems.
Just an idea.
There, I've stopped.
Ziggy Stardust said:
I could have sworn I heard unimportant mumbling just now.
And again :D
Interesting how, after I've just joined this thread to make a few on-topic points (and post a few nonsense links while at it), it's once again someone else who's trying to bring in older feuds...
Makes me think of a classic moment in the Russian poem "Ruslan and Ludmila" by Pushkin:
Ludmila is abducted from her husband by the evil sorcerer gnome, who holds her captive in her castle and tries to make her fall in love with him by giving her beautiful clothes, delicious food etc.
But Ludmila looks at all this and gives a dramatic, hammy and demonstrative monologue assuring that she'll never touch these gifts and, if so she must, will rather die and starve than betray her love... and then...
"so she thought... and began to eat."
LOL!
CP3S said:
someone said:
twister111 said:
I can feel the hot...
Gross, Adamonekenobi, she is like twelve. She doesn't even have mammaries yet.
Could be 12, could be 17. If you think about Ellen Page, might aswell approach the 20s.
It's often hard to tell IN PERSON, let alone from a short gif.
But yea... definitely too young for you. I'd suggest you get over it and move on.
;)
Ziggy Stardust said:
Uhh...
Whatever. Keepin' the pledge.
Already broketh. Twice.
twister111 said:
I can feel the hot...
TV's Frink said:
Agnostic FTW! Woot woot!
...
I still try to be respectful of religion, even though I am not myself religious. I don't know the answers, but in saying that, I don't see how I can say that any other group doesn't have the answers either. How would I know?
The issue is simpler (in principle) than this last sentence suggests.
Religion has no answers (in the "valid" sense of the word) if it has no evidence to back up their answers (that they actually give).
Atheism doesn't claim to have any answers.
Hence, weak atheist.
I don't know of any evidence that backs up the claims of any religion - and stick to the label that makes no claims without backing them up in the first place.
Seems sound to me.
This thread.
After all, I doubt the no littering signs are operating under the 10 commandments. And on the reverse, I doubt you are one of those liberal Muslim apologists who say it's okay for a Sharia court to operate in the UK.
Not sure what you mean exactly.
No, I don't think that any law system should be built on religious dogma, no matter whether its Islam or Christianity.
As for 10 commandments on the front door, as I said, I didn't say that should somehow be forbidden, but I think an insitution that already should be trying to make a point of being secular, would do best by not generating contradicting imagery in a social environment where not everyone is actually convinced that a secular law system without a Bible is any good.
our values today have been shaped by a Judeo-Christian cultural heritage.
I don't see how that matters.
They've been shaped by people who, while mostly accepting Christian beliefs, have had the most differing "interpretations" of it that you could imagine.
If the Reconstructionists were at power, we'd have a hardcore theocracy with stoning, propaganda and mandatory religion.
As it happens, we've got people who believe in the moral side of it.
So seeing that we could have ANY sort of society under the banner of "Judeo-Christian", and anything from "do not kill" to "kill the unbelievers" could be justified, we have to conclude that we ended up like this because of... the people who took their faith into a particular direction.
Should we pay our dues to the religious influence, or to the people who thought Sermon on the Mount was better than Exodus?
Should we stress that we have our values and laws from the Bible, when in actuality we cherry-picked the parts we found agreeable, that don't need any religious influence to deduce in the first place?
All I know is, America has been founded on the separation of church and state, and I don't see why a court of law should prefer to make any implications to the contrary.
The 10 Commandments begin with an order to worship Yahweh and no other Gods. Why should we need THAT in front of a secular court of law?
We realize why stealing is bad based on LIFE. We've also realized that commanding people to believe in a certain God is stupid, so we've discarded that.
I'd much rather have a giant brain printed on the front door than a list of commands judging thought crime.
"I disagree with the overly-literal interpretations of the Bible utilized by Baptists, in addition to their rigid mindset and intolerance of others' ideas."
But that's the thing, though, we don't have any such bible-thumping bigots on here, so why not call them that if there's no one to offend?
However, should any actual bigot or racist or whatever come on this thread, he'll get no sweet-talk or respect from me.
Calling things their names is the name of the game.
There are multiple ways to view the universe, not just the skeptic's way. While science leads to greater understanding of how it all workds, it is not the only way to appreciate the world. Take art. What is beautiful for one may be hideous to another. To the one who finds the art beautiful, that is his or her truth, and all scientific studies could not disprove that person's understanding of what makes something beautiful.
They could explain why or how a person comes to a certain conclusion or perception.
Disproving the FACT of individual perception wouldn't only be outside the realm of science, it would actually be unscientific.
At any rate, science is there to gather facts and understanding of reality.
Opinions about art isn't another way to view the universe, it's about subjective impressions about objects.
Religious beliefs relate to factual claims, not personal impressions that are entirely subjective.
Take illness. Scientific studies have allowed physicians to treat and cure countless afflictions. But when a doctor asks, "On a scale of 1 to 10, how much pain are you in?" are they requiring scientific evidence to back it up? If their screenings find nothing physically wrong with the person, or at least nothing that should warrant a severe pain, do they tell the patient, "You're just delusional; you're not really in that much pain"? Of course not.
1) The fact that patients often can't be trusted with an accurate description of their sensations and there's no way to check reliably, is actually acknowledged as a problem in diagnostics.
The maxime being: do as best as you can with what's available.
2) Not delusional - ILLUSIONAL. Pain without physical causes is called psychosomatic, it happens all the time - depression, anxiety disorder, hypochondria etc. etc.
Obviously, it often happens that an actual problem can't be detected and the doctor wrongly puts off a sympton as psychological, while it's actually physical.
That has nothing to do with worldviews, however, it just means the methods need more and more improvement in precision.
Or were they perceiving details and reasoning them out without conscious effort? We may not be able to scientifically prove how they came to that conclusion, but that does not necessarily prove the conclusion as coincidental.
Well, intuition can go both ways - it can be delusional, but it can also pick up on things the consciousness doesn't.
While no one says following it is always wrong, can it be called a reliable method in gaining and cementing actual knowledge? NO.
Yet, in the end, we may find that one of the less popular theories is closer to the truth.
Based on new EVIDENCE, right?
simply lacking evidence to prove it true does not make something false.
Please look up "burden of proof" - it's an absolute must for anyone who wants to partake in a discussion about religion.
But if you are to proudly assert how insensitive he is to the rest of the world, don't be so dang sensitive when anyone makes a lighthearted jab or disagrees with you.
Where am I being sensitive??
Why you're starting to preach kindness and peace when I actually haven't insulted or demeaned a single user in this thread, giving no reason whatsoever for anyone to lock any threads, is beyond me.
Is it paranoia, or just your obscure "sense of humour"?
Just because you can state your opinion with passion and many words does not make it correct.
No.
Backing it up with reason makes it correct.
Not correct in a final sense, but a temporary correctness until valid counterpoints are made.
In this case, I think I've made a pretty good case for why your analogies to art and medicine aren't valid and don't translate well to religion, but apparently, in a "sensitive topic", making simple points based on logic can easily rub people the wrong way. *surprise surprise*
If your point is that religious claims could be correct even if they're not proven, well d-uh.
But that kind of "intuitional certainty" hasn't lost anything in science or law, so I don't even know why you're bringing it up.
PS:
If you allow me the expression, sir, I've noticed that you're somewhat of a "murky".
You like to make vague, foggy points with implications and analogies, sort of twirling and dancing around a point without actually making a clear case.
Why this talk about "different ways to view the world"?
Well here's one way to view the world: I know a schizophrenic. He sees demons and ghosts. There's no evidence that they exist and we know schizophrenics see that kind of thing due to brain dysfunctions, but they COULD be real now couldn't they?
So I'll just follow my "intuition" and consider that a relevant probability.
Someone tells me "but this is ridiculous lol!"
To which I reply: "Well, it's irrational in a scientific sense, but there's that feeling that I'm following here. That's also a way to view the world, aside from the skeptic one - but I wouldn't teach that in a science class so don't worry lol!"
Isn't this a much clearer summary of the issue here?
A topic I'd like to raise myself:
On the premise that religions are made of delusions and unfounded claims (if someone thinks they have evidence, this point doesn't apply there) - should it be considered an ideal that people are better off living in reality, or could one say that being able to live in delusions is a "valuable" aspect of being human?
I mean, we all know of plenty of cases where delusion results in indisputably BAD things - intolerance and bigotry, crankery, damage inflicted on society, health, etc..
Some forms could also be called positive - the belief in a blissful afterlife or seeing their loved ones again may have a therapeutic and comforting effect (excluding the questions whether it could motivate people to treat death with less care); a belief in some kind of divine judgment may keep some people in line, or give them motivation to live up to their own (or in the worse cases, society's) moral values.
As far as I'm concerned, the fun definitely ends when unfounded beliefs make their way into public education and start mixing up with... well, known facts.
I don't see how something like that can be good for a society.
However, talking about personal offense again (the kind that results from burst bubbles) - should those bubbles be respected and treated with care at the fear of taking away some relevant crutch from a mind, or... should they be burst because they're bubbles?
Nice take ;)
The problem with stuff like the 10 commandments in front of a court house, is that stuff like that is very prone to actually being taken seriously by some.
Some imagery on old pots in museums or restaurants is one thing.
Making a rather bold insinuation that a COURT OF LAW may be somehow operating under Biblical authority, is something completely different.
Fine if they don't, but anyone putting something like that in front of a court house should be aware of the implications of it, and leave it as a form of provocation at best.
When the Bible and Christian imagery have become mere "cultural artifacts" in our society, then there would be no problem.
PS:
As for respect - there is no need at all to personally abuse people for their beliefs, BUT: if someone finds a belief stupid, they should be free to say so. It'd be a no-go in a friendly table debate among friends, but shouldn't be a taboo on an open discussion forum.
I don't see why "offense" should be something one should care greatly about when making statements. I simply don't.
If an insult is aimed at some acquaintance or loved one, fine, I can see that - but we also have a tendency to attach our egos to idols, authority figures or worldviews and get hurt whenever someone "insults" them, and I don't see any reason to show regard for that.
The way I see it, religious people either think they have valid reasons to adhere to their beliefs, or they consciously believe in something they know is completely ridiculous on a rational basis.
The first group should be laughing at the ridicule; the second can still say "talk to the hand; the face realizes that".
The third group that tends to make stupid arguments and show complete ignorance of rationality or (common) knowledge, doesn't deserve much extra respect for their views imo.
Haven't seen any of those on here, though... or, there was a guy who PMed me to stop saying "god damn" on his thread because it was blasphemous... so if he comes here... LOL.
DuracellEnergizer said:
twooffour said:
DuracellEnergizer said:
5. I expected Palpatine to be more of a background character - someone who wouldn't be focused on until the final prequel
That's kinda what happened, though :D
I meant that I didn't expect Palpatine to be shown that much until it came time for him to seduce Anakin to the dark side and rise to power. Maybe he'd make one or two appearances throughout the PT, a few references to him would be made perhaps, but that's all I expected. I didn't expect him to be the puppet master pulling the strings of galactic events as he was shown to be throughout the PT.
Yea, that probably was over-the-top. It would've been okay for him to pull a few strings at some point, maybe even usurp power in a similar form, but orchestrating the whole fucking plot was just too much.
DuracellEnergizer said:
5. I expected Palpatine to be more of a background character - someone who wouldn't be focused on until the final prequel
That's kinda what happened, though :D
Funnily enough, I had pictured the Vader conversion scene almost exactly like in the movie - in a dark, reddish room in front of a giant window... Anakin gets the same offer as Luke and accepts.
Though my memory could be playing a trick on me, so I'm not sure.
Obviously, it was supposed to be dramatic and serious, and Vader's decision conscious, not as falling for a con. Without all the narm and ham and all...
other than that, dunno. More authentic personal drama like in V and VI, more "hero in dragon's lair" situations full of doubt and despair... something like that.
Just as RLM pointed out, the prequels took the imagery, but forgot the dramatic context.
Darth Bizarro said:
twooffour said:
Darth Bizarro said:
because they are still Star Wars films.Unless you have other reasons to like them (as I do) apart from their brand association to a good movie series, I'm making use of my right to call your judgment incorrect and fallacious. Thanks.
Sorry, but the backlash that would inevitably follow my list of reasons isn't worth it. So you may continue to think whatever you wish.
I've actually posted 3 pages with a list of things I liked in the prequels, but I can't for the love of God who is in Space find the thread... :(
I poured out my whole heart in it :((
Darth Bizarro said:
because they are still Star Wars films.
Unless you have other reasons to like them (as I do) apart from their brand association to a good movie series, I'm making use of my right to call your judgment incorrect and fallacious. Thanks.
Um... seems to me the other way round.
Star Wars is the well-rounded, compact space adventure... Empire now builds on the same universe and makes a stronger impact, making the first pale in a sense.
DuracellEnergizer said:
Everything between Analking and Padding.
Hehe, good one!
Although nothing will ever beat "Queen Amidala and King Imadoofus" :DD
theprequelsrule said:
captainsolo said:
YOU WILL NOT TAKE HER FROM MEEEEE!
I think George's "directing" during this sequence consisted of instructing Hayden to furrow his brow as much as possible. Furrowed brow=evil.
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=episode3 :DD
skyjedi2005 said:
And horrendous pacing and bad editing, not to mention how they ruined a good many john Williams pieces with the edits they did.
Could you give a few examples?
I remember watching the movies a lot, and listening to the soundtrack a lot, and couldn't detect anything like that.
The only example I can think of is the Conveyer Belt, which I think was a pretty concise piece on the CD, but became somewhat corny in the movie by getting the Force and Love themes getting cut in all the time.
Is it anything like when the X2 intro ruined Mozart's "Dies Irae"?
What's the obsession with "ignoring" a bunch of movies so actively? Can't the mind just do that job? Why does it have to be some social environment that pretends as if some movie wasn't made?
LOTR 2 attempted to make us care about the women and children in Helm's Deep; the Matrix sequels did the same (that is, 10 times more) with Zion.
In both cases, I'm not sure whether leaving that out would've been a better option.
Can't say I cared much about the people on Theed - it was a McGuffin both for the movie, its main characters, and Palpatine. The movie should've had some other focus than this side plot, but as such, I didn't feel any need to see scared children or prison camps.
There have been many, many instances here lately where I wrote something, then another one replied to it, but obviously didn't bother to read a section properly - resulting in things like reiterating their assertion rather than defending it, committing the same mistakes, and what not.
That's the kind of thing I mean by "defense mechanism" - your brain starts to fight, starts to skip over passages that appear uncomfortable, and maybe then tries to overcompensate by being overly sarcastic or dismissive.
Now there's no excuse for that, no matter how badly I'm making my point, and it has nothing directly to do with "not agreeing" or "not complying", either.
Having that said, I'm pretty sure I do give arguments for my positions - last time (was that something about Ebert's sex obsession?) I may have tossed a few assertions at the beginning, but I've proceeded to make arguments after that.
So yea, hey, that's what I remember.
He locked a silly flame bait thread. Get over it.
