Anyone know who goes by the name of BlueCladVagrant on ReDecK? I was hoping this individual would honor us with their presence. I am somewhat interested in communicating with this person as they have listed rhetoric as an interest/hobby in their profile. Since rhetoric is generally described as the art of persuasion through language, I was interested in participating in some viewpoint sharing, belief espousing and/or thought swapping.
I do like what I read here on RE, very interesting and a bit more sophisticated than other forums. At this time I do not feel comfortable partaking in an RPG (mainly because I suck at it); however, I find them to be enjoyable reading material. I am probably the worst kind of noob. An old guy that thinks he is kind of wise. I do have a sense of humor, but given how thorough you are in your assessment of noobs as indicated by the quick and decisive responses to mwc01 and Pikang, I fear opening up too much. Me being a sensitive person, I am not sure that I could take it. Have a very pleasant evening.
My candle burns at both its ends; It will not last the night; But oh, my foes, and oh, my friends; It gives a lovely light - Edna St. Vincent Millay:
MintMan
Posts: 4061
Member #1
Nov 11, 2005 23:55
Yeah, that's me. Remember that whole spiel about how I had signed up for and was going to ReDecK to straighten things out before decided he couldn't wait four measly hours more for me to be available to do things right.
Blue Clad Vagrant, Rex Ranarum, Geirrekr, Kero Kato, Mint Man -- I go by a few monikers.
The proper rhetoric comes from my Latin studies, which inheritly have to involve Cicero. Philosophize and persuade...ize?
Back in the day, Gobbs and I would make rounds in our Pocket Monster research communes, tearing up people's faulty logic whenever and wherever they would flaunt it, and since it's the internet, it wasn't hard to come by.
'Course, you can never actually change anyone's opinion, even when you counter everyone of their points. People are dead-set in incompetent beliefs in the place not because of a logical deduction, but rather some more base origin. The best outcome you can hope for is that they don't gang up with their friends to flame or drown you out. We knew we couldn't effect anyone -- not changing their minds, per se, but just trying to knock a li'l reason into them -- but they had to die a little inside, no matter how much they tried to ignore our words, each fight we came out of.
There were some pretty legendary battles, which even non-participants remembered as much as a year after the fact.
Gobbs still gets around in the rest of the internet world (fighting the good fight, defeating foes but somehow not winning), but I pretty much shut myself off from the frustration of other communes and largely modeled this place to be everything that other places were not. That's a formula for success in my book.
Don't know much about swappin' logics, tho'. Beauty thing with going by reason, at least by an objectivist view, is that there is (or should be) very little room for debating over it. The only way that reason could lead to two paths is through human corruption, twisting it to desire rather than strict, cold logic.
But how much of a problem could that be?
Trumpkin
Posts: 9
Member #251
Nov 14, 2005 21:34
What if my pursuit of my own rational self-interest is in conflict with your pursuit of your rational self-interest? Could this create a situation where two objectivists have arrived at two paths without corruption? Could there be two individuals named Atlas that shrug at the same time?
Being a Christian kind of eliminates me as a potential objectivist. I do believe in liberty and capitalism; however, I believe there is a need for institutions to constrain behavior. Speed limits, marriage, restrictive covenants and professional codes of conduct are, in my humble opinion, valuable to a society. Granted I am fairly ignorant of objectivism (as I probably have just displayed), but I have never had the pleasure of participating in a discourse on the merits of this philosophy. I welcome either your scorn or your thoughts.
My candle burns at both its ends; It will not last the night; But oh, my foes, and oh, my friends; It gives a lovely light - Edna St. Vincent Millay:
Dragon_Kirby
Posts: 192
Member #226
Nov 14, 2005 22:07
Aye, and on my part your being a Christian tends to make me rather not bothering with debating or swapping logics, not to mention that would indeed be under the realm of "human corruption"
(But geez, the way you talk is sorta confusing, Waaaay too fancy for me to follow without re-reading, and I usually have good reading comprehension @_@)
But you wouldn't happen to be one of those Intelligent Design "teach the controversy" types who wanna shove that down our throats in Biology class, would you? I just wanna know ahead of time.
(Regardless, you seem the open-minded type who isn't afraid to defend their beliefs, so it shouldn't matter much)
* fabricates a PlateOWaffles * Want some?
COOKIE!
Dragon_Kirby fabricates a PlateOWaffles
MintMan
Posts: 4061
Member #1
Nov 14, 2005 23:42
I meant objectivist as in the literal meaning, not the pseudophilosophical Ayn Rand one. Don't both becoming more invested into it; it is mostly garbage.
On a very superficial glance, however, it has a lot of good aspects. I probably like Steve Ditko more than anyone who actually has an investment in the school. The world is black and white -- shades of gray are innately corrupt and evil, excuses made by people's weak wills.
If a man steals a loaf of bread to feed his family, it is wrong as theft is wrong. However, letting his family starve is also wrong. A hungry family does not alleviate any evil committed. Harsh, but the truth of things.
I am heavily Christian, too -- Catholic, in fact. Y'know, we're the ones that go by all that self-deprecating stuff that Jesus always talked about doing a lot but commoners seem to glib over in light of something that is said only once and then base their entire faith on that 'cause it is easier and doesn't actually require them to do anything...
Yeah, Intelligent Design. That's something crushing religion right now. How about we don't have it in science classes because it isn't science? Of course, I would also like schools to start teaching evolution correctly with the actualOrigin of Species and without all of those fake "missing links" -- one of them was a friggin' pig's tooth, fer cryin' out loud! Biology books made the correction, but history books never did!
Viva la raza!
boyachi
Posts: 1161
Member #92
Nov 15, 2005 10:56
You don't need to believe in a certain religion to come to the same conclusion that Leviathan does. I believe that people need institutions to control them but I will also classify religion as one such institution; it governs at more a moral level than the laws of the land.
As for intelligent design the main reason I dislike it is not so much my beliefs, but that I feel it is taking a step back from where we were, not forward. That and the science part, but then, I never had to take a single philosophy class in highschool thus raises the question: where do you teach intelligent design?
If this was to be a chat between the two of you, I humbly apologize.
My side is dead, my beliefs have been forgotten, my youth has left me and my innocence was slaughtered infront my eyes. Why should I care when it is only my life on the line?
Trumpkin
Posts: 9
Member #251
Nov 15, 2005 17:47
Dragon_Kirby, I hope to confirm your intuition that I am open minded. I have strong convictions for sure; however, I believe that one should be willing to ply their beliefs in the free market of ideas. One should always listen to others, be willing to share with others and evaluate ones beliefs critically. I really do not care what is taught in government schools in the USA. If the school has a greater impact on my son’s belief system than I do, I am obviously not an effective parent. Though I would be considered a conservative (maybe even fundamentalist) Christian by most; I do not advocate that we setup a theocracy in the USA. Let me practice my beliefs and share them with others. If I live my life in such a way that others can know Christ by my example, I am happy. Legislating religious beliefs does not historically work very well in western societies and should not be attempted regardless of how well intended one might be. I would welcome a discussion on the origins of stuff (stuff = everything that has existed and will exist whether it be matter or energy throughout time). I believe it is much more logical to accept “God created,” than to believe that stuff came from nothing and accidentally through chance and luck organized itself into all that is.
I am relieved that MintMan is not an Objectivist in the “Atlas Shrugged” mode. Not sure how things would have proceeded with someone that cannot accept the value of altruism, faith or charity. I do believe that evolution has been distorted from what Darwin originally espoused. Not enough thinking people in this world. More introspection would do us all good.
boyachi, I welcome your thoughts and participation in this discussion. I must say, this is the largest and quickest response that I have had to a post since getting into this discussion forum thing last year. Thank you for welcoming me.
My candle burns at both its ends; It will not last the night; But oh, my foes, and oh, my friends; It gives a lovely light - Edna St. Vincent Millay:
MadGoblin
Posts: 1515
Member #2
Nov 15, 2005 19:47
I only know one thing and one thing only about "Atlas Shrugged", and that's that South Park said it would make you never read again
I love how morons twisted Darwin's words. I had a brilliant biology teacher who dwelled into the history of the matter. Prett much, here's the original Origin of Species:
The word "God" appears 32 times. The word "evolution" appears once.
Darwin only proposed that animals changed over time. He never proposed humans were in any way part of this.
Whatever one believes, whatever is right or wrong, I just hate how people always get the bastardized idea of how Darwin came up with that we descended from apes. It was not his idea. Stop saying he thought of it.
Did this have a point? I don't know, honestly, nor do I remember if it even ties to the previous posts in some way. I think Darwin was said, and I wanted to say that, as its fun to say.
"I am a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar."
- Wash, Serenity
Michael
Posts: 54
Member #224
Nov 16, 2005 2:04
Legislating religion would have to be the most stupid thing a government could ever try (although I can see it happening). It would not only mean that people who are not religion would be forced to adobt religion, but also that all religious people would need to conform. It takes incredible circumstances for a person to rethink their religious beliefs (or lack of), forcing a change would result in one of the biggest conflicts in history. Also, taking away a person's religious freedom would shortly lead to an abscence of free thought. If you're told what to believe, you're not going to question being told what to think.
I personally see quite a bit of logic in believing that life was created "accidentally through chance and luck." In my opinion, the universe has always been. Over time everything developed through various processes such as evolution. Although the chances of 'stuff' originating in such a manner are incredibly slim, if the raw materials have existed for an indefinite period of time it had to happen eventually. I find this much easier to believe than that a perfect entity has existed for all of time and it was this intelligent being which created all that is. I think this is a question which for most people will be quite heavily influenced by their religious beliefs. Obviously somebody who doesn't believe in God will not be able to believe that He created all that is.
MintMan
Posts: 4061
Member #1
Nov 16, 2005 9:54
My big problem with pure science or Deist isn't so much their beliefs; it is what they don't believe. Almost none of the world -- especially the scientific community -- is behaviorist. That is a psychological school that believes there is no mind and that all actions we perform are based solely on instinct of prior circumstance.
Essentially, they believe in no free will.
Most people find this a morbid belief. However, those same people have no problem believing that creation came from out of accident and people do have free will. That's the problem with all-science-likes; they're frickin' morons.
If they were truly devoted to science, they would know something about String Theory, which is the theory of everything. It is what killed Einstein. Essentially, there are thirteen dimenions (nine more than the four we can experience), and it is all proven through math. The only people who really oppose M Theory at this point are the die-hard Newton fans as scientists often do gain a cult following, even tho' Newton's ideas were disproven by Einstein and other quantum physicists a century ago.
So, to recap, there is an enormous equation that dictates all planes of exsistence (or at least every plane of existence that effects our four dimensions). Being a mathematic formula, what's in it is in it and what's not is not.
Based on the wiggle of these little strings that make up all matter at the point of the Big Bang, one would technically be able to compute every action following it, although that would require a machine larger than creation itself. Nonetheless, it would follow that every human action -- as we and all life are a direct result from this formula -- would be nothing more than wiggles in a predetermined formula.
Now, I believe in String Theory because it is mathematically sound. I also believe in free will, however, because I believe in a soul. Since most science-likes do not, however, where does free will come from? There is no exception in a formula to create something that defies it; it is like a bad sci-fi movie where a computer gains accidental intelligence -- it just won't happen. Something cannot come out from nothing. Thoughts would have to be determined by the chemicals in our brain at the moment, and those chemicals would have been determined by a huge number-crunch every instant prior.
Still, I have yet to meet an atheist who will admit to being a behaviorist as well.
Well, I bashed up the scientific view; now for die-hard Christians. What's up with the seven days? Earth didn't even exist on the first one. How was a day even marked?
Also, by who's timeframe was this all being marked? Relativity states that time is experienced differently based on relative speed, and I would think God would be as static as they come.
A good teacher once pulled out some Bible quotes to layeth the shake down: "A day is to a thousand years as a thousand years is to a day." Dinosaurs existed -- get over it! Why is it that Christians are so adamant about defending something like this instead of the actual aspects of Christianity? Jesus himself said on numerous equations "Old Testament sucks" (mayhaps not in those words ). I know that there isn't a Christian among us that still believes the world is flat with a dome separating the flood gates above us, yet that was diagramed out rather nicely.
Viva la raza!
Trumpkin
Posts: 9
Member #251
Nov 16, 2005 11:51
It is an intriguing question. Is it easier to believe that God has always existed and created stuff or is it easier to believe that stuff has always existed on its own? Of course if we cannot accept that God created stuff and we cannot accept that stuff has always existed on its own we are left with stuff coming from nothing (AKA spontaneous generation). This is the latest scientific theory to explain how stuff could exist from eternity past.
I still think it is more logical and reasonable to believe that God created stuff (if an eternal being exists it makes sense to attribute to that being omniscience, omnipotent & other omni things). The alternatives of stuff existing since eternity past (never having a beginning) or stuff spontaneously generating (having a beginning without a cause) just do not add up. I call these the Matter and Energy Shaped by Chance theories (MES-C or Messy).
I do believe that legislating religion is usually a bad idea. Prohibition did not turn out to be very good for the USA. Very well intentioned individuals could see the social cost to excessive drinking and tried to legislate their religious beliefs onto others. Now there are still some "dry" cities and counties in the USA. This is a good thing, but has been arrived at by the members of that community. It was not imposed on them from the federal government. Each community should have the freedom to do this, but a national prohibition did not work and lead to considerable expansion of organized crime.
My candle burns at both its ends; It will not last the night; But oh, my foes, and oh, my friends; It gives a lovely light - Edna St. Vincent Millay:
boyachi
Posts: 1161
Member #92
Nov 16, 2005 12:57
Thank you Trumpkin, its nice to have you here.
Stop me if you've heard this one but one of the problems that Aetheists have against God is: if God created everything, where did God come from? The answer I recieved everytime was that God has always existed, which my problem was of course: why couldn't the Universe exist with God? I for one think that God in the sense is the Universe but I have little to back up this theory other than extensive opinions that are half tied to other beliefs and one law.
MintMan, I would like you to expand on your "spontaneous generation with free will" ideas, because I'm noticing that both topics conform to randomness.
As for the legislation of religion, I stand with the opinions expressed so far, main reason being that it would go against the first amendment, second reason being that I find thought control scary and mind readers freak me out, but this is due to my paranoia.
Yeah, that also reminds me. Why does everybody (i.e. the "crazy" Christians) keep saying that Christians founded the US? No they didn't; the better part of our founding fathers were Deists.
And why are Christians, atheists, and most people convinced of the idea of a dude with a big, white beard in the sky with a name tag that says "Hello, my name is God?" God isn't his name, YFFI. Wherever you go in history, "god" just refers to the chief deity. Back in Roman times, referring to a certain "god" ("deus") meant Jupiter; as soon as they were Christened, "deus" switched to Christian God. The same goes for any place whatsoever; the word, used chiefly, just isolates the top of the pantheon.
I always get so peeved whenever someone says that the very mention of God violates separation of church and state; it was clearly ruled that the government has to support a religion in order to violate that. "God" is not a religion; it is an idea. Get over it, whiny atheists.
And then Christmas! 'Tis just Saturnalia from the Roman days with a different name! The most Christian thing about it is the name! That's it! Christians can't even keep the birth of Jesus straight for that to even count! "Der, He wasn't born in December? The three Magi came from all parts of the world, not just Babylon! Jesus was born in a stable, not a cave as is clearly dictated in texts! Dar-dee-dar-dar-dar!"
Viva la raza!
MadGoblin
Posts: 1515
Member #2
Nov 16, 2005 17:40
Well, I believe Ems' just and fun explosion covered all points, even those not invoked Seriously, tho', I'm sure those would have been covered at some point, so good getting it out of the way now.
Here's a fun fact that most people will never hear. Know how people always say there are two sides, the brainy, science types and the devout, God believers, and that the two never cross?
Well, what they don't know is that a lot of those science types do believe in a higher power. It may not be exactly spelled out in some religion, but they know, know, there is a power above. And the reason for this always brings a smirk to my face:
"With all that I know, I know to much to think that there couldn't be one."
There's pretty much three levels of smartness:
1) You think you know a lot and decide that there could be no God.
2) You actually know a lot and see how unlikely it is that there could be no God.
3) You have knowledge of the whole universe and know whether or not God is real.
So, until someone gets to step three, I guess we'll just have to wait.
It's just like the real thing, only cuddly.
- Myth Busters
LieutenantEagle
Posts: 953
Member #27
Nov 16, 2005 19:29
To support MadGoblin's statement:
"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." ~Albert Einstein
I'm undecided in my beliefs but I have no problem with religion...with any religion, at that. 'tis quite unfortunate that too many people who claim to be Christian don't know their history and defend erroneous beliefs.
Also, good statements, MM and MG.
LieutenantEagle
President of the SMFC
Super Mario Fan Club -----------
"And one of the things we've got to make sure that we do is anything. -President Dubya
[Editted by LieutenantEagle on Nov 16, 2005 19:38]
boyachi
Posts: 1161
Member #92
Nov 16, 2005 21:25
Never heard the christian founding the US.
Christmas isn't christian any more, its capitalism. Peace on Earth, Good Will toward Men, and Bane to All who work Retail. I'd almost be more understanding if the early decorating in stores and malls were due to strong religious beliefs, but its not. People have lost the reality that the holiday, while most believe it is to praise the birth of Christ, they've forgotten that giving a big screen tv or opening that diamond ring isn't what its all about. What I would give away if I could ensure that my family was together for the holidays.
The New Dawn has risen. Are you the one to unlock it?
Battalon127
Posts: 753
Member #25
Nov 16, 2005 22:57
Yes Christmas is too commercialized. 'Tis the problem with Christianity. It's too mainstream. Now, I'm not saying that all true Christians should move off to some closed community and never communicate with the outside world (as that would completely prevent one of the most important parts of the religion), but that is what we would have to do in order to avoid contamination of the religion. Christianity puts itself out in the mainstream and it suffers in some ways for it. You'll have to put up with the phonies- the social church-goers, the actor-Christians, the people who do whatever the hell they want because they go through the motions once a week. Sure, Christmas the holiday is a commercial event and really has very little to do with religion on whole. It never really did to begin with. Like anything else that has to do with religion, it all boils down to a personal thing. You can choose to celebrate Free-week-off-mas and buy into the whole commercial aspect, or you can use the time as chance to remember an important moment in your belief system, perhaps with others who believe as you do, whether or not it actually coincides or not, that's not the important part. Personally, I enjoy the benefits of the secular holiday while devoting some time of that day for religious purposes (much like Sundays, but that's a whole 'nother thing). Don't get me wrong, I'm not against organized religion, but like anything organized, it's somewhat corrupt. You can't just be a participater on the surface, you have to be devoted personally. If you are, the surface doesn't matter anyway.
*waits to be shot down by someone with superior logic skills* Those who believe in black and white, assume there are no other factors involved. The time on this earth is long past when anything is so cut and dry.
Michael
Posts: 54
Member #224
Nov 16, 2005 23:16
On Nov 16, 2005 17:40, MadGoblin said:
There's pretty much three levels of smartness:
1) You think you know a lot and decide that there could be no God.
2) You actually know a lot and see how unlikely it is that there could be no God.
3) You have knowledge of the whole universe and know whether or not God is real.
So, until someone gets to step three, I guess we'll just have to wait.
Think I'm going to have to disagree with you there. I'm sure you'll find that there are as many intelligent people who believe in a God as those which don't. Just as many people would say that with all they know it is likely that there is no God. Intelligence has nothing to do with religous belief. The question of whether or not there is a higher power cannot yet be proved or disproved. Until then the question has no definite answer.
Trumpkin, I would think that it's just as logical to believe that all that is has existed since eternity past as to believe that a God has existed since eternity past. Once again, this is an unanswerable question.
On the subject of Christmas. It's just another example of people being converted to the worship of the great 'God' called money. The holiday has no religious significance to me personally and is more a thing of tradition. A day to spend with family. A truly commercialized holiday is Easter. While Christmas still retains a bit of it's original meaning, Easter hah become, for most, a holiday to give and recieve chocolate.
MadGoblin
Posts: 1515
Member #2
Nov 17, 2005 18:07
Here's the thing about Christmas or really any holiday: it's not a change in worship, it's marketing.
Since BC times, the winter solstice has always been a time (not a day, but spread set of days growing to the week surrounding or even month [ie: the modern Holiday season]). Romans were all about this. Several other cultures had holidays near here, too, and they were just absorbed into the conglomerate of X-mas. Back on point:
At this time, people aways got together, exchanged gifts, and lived it up. That's what they did and were happy. Well, when people get together for dinners and such, they need food. Food use to be largely self produced, but the change to a market system kinda meant that people had to go out and buy their food. In fact, you pretty much by everything. And this was still done... in the BCs.
So... nothing's really changed. People would go out and buy stuff like crazy at the season anywise. Having a sale at the time is actually less greedy and corporate of the "capitalist swine" that over commercialized the season.
People get together, people buy stuff, people make merry. It hasn't changed, only people's perception of it since the rod's are so far up their butts that it gouges their eyes.
And that is the true meaning of Christmas "My food is problematic."
- River Tam while trying to eat an ice planet, Firefly
Dragon_Kirby
Posts: 192
Member #226
Nov 18, 2005 20:59
On the good side, this discussion has finally made me stop being lazy and go out to the library so I can in fact read Darwin's book. (b^_^)b
Secondly, instead of a plate of waffles * plants a virtual Waffle tree * ^_^
And finally, I'm not comfortable with the, "God always existed, and made everything the way it is" ideal, considering that although it explains everything (something other explanations cannot claim), It doesn't seem as though there's a lot of thought or reasoning behind it to what I know. Feels more to me like a cop-out from actually thinking about our origins. Why would we even bother trying to learn about the world around us? It's there because it is, it works because it does, things happen because they do. (i.e. A lot of philosophers would be out of a job )
And obviously, if there's something deeper to it, I wouldn't know, so I expect some of you out there will end up explaining it.
COOKIE!
). I know that there isn't a Christian among us that still believes the world is flat with a dome separating the flood gates above us, yet that was diagramed out rather nicely.
Seriously, tho', I'm sure those would have been covered at some point, so good getting it out of the way now.
)