Nightingale-White Darkness Lyrical waste

Well, I have investigated and have, at current, put the most credit in it. I will not claim to say I am absolutely right and you are all wrong, that would be arrogant and foolhardy. I will neither tell anyone that they must conform to my views. It is very important to note that though similarities may exist throughout history (the symbol of the cross in the ankh of Egypt, for example, or the themes of resurrection and paradise), similarity does not automatically imply derivation. A great deal of people assume that whichever was first was the inspiration for the latter, and there is simply no way to conclude that unless direct evidence of derivation exists. Similarly, the concept of 'zero' and mathematical calendars developed independently in several Eastern and Western cultures. I'll give another example, the cross symbol is so basic and prevalent throught history among many distinct cultures that it must have developed independently amongst at least some of them.

On the other hand, the coincidence of the Christmas holiday matching that of the Romans' Saturnalia, seems to suggest that when the early Roman church was establishing its public doctrine and establishment, it must have seemed easy for them to simply say that December 25th would be Jesus' birthday, whether it was true or not (Which it in fact is not, according to many historians). This allowed them to easily snatch one festival and turn it into another, smoothly transitioning the public to the new state religion. I am not going to say that what they did was right or acceptable, but that it happened.

So yes, some similar symbols and practices are derivative of other cultures. Others are mere coincidence, and lumping all into one category or the other is base.

As for the supernatural, because it is supernatural you are correct that natural evidence cannot be used. This does not mean that evidence does not exist. Neither can you prove no deity exists than I can prove one does. If you would like me to detail (it would be a very long post) some of the reasons I believe Jesus lived and was who he claimed to be, I could do that.

But I really want Dag to post the Making of WD :lol:
 
"I have an original sin...I poked a badger with a spoon"
-eddie izzard - dress to kill 1999-
his stand up is fucking hilarious

just wanted to point out about this thing I saw on Russian TV a few weeks ago that made my skin crawl with amazement...
there's this blind guy that sees everything including colors.
he taught himself to see with his third eye...he literally has eyes on the back of his head...the man drives a car absolutely 100% blind.
I wish I had such a trained left hemisphere...gotta get my brain in shape
 
Kenneth R. said:
Well, I have investigated and have, at current, put the most credit in it. I will not claim to say I am absolutely right and you are all wrong, that would be arrogant and foolhardy. I will neither tell anyone that they must conform to my views. It is very important to note that though similarities may exist throughout history (the symbol of the cross in the ankh of Egypt, for example, or the themes of resurrection and paradise), similarity does not automatically imply derivation. A great deal of people assume that whichever was first was the inspiration for the latter, and there is simply no way to conclude that unless direct evidence of derivation exists. Similarly, the concept of 'zero' and mathematical calendars developed independently in several Eastern and Western cultures. I'll give another example, the cross symbol is so basic and prevalent throught history among many distinct cultures that it must have developed independently amongst at least some of them.

On the other hand, the coincidence of the Christmas holiday matching that of the Romans' Saturnalia, seems to suggest that when the early Roman church was establishing its public doctrine and establishment, it must have seemed easy for them to simply say that December 25th would be Jesus' birthday, whether it was true or not (Which it in fact is not, according to many historians). This allowed them to easily snatch one festival and turn it into another, smoothly transitioning the public to the new state religion. I am not going to say that what they did was right or acceptable, but that it happened.

So yes, some similar symbols and practices are derivative of other cultures. Others are mere coincidence, and lumping all into one category or the other is base.

As for the supernatural, because it is supernatural you are correct that natural evidence cannot be used. This does not mean that evidence does not exist. Neither can you prove no deity exists than I can prove one does. If you would like me to detail (it would be a very long post) some of the reasons I believe Jesus lived and was who he claimed to be, I could do that.

But I really want Dag to post the Making of WD :lol:
Click to expand...

That would be cool. It's true that agnosticism is probably the most logical approach to those supernatural elements that cannot be proven by the means we have at our disposal today. I do have respect for the historical Jesus as a moral teacher. He did something rather remarkable by boiling down the Judaic law to essentially this: love god with all your being and love your neighbor as yourself. This has the potential to be quite revolutionary when put into actual practice. It is the magical elements to the story that I have a hard time getting behind.
 
Well I agree with you both on that matter
though about some of the magic could be explained by today's reasearch of psychic abilities.
the whole water into wine thing could be achieved by simple hypnosis, the walking on water, some buddhist monks can do that these days, waking the dead=cpr and theta brainwave healing
the thing I have the problem with is the resurrection...I personally think that it was just put there to give validation to Jesus' godly state...it's all about believing and people would have much easier time to believe Jesus is the son of God if he resurrected from the dead...there have been other people around that time that could do similar things like Appolo of Tyrany and Simon Magus
logic suggests that they were all powerfull psychics(in the broadest possible deffinition) and no more than that.
 
Show me how logic suggests that those people, or any person, for that matter, is a powerful psychic. Actually, even that logic suggests such things as psychic powers exist. I'd be interested to see how you formulate the logical premises that make you seem so confident in that conclusion.
 
someone is a powerfull psychic if he or she shows great control and accuracy in his/her psychic abilities.
logic doesn't suggest that psychic powers exist...it's a fact that they do.
the mere existance of fortune tellers and healers and telepaths(those which are not a hoax) is evidence, people have displayed remarkable abilities with their sixth senses.
don't look at it as something supernatural that cannot be rationalized...just think of it as simple left hemisphere brain activity.
that's why all humans are psychic on some level or another...because the brain works the same way so the potential is there but just because our brains are built the same way doesn't make us all math wizes...just as some people are smarter than others, some people are stronger psychics.
Intuition for instance is a psychic power...well what do you know
you're psychic...how do you like them apples?
 
Ilan, you keep begging the question. You can't suppose that something exists in the evidence of proving it exists! You said logic suggests it, and yet you are breaking fundamental rules of logic.

Obviously a "powerful" anything is someone adept at whatever it is. That's not at stake here. What is at stake is your next line. "logic doesn't suggest that psychic powers exist..." Yes. I agree. It doesn't. But in your last post, you claimed it does. Make up your mind. I was interested in how logic would show that, but now you appear to be dismissing it. Then you say "it's a fact that they do [exist]." How? Show me where you're getting this "fact".

I gather that what follows is your "evidence" for the "fact". Yet,
The existence of a sixth sense is pre-supposed here, and unexplained.
The existence of actual telepaths and psychics are pre-supposed here, and unexplained. (This is especially problematic for you because it is the very definition of the common logical fallacy of begging the question- in trying to prove A is true, you tell me A is true as your reason, this is indefensible!)

Then you say not to look at it as something irrational. Fine, I agree. Let us look at it rationally. I am still waiting for evidence and logical argument.

Then you again state that humans are psychic (I asked you to show evidence, not state your conclusion). You claim intuition is a psychic power. Again, no reasons or defense or sources for this claim are given.

You're still just stating claims without any evidence or reason, yet you talk of logic. I ask you to use it, because I am interested in how it defends your views.

I will here give you two examples of logical argument so you know what I am talking about:

1. I claim that it is possible to circumnavigate the Earth via ship.
My reasons for believing this is true are:
A. The oceans around the planet are connected.
B. The oceans and various seas are deep enough for ships.
C. The Earth is spherical.
D. Spherical objects have horizontal cross sections of circles.
E. Traveling in a circle around something is circumnavigation.

Thus, because the Earth is a spherical object and it is possible to sail the seas in a ship, which all connect, it is possible to sail completely around the Earth horizontally. Should you disagree, you must show that either one of my letters A-E is wrong or that I am not giving enough of them to prove 1. I will state here it is my opinion that there are not enough premises given to support the claim in this example.

2. I exist.
This is similar to an argument from Descartes' famous Meditations, specifically the second one of six.
A. I do not exist.
B. I cannot consider my nonexistence if I do not exist.
C. I am considering my nonexistence.

Since A assumes the opposite of the claim, and C and B conflict with A directly, and most importantly to this case, the claim is binary - it either is or is not - and therefore there are ONLY two options, since it is not option A (that I do not exist.) it must be 2. I exist. Descartes also introduces a concept of an evil demon to deceive the thinker into believing they do not exist. But they must exist in order to be deceived. Thus, even deceived, they must necessarily exist. While Descartes version is more complex, I feel that this example is sound and does achieve sufficient defense of the claim.

These are logical arguments. They make a claim (which you've been doing) and then offer reasons, or in the reverse order. It doesn't matter. Note that the reasons don't have to be scientific or complex, but concrete and simple statements that can either be agreed or disagreed with. They must also logically follow and consider all possibilities (for a deductive argument) or provide strong evidence (for an inductive one) and the conclusion MUST necessarily follow from agreeing with the premises. You don't have to format it like my examples. I did that simply to make it very clear.

What happens in discussion is the parties involved debate the premises, and we see which we agree and disagree with in order to form stronger arguments for or against a particular claim.

This is the method by which, several pages back, I presented a case for why I feel that the existence of suffering in the world does not conflict with the existence of a benevolent god.
 
ok let's have it your way

my claim:cell phones exist
proof:I am currently holding one in my hand

my claim:people with psychic abilities exist
proof:a. because I personally know and observed people while demonstrating abilities that can be classified as telepathy,healing and foresight which are psychic
b.I posses of such powers myself and I have a log which states time of vision, content and the time it came true to prove it, I have messnger chat logs where It is clear that I displayed telepathic ability and I've eased my best friend's girlfriend's shoulder pain without touching her(you can ask her yourself). you could call it observation and make me take a polygraph test to prove that I'm not cheating.
c.scientists have observed people who demonstrated such abilities.

all of my arguments in previous posts rely on the assumption that psychic powers do in fact exist...and if this post does not supply the evidence

do I really have to prove that people demonstrated these abilities too?
this is an axiom on which everything is based...and it's a fact
 
paradoxile said:
"I have an original sin...I poked a badger with a spoon"
-eddie izzard - dress to kill 1999-
his stand up is fucking hilarious

just wanted to point out about this thing I saw on Russian TV a few weeks ago that made my skin crawl with amazement...
there's this blind guy that sees everything including colors.
he taught himself to see with his third eye...he literally has eyes on the back of his head...the man drives a car absolutely 100% blind.
I wish I had such a trained left hemisphere...gotta get my brain in shape
Click to expand...

Only in Russia!
 
actually not only in russia
there was a famous old lady in Bulgaria- Baba Vanga...who was carried by a storm as a kid and as a result she was blinded but got the gift of telling the future and the knowledge of healing people. she could also "see" her patients despite being blind. she was also a religious christian...died in 96

the difference is that Vanga wasn't born blind...
 
On your evidence, Ilan.

Again you have not shown anything and only made unsupported claims which you call facts, just like gar did!

A. Personal experience which I cannot replicate, there is no way for me to believe it.
B. Personal experience which pre-supposes the conclusion! Indefensible.
C. Now this is the interesting part. But you must tell me more. I can tell you that "Scientists say pink unicorns exist, and that's a fact!" but unless I give you reasons why, it's just an empty statement.
 
how is the blind guy from russia not evidence...he was on tv, and showed what he can do.

a.personal experience which you cannot replicate...that's bullshit, you can be taught how to do those things...I taught someone to recieve telepathic messeges...and no I didn't use psychological suggestion tricks(unlike Uri Gellar for instance)
b.the conclusion is not that the powers exist...that's the axiom
the conclusion was the explanation how they work(the whole field thing)
or if you will the axiom is that the powers work therefore they must exist
c.you're incorrect, why is an explanation to the phenomenon...not a proof of its existance. in math(aka the language of god) to prove existance, it's enough to give an example because if there's an example that's sufficaint proof...and I believe I've given more than enough examples.

surely you refuse to take the expalnations if you deny the axiom
I didn't put the cell phones thing for nothing you know...
what you are constantly saying in other words is that thefact that i'm holding a cell phone at the moment is insufficiant proof for the existance of cell phones...which in fact doesn't make any sense.
 
I haven't seen the blind Russian guy, so how can I know?

A&B. You have shown nothing, just made claims. Claims can defend other claims, but they cannot defend themselves. They must be supported and you expect me to simply take them for granted, which I will not debase myself to do. To do so would be the same as me asking you to believe God exists in my proof that such things as miracles exist. In order to show the latter, I must show the former, if I want to use that as evidence.

C. I am not incorrect at all. Your examples are unverifiable and not logically sound. They're simply more undefended claims.

I am saying, in your cell phone example, that you're simply telling me that cell phones exist when none are in sight, and you cannot produce one to show me. Yet you expect me to take your word. You don't have to physically show me one, however. You can show me cell towers, documents, or concepts. Such as the size of a cell tower being premium length for a bandwidth of wireless transmission, and since perhaps I have seen TVs, you can argue that in the same way, information is transmitted via these towers to phones wirelessly, and you can argue that given the total bandwidth that we know from the height of the tower, and the likely number of people who would want such a service, you can say that the average person would get a bandwidth suitable for voice communications, thus reinforcing the claim that the towers are for phones. Then you could say that there are many towers in localized areas, and so these act as individual cells for which your "cellular wireless phone" operates. Instead, your argument is "I'm holding one so you should believe me."

As I said before, this discussion is going nowhere because you simply reiterate your claims in every post, while I repeatedly have to reiterate the rules of reason and why you are breaking them. Don't be frustrated that I cannot take you seriously otherwise.

Let me help you. If you want to show me that psychic powers exist, first dispense with the claims and show me the studies that discovered psychic powers. Show me who did the studies, why they are credible, how the study was conducted, and what the rest of the community feels regarding their findings. Show me multiple studies in this manner that all soundly conclude that psychic powers exist, and I will believe you. Or provide a rational logical argument such as a mind/body duality, etc. You must do much more work than just say "it's a fact, and I know it!". That does not prove or even suggest anything.
 
well I am indeed asking you to take my word on the logs issue...i haven't offered the polygraph test for nothing.

you take everything i say with skepticism...have some trust, man.
i guess you have to see (or feel) everything for yourself to get that it works...I could direct you to the right people here in israel to show you what they can do...you do have to pay for their services.
my powers are not strong enough for you to be convinced...i'll be too nervous trying to impress you and i wouldn't be able to get into the proper state for my powers to work.

in any case...this is tiring and is getting us nowhere indeed.
 
Naglfar said:
You can't argue with objectivists. ;)
Click to expand...

so I've noticed...would be quite interesting if Ken gets convinced eventually.
PinkUnicorn.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Akiman (Korroosio.fi)
Nightingale in Media: White Darkness
Replies
19
Views
1K
Dan Swanö
Cerebus
C
Gurgelguff
Nightingale "BOX OF ROCK"
Replies
30
Views
7K
Dan Swanö
Gurgelguff
G
BrandonS
Nightingale - Florence Would Be Proud
Replies
4
Views
9K
Metal Interviews
florencecity
F
My Hearse Your Arms
Katatonia - Where does the darkness come from?
Replies
85
Views
4K
Katatonia
KittyKatatonia
K
stizzleomnibus
WAtV: Lyrical Similarities to other works
Replies
6
Views
2K
Dark Tranquillity
Naglfar
N
Top Bottom
Back