Nightingale-White Darkness Lyrical waste

[Naglfar]

I'm sorry, but I have nothing more to discuss with you on this topic. The things you are calling facts I call opinions and or beliefs. I have yet to see any scientific evidence supporting them. I am still open to discussing anything with anyone so long as:

1. They do not support relativism. (As I painstakingly explained, it's a pointless, self-defeating concept that only blockades rational debate and inquiry). Two distinct minds cannot seek truth in anything unless we throw out the possibility that we are both, in our own worlds, capable of holding different truths and still both right. If such is the case and thus relativism is true, then our quest for a singular truth through discussion is void. There's no point in even talking about it because we are essentially on a different page. It's the same as saying "everyone has their opinions, let's leave it at that." No progress is made towards finding which aspects are more correct. Because it only hinders and cannot aid constructive argument, it is disallowed in intelligent discussion. Remember also that relativism disproves itself: For relativism to be true for all of us, it must be itself an absolute truth, yet relativism defines the universe as void of absolute truth. This self-contradiction nullifies the theory as invalid.

I don't care much for arguments about religion, but I think while your objections to the way our Israeli comrade-in-arms defends his arguments are, at least in intent, valid, throwing out any sort of relativism is more out of annoyance with a particular deus ex machina in his argument, rather than an objection to his logic.

You use the word relativism, but I think what you're looking for is subjectivity... you hold his arguments to be opinions but that's not how belief works. He has a completely subjective insight into this matter he cannot explain to you. It is an act of faith in what he thinks he's felt, and that for him justifies his belief. I mean, it's supposed to be divine, right? How do you express divinity, explain what it feels, what it looks like? You're not supposed to be able to, it's divinity. That's probably why his quantum physics argument grates you, but be a bit more understanding about that. Just because people believe in the divine, doesn't mean they don't make attempts to rationalize the presence of the divine in this world. Some people believe that certain artifacts, say, the shroud of Turin, provide material proof, while others have tried to express through either their ideas or logic itself, like Descartes, that divinity is a proven fact of the universe.

Asking him to prove divinity is unfair, so prodding him to justify his beliefs without explaining why he believes in them (which he did, that quantum physics bit was not him trying to trump you, it's what he believes) under conditions set by you is not all that constructive. He's actually quite open minded. If you want someone to argue with you that there is a truth, then just go ahead and agree with Gar. He'd certainly agree with you that there IS a truth, and that arguing with you is a way for him to convince you that he is, indeed, right. There is no truth to be found in religion, and that is my opinion. But those who believe in the divine might also believe that their truth is certainly the truth... for them. Our Israeli friend simply believes that his truth does not exclude yours; there's a million ways to argue that, and in fact Unitarians have been doing it for a goddamn long time now.

I'm an atheist, and I find religious arguments predictable and futile, but belief is belief. Asking someone to explain and justify faith... it's faith. If you could explain and justify it, it wouldn't be faith to believe in it, would it!

The simpler thing is to not believe in fairy tales, especially the ones you come up with yourself. Oh burn, yeah, I went there. Oooooooooo...

 

[Kenneth R.]

1. No, I must ask him to explain in a manner that is tied to my experiences or thinking and since he cannot share his experiences with me, in a way that proceeds logically. One can explain their experiences and reasons for those experiences generating particular belief, and why that belief is rational. Again I reiterate I do not need hard scientific proof. Merely consistent evidence that points to the given conclusion. He provided his beliefs and nothing to back them up except what I and almost all of the scientific community consider pseudo science. I will not consider that position until more work is done to verify it. It's simply irrational.

2. You mentioned faith and the need for unknown for faith to exist. I agree. However, believing something without any evidence at all is irrational and foolhardy. A fairy tale as you say. I think such things are base and childish. One must provide reason for their beliefs if they are to convince anyone else why such a thing can be true.

3. I have, in my posts, given such examples of evidential reason as I saw fit, and can give more if necessary. In debating what I claim is true, consider my given premises for believing it. Should you find fault with them, there are the responses and criticisms to my claims. It is a simple mechanism, and it forwards debate because there are simple claims, which can be agreed on as either correct (as far as we know) or falsehood.

4. Subjectivity of truth, as you mentioned, is the core of relativism. If a debate is subjective, there is no point at all in continuing it, as you said it is futile and predictable. It goes nowhere. It is also false, as I have now explained three times. This time I'll use all of UM's style features to reiterate the simple concept: Relativism is false.

 

[Naglfar]

1. No, I must ask him to explain in a manner that is tied to my experiences or thinking and since he cannot share his experiences with me, in a way that proceeds logically. One can explain their experiences and reasons for those experiences generating particular belief, and why that belief is rational. Again I reiterate I do not need hard scientific proof. Merely consistent evidence that points to the given conclusion. He provided his beliefs and nothing to back them up except what I and almost all of the scientific community consider pseudo science. I will not consider that position until more work is done to verify it. It's simply irrational.

2. You mentioned faith and the need for unknown for faith to exist. I agree. However, believing something without any evidence at all is irrational and foolhardy. A fairy tale as you say. I think such things are base and childish. One must provide reason for their beliefs if they are to convince anyone else why such a thing can be true.

3. I have, in my posts, given such examples of evidential reason as I saw fit, and can give more if necessary. In debating what I claim is true, consider my given premises for believing it. Should you find fault with them, there are the responses and criticisms to my claims. It is a simple mechanism, and it forwards debate because there are simple claims, which can be agreed on as either correct (as far as we know) or falsehood.

4. Subjectivity of truth, as you mentioned, is the core of relativism. If a debate is subjective, there is no point at all in continuing it, as you said it is futile and predictable. It goes nowhere. It is also false, as I have now explained three times. This time I'll use all of UM's style features to reiterate the simple concept: Relativism is false.

1. He can't explain things in ways you perceive because he is talking about divinity, belief, faith. If you don't believe that any of these things exist, then you'll never accept that he's right. That's fine. But that doesn't mean he doesn't have an argument, which is what you're saying.

2. That's your subjective, Enlightenment-oriented view of religion. Hyper-rationalist, even. I share it with you, but you don't recognize the subjective nature of your own opinions, even though you hold it as truth. It doesn't mean your opinions are the same in quality or truthfulness as someone else's; if just means what you take as truth is totally determined on your faculties. It is subjective because it has to be. To know absolute truth is to, well, to know divinity, which is what he's trying to convey to you but can't.

3. I'm not very gray in the hairs, but what I've learned is that not many things are true or false in this world, especially when it comes to ideas. And judging whether people's ideas are right or wrong is especially subjective.

4. I don't think relativism and subjectivity are the same thing. Maybe if you're an objectivist, but that is also a very particular way of viewing things that is totally subjective. Or rather, as subjective as anything else. You're shutting off the debate, or whatever, just stating RELATIVISM IS A FALSE. THIS IS A FACT. It's not. Putting it in bold doesn't make it so, either. Relativism may be disgusting but the subjectivity that causes people to put capital in it is an extremely important element of our thought process.

It's just about perception, friend. If you think your senses allow you to perceive absolute truths, more power to you. I just find that awfully similar to what Mr. Gar says about their being one way and one truth. He arrives at it through the divine, you through logic. You're both chasing something you perceive that most likely isn't there.

 

[Naglfar]

1. No, I must ask him to explain in a manner that is tied to my experiences or thinking and since he cannot share his experiences with me, in a way that proceeds logically. One can explain their experiences and reasons for those experiences generating particular belief, and why that belief is rational. Again I reiterate I do not need hard scientific proof. Merely consistent evidence that points to the given conclusion. He provided his beliefs and nothing to back them up except what I and almost all of the scientific community consider pseudo science. I will not consider that position until more work is done to verify it. It's simply irrational.

2. You mentioned faith and the need for unknown for faith to exist. I agree. However, believing something without any evidence at all is irrational and foolhardy. A fairy tale as you say. I think such things are base and childish. One must provide reason for their beliefs if they are to convince anyone else why such a thing can be true.

3. I have, in my posts, given such examples of evidential reason as I saw fit, and can give more if necessary. In debating what I claim is true, consider my given premises for believing it. Should you find fault with them, there are the responses and criticisms to my claims. It is a simple mechanism, and it forwards debate because there are simple claims, which can be agreed on as either correct (as far as we know) or falsehood.

4. Subjectivity of truth, as you mentioned, is the core of relativism. If a debate is subjective, there is no point at all in continuing it, as you said it is futile and predictable. It goes nowhere. It is also false, as I have now explained three times. This time I'll use all of UM's style features to reiterate the simple concept: Relativism is false.

1. He can't explain things in ways you perceive because he is talking about divinity, belief, faith. If you don't believe that any of these things exist, then you'll never accept that he's right. That's fine. But that doesn't mean he doesn't have an argument, which is what you're saying.

2. That's your subjective, Enlightenment-oriented view of religion. Hyper-rationalist, even. I share it with you, but you don't recognize the subjective nature of your own opinions, even though you hold it as truth. It doesn't mean your opinions are the same in quality or truthfulness as someone else's; if just means what you take as truth is totally determined on your faculties. It is subjective because it has to be. To know absolute truth is to, well, to know divinity, which is what he's trying to convey to you but can't.

3. I'm not very gray in the hairs, but what I've learned is that not many things are true or false in this world, especially when it comes to ideas. And judging whether people's ideas are right or wrong is especially subjective.

4. I don't think relativism and subjectivity are the same thing. Maybe if you're an objectivist, but that is also a very particular way of viewing things that is totally subjective. Or rather, as subjective as anything else. You're shutting off the debate, or whatever, just stating RELATIVISM IS A FALSE. THIS IS A FACT. It's not. Putting it in bold doesn't make it so, either. Relativism may be disgusting but the subjectivity that causes people to put capital in it is an extremely important element of our thought process.

It's just about perception, friend. If you think your senses allow you to perceive absolute truths, more power to you. I just find that awfully similar to what Mr. Gar says about there being one way and one truth. He arrives at it through the divine, you through logic. You're both chasing something you perceive that most likely isn't there.

 

[Kenneth R.]

1. You can talk about divinity without presupposing that it exists. He doesn't have an argument because his argument is just a conclusion without evidence. It's begging the question, as I detailed above.

2. No one can know absolute truth. I am simply saying that it exists, and it is singular. Subjectivity is not applicable to truth. Our opinions may differ as much as we like, but in searching for truth, there must be agreement that it exists. Relativism is false for the 5th time.

3. Of course no one has anything fully figured out. However, by discussion, we can agree as to what is more right or more complete. While we can never understand absolute truth or know everything, we can learn something by discussing in this manner. There are absolute truths, we may guess at them by discussion our own suppositions of what they might be. You seem to be misunderstanding my explanation of truth as my own opinion. My own opinions were given in the initial posts. Subsequent posts simply detail how debate and logic should be carried out if it is to get anywhere, and I seem to be repeating myself over and over again.

4. People can believe it all they want if it makes them happy, but relativism is simply invalid. If you believe it to be true, then no discussion can be had, because it becomes simply an opinion battle, and those are futile.

5. My senses do not allow me to understand absolute truths. Again you are misinterpreting my statements. There IS one truth, we humans cannot fully grasp it. We can however discuss our views and consider which of our views seems more likely. In this we learn by discussion. We become closer to truth. I seem to have to reiterate again and again and again: I do not claim to know what the truth is, but I do know that it is possible to weigh possibilities in a discussion where each offers their guess and reasons why they believe it to be right. Then the others examine those reasons (which is why the reasons must not be simply personal internal experience) and judge which of the reasons are agreeable. Even in agreeing, we may all be wrong. Yet still, the process eliminates guesses that are wrong and together we learn more.

You simply must have reason to back up any belief or the belief is unjustified and blind. Again, no one can know absolute truths but we may come close to guessing them if we converse in this manner. Relativism IS false. That is not my opinion, it is one of the fundamental rules of logic. It is false just like the mechanism of addition always applies the same way whenever you use it, or how the derivative of a function is its slope. It's not up for discussion, it is defined, and if you want to change the definition, then you are talking about something other than relativism. It's inherent and does not depend on whatever my opinion is.

I am honestly shocked that so many of you put credit in relativism and subjective truths. I've shown now repeatedly why that is an error of judgment, as well as an impasse to discussion. I will close by saying if you ask me to accept relativism, you are denying it. By asking me to accept it, you affirm that it is true for you and true for me, and relativism denies that premise. Conversely, if you ask me to accept relativism, then I accept that anything you say I can disregard because only what is true in my world matters. Do you not see how foolish and erroneous such thought is?

 

[paradoxile]

1. Divinity is a matter of deffinition...to each his own beliefs and subsequently his own God/s...it's the collective of all the subjective that makes the divine what it is. The field exists that's a scientiffic fact, it's been proven from any aspect possible...The field explains scientifically what faith explained as "because god wanted to or said so", so why not strip all the meaningless customs and the oh so terrible word of god from the divine and call the monkey by his name.

2. It's not that no one can know the whole truth(there are buddhist monks that meditate their whole life that might prove you wrong"...it's more of a no one needs to know the whole truth.But again it's a matter of deffinition.
The truth(all the knowledge in the universe) is there and is singular simply by the fact that it contains everything and is accessible.If you consider knowing the entire truth as being everywhere at any given point in time...then that is indeed not possible. with everyone knowing the entire truth, our individuality goes straight to the trash and we will act as one God.
what I'm basicly saying is that the human brain can physically contain the infinite knowledge but it won't because making yourself a God means you stop being human.

3. You can look at the absolute truth in two ways...
a. everything that is fact within one trajecotry
b. all possible trajectories

I'm going with the second deffinition and claim that all trajectories coexist in parallel and everytime you make a decision you, a parallel you makes a different or an opposite decision and it branches like a tree...all in all infinite number of possibilites all coexisting.
now, defining truth like that denies randomality.it only may seem random because branches never meet. with randomality out of the way everything becomes based on cause and effect alone...and if everything is based on cause and effect then everything is in fact related within a given trajectory.

it's all about how broad is the universe we're talking about
if you look at the universe as a single constant trajectory then randomality does exist and denies relativism

 

[Lord K]

The blatant bashing of belief in God on this album really shocked me. I guess all who listen to this are believers in nothing or in false gods like Odin. I cannot call myself a fan anymore- never before has Nightingale done this. I dont care what anyone thinks in here, its just my take.

You are invited to my place anytime so I can rearrange those teeth of yours, sheep.

 

[Deadlift]

You are invited to my place anytime so I can rearrange those teeth of yours, sheep.

Didn't know you were a orthodontist.

 

[paradoxile]

I think it's just a hobby of his...
K's real job is saying:
"The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides
By the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.
Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will,
Shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness,
For he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children.
And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger
Those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers.
And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you."
to people like gar

 

[Gurgelguff]

The thread featuring "Second sky updates" got 22 replies and this "religious one" got 168. I thought this was a forum about music

 

[paradoxile]

it's really more of a philosofical discussion than a religious one these past few pages...
we're messing around with that because we're anxious for the making of WD video

 

[Naglfar]

The thread featuring "Second sky updates" got 22 replies and this "religious one" got 168. I thought this was a forum about music

If you had posted SECOND SKY BEING RELEASED NEXT WEEK, you'd have 300+ replies.

The original poster was going after Dan's lyrics, so it was more like an angry mob of internet fanboys defending your brother against the Christian hordes. Tehcnically, it was about music!

 

[Kenneth R.]

* Christian hordes defending themselves against morons who claim to be one of them, too

 

[Gurgelguff]

Well i guess we have to release "The maing of WD" so you guys have something important to discuss.

 

[Kenneth R.]

Awesome

 

[Naglfar]

Well i guess we have to release "The maing of WD" so you guys have something important to discuss.

Now THAT'S what I'm fucking talking about, my music superhero friend. I promise to PERSONALLY get any thread about the making of WD to 300 replies, on pain of being made to watch you do the hustle in your underwear.

 

[Abhorsen]

I have been enjoying the new Nightingale and this thread caught my attention because gar977 makes two false assumptions. The first being the most obvious, that just because one doesn't believe in the Judeo-Christian god, you must therefore believe in nothing or false gods. Both of these are incorrect. First off, respectfully, all gods are man-made attempts at explaining what must have seemed like supernatural events in the distant past. This does not, however, imply that religions and their mythologies are worthless, as myth has value in and of itself for what it tells us about ourselves. Second, one can believe that nature, to name one example, is moral and yet nature is hard to classify as nothing. Not believing in a god, gods, etc... does not necessarily equate with "nothing". I would humbly suggest you do more reading in subjects far and wide from traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs, if for nothing else to give yourself a more mature perspective of what you do claim to believe.

 

[Kenneth R.]

I agree, except on the point where you dismiss all concepts of deites as no more than myth.

Bring on the Making Of!

 

[Abhorsen]

Bravo Bloodsword! You are still on top of your game. The bible tells us to have fellowship going to Church and be kind to others. None of it is easy, and we endure constant criticism of others and much hypocrisy. Salvation is not for free. We have to be courageous and earn it. Why would heaven accept non repenting pedophiles, murderers, drunkards, greedy, haters and selfish beings? It wouldnt make sense. Some people just want to live this life and get drunk, drugs, sex and not give anything back and make others miserable. People will always point the finger at us my friend. Some listen, some reject you. You try to help and suddenly your the bad guy. Its all in the bible. But, we are of "Royal Sainthood" and no one can take that away when we go where moth and dust will not destroy. This life on earth is only a short, temporary step.

One world at a time dude. There is no evidence of anything to come after and yet people keep killing each other throughout the centuries and making false divisions as if they are certain of this fact. It is a stupid, self-defeating system. If there is something after our bodies die, deal with it then. For now, live with what you know and try to make this world a better place without concern for what comes next. Jesus said the kingdom of God is within you I believe. Keep it there.

The idea of original sin is deeply flawed. If anything, the world is an original blessing. I have no quarrel with any gods, neither do I need their forgiveness, approval, etc... Neither do you. Again, fighting over what we cannot know is responsible for much of the evil, warfare, destruction that has existed throughout history. Stop contributing to it by believing in a religion that claims to know all the answers.

 

[Abhorsen]

I agree, except on the point where you dismiss all concepts of deites as no more than myth.

Bring on the Making Of!

I respect your beliefs Ken and you seem mature enough in them from the posts I have read of yours on the board. I ask though, respectfully, of all the belief systems and philosophies that have existed throughout time, what makes the Christian one true? The story of the dying and resurrecting god is not new to Christianity and existed in other forms before the time of the historical Jesus.

I honestly have no problem with those who find peace in a religious system that doesn't harm others and they in turn live respectfully to those who believe differently, but my main point would still be that when it comes to supernatural religion, there is no proof by what most accept as evidence and therefore these belief systems must be taken on faith, which is fine, as long as that is understood is what is going on.

I think philosopher David Hume has it mostly right when he claims the perception of the world through our basic five senses is flawed at best, but that we can't help believing what they tell us.