things you hate with a passion
- Thread starter Life Sucks
- Start date
Dak
mentat
. Although I have to addendum the first point as : Christians who argue religion and don't know what is in the Bible (Religulous is an excellent example of these people).
I am assuming you claim Christianity, so please read the Bible before making religious type arguements.
Manic Ferocity
Active Member
- Nov 5, 2006
- 5,280
- 549
- 113
Xorv
Drug the Priest
Does anyone here enjoy king of the hill? For the 2nd longest animated series in the running one would think it would have some redeeming qualities? Does the entire south stop whatever they're doing (which probably isn't much) to give this horrendous show ratings?
and for that matter what is with all these bland sitcoms these days? (two and a half men in particular) Whoa! how can such generic writing accumulate to fantastic ratings? Haven't the writing styles of seinfled and larry david taught us anything? But even I'm amazed the Charlie Sheen show can do the same bit 50 different ways and still draw such a huge crowd.
and for that matter what is with all these bland sitcoms these days? (two and a half men in particular) Whoa! how can such generic writing accumulate to fantastic ratings? Haven't the writing styles of seinfled and larry david taught us anything? But even I'm amazed the Charlie Sheen show can do the same bit 50 different ways and still draw such a huge crowd.
skeptik
Member
- Feb 7, 2003
- 24,413
- 71
- 48
We live in a Christian society and are constantly bombarded not only by Christians and Christianity and Christian beliefs, but are generally subjected to Christian moralism. Christianity is in our face constantly. I would leave it at that, but it seems that you require that your 'opponent' spell everything out clearly. That Christianity is constantly down our throats exacerbates discontent against it. It becomes irritating and annoying, even oppressive. In a later post you wonder why somebody would specifically target Christianity when (as you, not I claim) the negative aspects of it are outweighed by the negative aspects of other religions. That is one reason. You also falsely implied a correlation between things being worse and hating things more.
Are you seriously asking of eternity what of it is not final? The very concept of eternal life necessitates that there is no finality. There can be no end to eternity, or it ceases to be eternal. I am not sure how much more simply I can explain this, but if you still don't get it, I could take another crack at it.
That is a trivial and insignificant proposition against which nobody argued. Obviously the emotionally frail and weak are more easily swayed by life experiences.
Not in questions of reason. The question of whether or not there is a god is not within the realm of emotion and intuition. That some choose to employ emotion and intuition in answering this question has no bearing on the pure fact that such a question is a matter of science.
In addendum, in a later post you cite Einstein and Galileo as examples of intuitive science. What you fail to cite is that their intuitions were based on facts and research and were projections based on their findings, many of which were later prove through reason and observation. Intuition and emotion can serve reasoning, but for either ever to rule over reason is a dangerous thing, as even Socrates knew.
I hope you recognize that these are two completely different questions, one being more likely to be rooted in logic and the other rooted in emotion. Of course if God came down from heaven and gave me a high five, I would believe in him and I would be foolish not to do so given that all other possible explanations for such an occurrence were ruled out. That answers the first question.
In answering the second question, I go back to your example of Einstein. His intuitions led to his reasoning as in this instance the boy's emotions lead to his reasoning, or at least I would hope. His emotional reactions to his parents' deaths potentially lead him to question the basis of his beliefs and he then potentially discards them on logical grounds. In this sense is it 'reasonable.' Your faith (which is different from a belief) should not be shaken by tragedy. If you have faith in God's divine plan and that everything in the world happens as this benevolent entity designed it, then you should not question his existence because your parents died.
We are speaking on the grounds of reason. Reason does not sway upon the whim of the mere happenstances of everyday life. My faculties of reason are not altered when I suffer a tragic event; rather, my reasoning is hindered, and it is my emotions that are controlling. "The unfolding of life," ambiguous a statement as it is," has the power to change one's beliefs insofar as, I can only assume given the term's ambiguity, the learning of new facts and things of this nature will be required in the process. Beliefs (beliefs, not matters of faith; "facts") are changed and are adaptable to new information. It is in this sense that my beliefs are shaped by my life, in the recipience of new information which validates or nullifies the things which I held to be true, and I adapt accordingly.
Dak
mentat
A church on the corner is not being bombarded with Christianity. In my experience, America is very un-Christian at this point in time.
I would ignore Ink's statements on heaven, since no one is spending eternity there anyway.
Petal_Maddy
New Metal Member
mutantllama
Active Member
diddykoi6
Stone Cold Metal
Krigloch the Furious
Pants full of poo
Eligos
Problem Yet to be Solved
Xorv
Drug the Priest
Oh no, you're subjected to Christian morality! Must be brutal having to follow the ten commandments and turn away the odd Jehovah's Witness at your door. Please make a list of things you would have done or would do with your life but can't owing to the fact that the world you live in is based on Christian morality? You don't even have to go to the church. Try living in an oppresive Islamic regime and then whine.
If eternal life is an everlasting state then it is the final state. Finality does not necessitate nonexistence. So eternal paradise is the final stage of existence and has no end.
So life experiences shouldn't change your opinions or beliefs? Should you think and believe the same things when you're 14 as when you're 18 as when you're 25? Was it not established in the last 150 years that existence precedes essence?
Wow, not sure where to begin with this mess. Science is far away from Theology and is simply a description of what can be observed in nature based on a gigantic artificial language system. Matters of god have little to do with science. Please explain what this 'pure fact' is, because it sounds awesome but unfortunately also like it's just been freshly pulled out of your ass. The still unanswered question of if there is a god or not has been tackled with emotion, intuition, deduction, induction, etc. From an empirical perspective there is no god -- people got that over two thousand years ago. Duh!
Thank you for the Latin. Their intuitions were not based on facts and research...just read those words again and you'll see how that makes no sense. Intution is inherently independent from reason. Their intuitions turned out to be correct from subsequent research, observation, analysis etc. Other examples of intuitive knowledge being subsequently backed up by science are Buddha, Freud etc. By the way Socrates clearly valued reason over emotion and had no conception of danger.
I think my car crash example would dramatically affect all sensory faculties. Reason, logic and emotion would all be dramatically affected, and validly.
Right, so we're in agreement: new experiences can create perceptions which conflict with your personal reality, to which you either discard or incorporate into your belief system.
I'm sorry I'm not up to date with the latest blogopshere forward on the true reality of heaven. I hope you realise there are a lot of conflicting, rival accounts. Heaven has traditionally been taught as a place of eternal afterlife and that is obviously the sense in which I am using it. In future if you cannot follow the thread properly then don't make a post about nothing, get me.
Not gonna bother responding to whoever else is throwing rotting fruit from the sidelines without any backup.
edit: haha I don't 'claim' any religion. Read the thread, yea.
diddykoi6
Stone Cold Metal
HOLY FUCKING SHIT
but yeah i made like a harry potter fan and skipped to the last 3 lines, i dont claim a religion either, yeah and i hate with a passion not having the guitar i want yet damn
but yeah i made like a harry potter fan and skipped to the last 3 lines, i dont claim a religion either, yeah and i hate with a passion not having the guitar i want yet damn
skeptik
Member
- Feb 7, 2003
- 24,413
- 71
- 48
So much for maturity. Explain to me again why I'm wasting my time responding to you in a coherent manner when you're going to throw out absurdities like this. Christianity is so ingrained into our society that its influence is hardly even recognized as originating in the Christian doctrine.
This is unbelievable. I can't believe I'm responding to you because you're either fucking with me or you're stupid. You say yourself that ETERNAL PARADISE has NO END. If something has no end, then that something has no finality. Allow me to cut the bullshit train short by amending my statement for your personal easier understanding by saying "I see AN END, at which point I have no more consciousness in any form." I don't want an eternal paradise that "has no end," in your own words. I want an end.
There's no justification for this retort in my response to you. It's like you're quoting my own words and responding to some other imagined opponent, effectively putting words in my mouth. Cut the shit, as I'm growing weary of this.
It's like you're trying really hard to sound smart about something you just read about on wikipedia.
Pure and fact are two separate words. Look them up and then figure out what they can mean when combined.
"Matters of god" are irrelevant until we know that there is a god. We cannot know facts based on emotions or intuition. And whether or not there is a god is a matter of fact.
Intuition in this degree is a conclusion reached without evidence to support it. Einstein had knowledge of things and foresought the conclusion before he had reason to justify it. It was still rooted in what he had already learned. It was not a fucking pipedream or divine intervention.
Your first statement is patently obvious and your second is patently ridiculous.
If you're talking about neurological damage, that's an entirely separate matter. And a stupid thing to say with respect to our realm of discussion. If you're talking about changing the way that you reason, the way that you reason is changed because you're swayed by your emotion.
I prefer to use "knowledge" in place of "experiences" based on the way that you've been using it. Obviously if you believe that the earth is flat and you learn that it's not, this conflicts with your personal reality and you have to incorporate it into your belief system. If you are a devout theist and everybody that you love dies, you are not gaining knowledge in the same sense as the first example, although it's still gaining knowledge in that you learn that either your god is morally capable of allowing that which you thought he would not allow or your god might not exist if this thing was allowed to happen. The emotions still play a powerful role in this example, however, and for most, it seems, a dominant example. From my observations, it is the emotional shock of these tragic events which makes people question their beliefs moreso than any rational level.
Dak
mentat
cookiecutter
Proceed to Ultraslamming
My emotion and intuition tell me there is no god therefore I am right. I think I just disproved Christianity. There's no need for such long posts now Dodens.
Zephyrus
Tyrants and Slaves
Good afternoon fellas 
Interesting that the longer this goes on the greater part of your replies is empty barking.
Let's try to keep it substantial, eh? Again, "Please make a list of things you would have done or would do with your life but can't owing to the fact that the world you live in is based on Christian morality?" You avoided this. You live in a highly secularized western democracy. What on earth are the undesirable commitments as a human being living in said democracy? This ain't theocratic totalitarianism bro.
Ok. For all your anger you didn't disagree with me that finality does not necessitate nonexistence. Fine, so you want your eternal paradise to end some day. I'm not going to try and actually understand how you can prioritize this arbitrary 'finality' concept over eternal paradise but it's not a problem.
There is a pretty clear trend in your last post that you distinguish and then place a higher value on 'reasoning' as opposed to emotional or intuitive forms of knowledge and understanding, as if you can use 'reason' to dictate the happenings of your existence as opposed to existence determining your reasoning (and at least partly arrived at through emotional and intuitive feeling). They are tied up and one is not necessarily superior to the others.
I feel obliged to resort to basic word explanations when you're so blatently confusing what basic terms entail, i.e. 'science'. Questions concerning god's existence are NOT empirical, factual matters. Empirically there is no god as has been known since before Christ. Revelation is an essential part of many religions and the value of intuition and emotional forms of understanding placed over the purely sensible scientific method.
Are you kidding me? I was clearly asking for an elaboration of what this fact was, NOT an explanation of what the phrase 'pure fact' means. Jeez.
What are you talking about? We cannot know facts through emotions and intuition? What about when you're a kid? You don't think you understand certain facts about the world? We can reason through images and feelings, without words or rational conclusions. And of course matters concerning god go beyond a 'yes' or 'no' answer to his existence.
The 'pure fact' here is that Einstein and many other scientists made breakthrough discoveries with deduction, not induction. That was my point. Buddha did not gain knowledge by doing research papers.
Ok, so you casually threw in this reference to Socrates and it struck me as incorrect as well as irrelevant (that's right, dumb AND pretentious). "Intuition and emotion can serve reasoning, but for either ever to rule over reason is a dangerous thing, as even Socrates knew." To me this implies that you think Socrates employed a steady balance of intuition and emotion and believed that an imbalance in either is unfavourable. This notion of balance is Aristotelian, NOT Socratic. Socrates relied purely on intuition (see: his daemon and total lack of struggle against his own death sentence). On the second point, his awards in battle for valour and the fact that he wore the same garment the whole year round could well be interpreted as representing a lack of feeling or caring about danger; this can only remain conjecture.
I am not talking about neurological damage. I am simply contending that emotion, intuition and reasoning all play a valid role through experiences in determining your reality. Being 'swayed by your emotion' is not some kind of excuse for this change in behaviour but a valid, sensible reaction.
Interesting that this is the sort of thing I have been saying for two pages which you have been vehemently disagreeing with.
Interesting that the longer this goes on the greater part of your replies is empty barking.
Dodens Grav said:
Let's try to keep it substantial, eh? Again, "Please make a list of things you would have done or would do with your life but can't owing to the fact that the world you live in is based on Christian morality?" You avoided this. You live in a highly secularized western democracy. What on earth are the undesirable commitments as a human being living in said democracy? This ain't theocratic totalitarianism bro.
Ok. For all your anger you didn't disagree with me that finality does not necessitate nonexistence. Fine, so you want your eternal paradise to end some day. I'm not going to try and actually understand how you can prioritize this arbitrary 'finality' concept over eternal paradise but it's not a problem.
There is a pretty clear trend in your last post that you distinguish and then place a higher value on 'reasoning' as opposed to emotional or intuitive forms of knowledge and understanding, as if you can use 'reason' to dictate the happenings of your existence as opposed to existence determining your reasoning (and at least partly arrived at through emotional and intuitive feeling
). They are tied up and one is not necessarily superior to the others. I feel obliged to resort to basic word explanations when you're so blatently confusing what basic terms entail, i.e. 'science'. Questions concerning god's existence are NOT empirical, factual matters. Empirically there is no god as has been known since before Christ. Revelation is an essential part of many religions and the value of intuition and emotional forms of understanding placed over the purely sensible scientific method.
Are you kidding me? I was clearly asking for an elaboration of what this fact was, NOT an explanation of what the phrase 'pure fact' means. Jeez.
What are you talking about? We cannot know facts through emotions and intuition? What about when you're a kid? You don't think you understand certain facts about the world? We can reason through images and feelings, without words or rational conclusions. And of course matters concerning god go beyond a 'yes' or 'no' answer to his existence.
The 'pure fact' here is that Einstein and many other scientists made breakthrough discoveries with deduction, not induction. That was my point. Buddha did not gain knowledge by doing research papers.
Ok, so you casually threw in this reference to Socrates and it struck me as incorrect as well as irrelevant (that's right, dumb AND pretentious
). "Intuition and emotion can serve reasoning, but for either ever to rule over reason is a dangerous thing, as even Socrates knew." To me this implies that you think Socrates employed a steady balance of intuition and emotion and believed that an imbalance in either is unfavourable. This notion of balance is Aristotelian, NOT Socratic. Socrates relied purely on intuition (see: his daemon and total lack of struggle against his own death sentence). On the second point, his awards in battle for valour and the fact that he wore the same garment the whole year round could well be interpreted as representing a lack of feeling or caring about danger; this can only remain conjecture.I am not talking about neurological damage. I am simply contending that emotion, intuition and reasoning all play a valid role through experiences in determining your reality. Being 'swayed by your emotion' is not some kind of excuse for this change in behaviour but a valid, sensible reaction.
Interesting that this is the sort of thing I have been saying for two pages which you have been vehemently disagreeing with.
Similar threads
