At 10/29/12 10:04 AM, demann18 wrote: How many illustrations might be in a volume, and how often will they need to be completed?
Each volume will cover what we'll refer to as a 'season'. And I'd estimate at least 150-200 pages of on average 9 panels per page. The volumes themselves, I suspect would probably be the biggest sellers for us if the webcomic gains any traction. The volumes will have no completion timetable, but we will be posting at the minimum 1 update per week on the website. Possibly 2 if traffic picks up significantly. And after the end of every story arc, we'll simply spend some time in between updates to put together the arc's whole story into one volume for production and sales.
Hey guys. So umm, I'm an up and coming writer and I haven't been writing professionally for long. Pretty much all I've done so far is a few game reviews for a facebook group to get the views and likes up.
Anywho, Both I and a friend wish to start a project. I've got pretty much all the details done already. So what's the project? Well it's a story my friend, the other writer, has been contemplating for a long time. It sounds a bit cliche' as in, it's been done before, but the devil is in the details so to speak. It's a meta story about an entire town called Solstice, primarily center around the high school called Solstice High. Within this school are many regular people, students, faculty and the like, as well as a mix of what are known as "Supers". These "Supers" include an already pre-made list to be shared once I find someone interested in the project, and are the primary characters of the story. There is no one main character, as I said it's a meta story. It simply follows the entirety of the goings on at Solstice High through multiple perspectives. Throughout the years, there will be conflicts, both on a personal level, a romantic level, and on a broad scale level, including a vindictive millennium old vampire who's decided humans don't deserve to rule the world anymore, and an overzealous shadow group dedicated to revitalizing the old Crusaders.
If anyone's interested feel free to hit me up. According to my friend we're looking for someone who can draw a 3-4 panel webcomic, not necessarily colored, with a semi-realistic anime style drawing style with some acceptable stylistic exaggerations. For references, one can look at the webcomics Vampire Cheerleaders And Ma3comic.com
So what guarantee do you have that this will lead to anything? Well...I can't give you 100%.
What I can tell you is what I have. Both my friend and I have a list of characters, knowledge of at least 2 volumes worth of events that will take place, I've contacted a web designer who's ready to set everything up as soon as we begin, and I have another artist friend(not interested in this project, but willing to help me) who will contact a publisher to take a look at a successfully printed 16 page issue, and see if we can get some funding. I also have associates who are experienced in advertising.
Aside from all of that this project will be in part...well...yours. You'll allowed to comment on the story, make suggestions, but bear in mind that we, as the writers will retain the right to final decision as to what gets written.
Bottom line, however, is that I won't be expecting anyone to do this for free. For the first issue I plan to pay thirty dollars up front(when storyboards are drawn out and satisfactory, so I know what I'm getting) and thirty dollars after the first volume is completed. It needn't be painted or colored in any way, see the above links for what we're looking for, but it does need to be consistent, and done in a rather timely manner.
Thank you for reading, I hope I get some responses.
At 8/7/12 09:24 PM, Darthdenim wrote: I have Dragons of Autumn Twilight, the first Dragonlance book.
I have not read it yet.
I recommend not only the entire series for the Annotated Chronicles, but also the Twins series, as well as the on its own book Summer Flame, and even the ones not written by Hickman and Weis. Knaack has some good books set in the very same setting(though the minatour ones tend to sour for me. Except Kaz the Minatour...that was a good one).
At 8/7/12 09:07 PM, Natick wrote: Take your faggotry to Video Games Forum please.
This is...anti-video games. I don't think they'd appreciate it.
I'm going to say something that might piss off video game fanboys. Let me clarify...I like video games. I consider them an artform and I enjoy them greatly. I'm playing Skyrim at the moment in fact, with the expansion released recently, which will be ironic later.
But video games pale in comparison to classical gaming. And by that I mean anything one can do with a piece of cardboard and pieces of plastic. I may catch flack for being a nerd but I don't care. I love fantasy games. Pen and paper, board, whatever, I love it all. Dungeons and Dragons, World of Darkness, Call of Cthulhu, I am a nerd, and proud of it. It raised me. It made me, in part, who I am today. And I'm not that bad a product if I do say so myself.
Video games...are hollow. They're, for the most part, just an orgy of graphics with voice actors and competing game companies trying to 'do the same thing, better than the rest'. Whatever happened to innovation? You rarely see games like Braid, or Shift...do you think people will remember Dark Void in 10 years? Maybe a few...but none who remember their gaming days in things like D&D. Instead you get the same old thing time after time of games being released with the same gameplay with slightly smoother graphics that force you to pay an extra 50 dollars to get multiple expansions that the game creators already had finished so they can milk more money out of you. I prefer fantasy. Fantasy...and the simplicity, yet skill-laden requirements of a good old fashioned board game.
My introduction to fantasy was at a young age, with my brother giving me books from a couple of authors named Tracy Hickman and Margaret Weis. The book series was called Dragonlance...and it opened my eyes to a brand new world past the graphics and 'same old thing' gameplay of video games. The series is based on games they used to play in the past, with characters they and their friends came up with. And it was so...interesting, so different from anything I ever read before. Here I thought all fantasy was about some uber powerful wizard capturing a princess and getting foiled by some roguish knight. No no...there's far more to fantasy than that. There's so much more...depth...there's whole worlds created, with politics and gods, and religions, and hierarchies, so many things that will immerse you.
So as a thank you to Tracy. I'm going to point any who may be moved by what I say to this kickstarter campaign, which Tracy Hickman is a huge part of. I owe him a lot. The least I can do is help...just a little bit.
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/albinodragon/dragons-bar d
And yes, I have read the Dragon's Bard series as well. Yet again, proving that not all fantasy is the same. Thank you.
Just so you guys know there's a kickstarter out there for those dudes I mentioned before. Check it out if you're interested, The game's called Dragon's Bard. Looks neat.
Hey guys, I was checking out Facebook and there's this interesting page of people doing cool stuff call Albino Dragon Games - http://www.facebook.com/AlbinoDragonGames. There are game reviews for tabletop games, it shows projects they've been working on, and there's this other project being worked on called Dragon's Bard. Apparently it's a card game based around the series written by Tracy and Laura Hickman, you know, Tracy Hickman of Dragonlance fame? They're working with Hickman on the project so it'll be pretty loyal to the series I'm guessing. Plus, you know, card games rule. I've got my own Magic set, and I always loved playing cards with people. It's something that can be done virtually anywhere, so it's one of those 'pick it up and play' kinds of things you can do when you're travelling or bored at home, any number of contexts.
So yeah, i'm excited. What do you guys think?
At 4/5/12 08:04 AM, Cootie wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_W7hQVfkwA
seems legit
You be trollin ;)
At 3/31/12 09:54 AM, Silverdust wrote:
I wonder if you are genuinely interested in the answer to this question (which can be, and has been answered very simply) without having to resort to wildly arrogant insults and inconsiderate, unnecessary bashing of alternative ideas.
Unnecessary bashing? I really do love when christians assert in an arrogant manner that they can account for all the problems of their religion so simply, and that everyone who don't accept their cop out answers are the arrogant ones that 'just don't want to know'. It couldn't possibly be that rhese explanations are...say...bullshit, can it?
God's sacrifice was necessary because He - Jesus - was/is the only one capable of living a life without sin.
Non sequitor. Literally, that does not follow. Show your logical steps or concede that his doesn't make any sense.
To take the judgment of all humanity, one must not have committed the same "crime".
Yet with earlier sacrificial laws, one simply had to sacrifice animals. Recall, earlier sacrificial laws commanded by god included sacrificing a bird to be eaten after blessing by a priest, in repentance for giving birth.
So are you saying that birds don't lay eggs?
Whether you accept this generosity or choose to take the wrath and judgment of God is totally up to you, and you are free to disagree and live your life your own way.
Wrath. Not judgement. As I made clear before, hell is not 'just' nor is it a 'punishment'. By definition, it's just petty vengeance. :)
He creates people to love him, then creates a tree that he's fully aware will tempt them, and that they will fall to the temptation. So he casts them out and curses them with original sin.The tree was created so that we would be able to CHOOSE Him.
And he knew ahead of time that they'd fail. So what's the point of a test you know they'll fail? It's like if I know someone will slit their wrists if I put a razor in their room, so I put a razor in their room and go, "Let's see it." That's not a test, that's sadistic.
What kind of love is forced? If you ask me, it was a very simple rule - and one that was put in place so that we might have the option to love Him or love selfishness.
A very simple rule God knew his creation would fail ahead of time. You seem to completely not understand my objection. This is about God's incompetence, not humanity's flaws.
Even while knowing that we would not choose Him, he gave us the choice anyway. I fail to see how this is "stupid", rather, much more loving that any of us could compare to.
See the above situation of a person who slits wrists and a razor. Putting someone in a situation you know will result in something bad for them isn't loving at all. It's. Sadistic.
Especially when He had a plan for us all the while, so that we would still be able to choose Him rather than death.
Not until thousands of years later. Until then he was satisfied with people just sacrificing animals and burning them because...well...he liked the smell.
Also, bare in mind all people that came before Jesus didn't have the 'opportunity' to choose. And were thusly punished for the sins of their father...yet another unjust method of 'administering justice'. "Your ancestor ate this apple, therefore you're fucked!" sorry, doesn't follow. Your god's an ass.
And please don't come at me with, "Those people were put into purgatory until Jesus came." or any of that ad hoc rationalization, because I don't accept ad hoc rationalization as any sort of real, substantial justification for the bible's inadequacies. It just demonstrates that the bible's telling of god is, by necessity, inadequate on its own. which, to me, is evidence that Christianity is almost certainly not true.
Stop spitting nonsense you clearly know little about.
Nothing I said was wrong. So how did you determine 'I know little about' the subject?
The Flood occurred not because people were "bad" but because in those days, the fallen angels had taken human wives - resulting in the "Nephalim". Unspeakable evil plagued the Earth at that time, and, if allowed to continue, would have killed off the only humans who still followed God (Noah and his family).
So, what I said was that God flooded the earth because people were bad. You then said, "Oh you don't know what you're talking about" and then explained that...the Nephilim took human wives..which resulted in evil plaguing the world...in the form of the life forms(humans) at the time...so I was right, and you're just rationalizing to make it sound not as bad as it is.
Sodom and Gomorra was wiped out not only for the widespread (in other words, total) sexual immorality, but for the rampant sin in general. We are told that there was, again, only one family who stayed loyal to God; and, He choose to spare them from His judgment. The people of Sodom and Gomorra were given the warning, and chose not to receive it. And, like the Flood, they paid the price for total unrighteousness. Had neither of these events happened, we could not call God just.
The family wasn't 'loyal' to god, hell he turned the mother to salt. And to speak of sexual immorality being some sort of factor, the daughters of the family he saved ended up getting their dad drunk and then raping him to conceive of his children.
And these are the 'loyal people' to god? Alrighty then...
The construction tower of Babel was stopped not because God was stopping them from "reaching heaven", but because it was a physical representation of their disobedience and defiance of God. Humanity was told to spread out across the world (for obvious reasons), and instead, the people of those times chose to stay together and bask in their own glory. The tower was started as a way to say "We are equals with God." To hinder this, God separated their languages - forcing them to split up. And no, modern day English was not spoken there. I imagine the four (?) roots of all languages were the originals.
Actually the history of languages and how languages evolved shows that the tower of babel is most certainly not historically accurate.
But anyway, why is God so insecure? Why is he incapable of being able to stand people building a tower? Oh, and yes, I was right, it was to be able to see god. They were trying to build the tower to reach heaven. God, in his infinite knowledge, should have known that these humans were too stupid to realize that after a certain point, they'd get so high it would collapse in on itself, as well as make them incapable of breathing efficiently. It would fail without God's intervention. So why was his wrath at all necessary? It wasn't. God's just a dick.
It is failure on our part, disobedience on our part, defiance on our part, hatred on our part. And, after ALL this, He still chooses to love, forgive, and redeem us. So yes, I would call this "uplifting" but also "humbling". To know that you are able to speak so ignorantly, and that He will still forgive you is not a failure.
I've demonstrated above, these are failures and petty dickishness on God's part. If he were a more competent god, none of this would happen. :)
Done. He has forgiven everyone who is willing to accept it. That means the best and worst of us. Also, hell is not an eternal punishment.
Great. I accept his forgiveness. Right now I'll say it: If god exists, then I accept his forgiveness for everything I've done. I'm still an atheist, but according to you I'm set...right?
Also, hell is an eternal punishment according to your other christians...so...argue with them about that one. It is until you prove it's not.
Yes, totally not just at all when someone takes your place.
Yeah, then this Jesus nonsense is retarded. :)
At 3/31/12 08:12 AM, SnoopyChicken wrote: Because, he needed a good way to show is this was how it was going to work from now on, not only is it great symbolism but look, 2000 years later and we're still chatting about the guy.
I can only presume you say this because you're aware blood sacrifice for the redemption of sin was a regular thing prior to Jesus, and that Jesus was supposed to be "the end of that". Well, I'd like to point out that if this was how he decided he needed the world to be run later on, why in the hell didn't he make the world like that in the first place? He creates the rules. He doesn't have to have blood sacrifice be in any way necessary from beginning to end, yet he did...why? Well according to the bible because he loved the smell of burning animal carcasses.
This isn't loving, it's sadistic, and he decided to stop being AS sadistic for some internally inconsistent reason, so he decided to 'end' the necessity.
Yet again, god's either exceedingly incompetent or a maliciously assholish son of a bitch.
My parents let me make my own mistakes too.
No they don't. They try to stop you from making mistakes that will ruin your life. And if they don't they're shitty parents.
Your parents try to stop you from drinking and driving, your parents try to stop you from hanging out with bad people, your parents try to stop you from developing harmful habits.
And again, if they don't, they're shitty parents.
God, obviously planned tough love until civilisation reached a certain point and he could ease up on us, also if any of us saw God our minds would explode, bringing down babel did us a favour.
...Did you just call mass genocide 'tough love'? Seriously. Think about that for a moment and get back to me.
Also, if seeing god would make our minds explode, then clearly we don't see him in heaven either right? Nor do we see him when he judges us, so we never see him, even when we die. Bit of an elusive bastard isn't he? Also, why is he incapable of just creating a body that can be seen without blowing people's minds? Why is that impossible for him? Fictional gods use avatars to communicate with their worshipers all the time, Why is Yahweh too much of a dunderhead to pull it off? Especially since that would convince a shit ton of people right now that don't believe in him(like myself) and hence, save them from hell. Again, incompetency.
It's failure after failure after failure after failure and people think this story is in some way...uplifting?It's provided support for billions of people yes.
That's sad for those billions of people then. Doesn't provide support for me. And I maintain...for good reason.
Well that's not how it works, Jesus crucifixion opened the door to salvation, we have to work through it ourselves. A more accurate analogy would have been that in the old testament, God was the police and if we broke the law we would go to jail no matter what. Due to Jesus's sacrifice, God is now the mother and even if we kill 10 people, He still loves us.
...No...All one has to do is accept Jesus' sacrifice. That's all one has to do. Or don't you remember the christian reaction with Jeffrey Dahmer? Who, right before execution, accepted Jesus? And this led religious leaders to say, "See how forgiving God is? That man is now a changed man and in heaven, saved through the blood of christ!"
I call hax.
Any good person would want to stop Jesus's crucifixtion, it's a horrific thing and it's a sign of Gods love that his earthly representative went through it for us. We don't deserve it, but he did it for us.
...So we should want to have stopped the crucifixion if we're good people, but God's an even better person for making it happen?
You can't have it both ways son. One or the other. Either it's good to stop it or good to help it, you can't have it good either way.
Jesus sacrificed his humanity. Before crucified he would have been filled with fear, doubt, anger. Yet he loved us enough to trust that he was doing the right thing.
Fear, doubt, and anger? HE knew it was coming, knew he would die, and knew that he was the son of god(or god, whatever), and would be in heaven ruling alongside his father(or by himself). What exactly...did he have to be afraid of? A moment's pain? And that really is what it is to him, a MOMENT'S pain, in the perspective of someone that has an eternal soul(or is the eternal being god).
In fact, Mother Theresa liked to point out to those suffering that their suffering was only the blink of an eye in the perspective of their eternal lives where they'll spend their time with JEsus. That the more suffering we go through is just God testing us, and we should love all of it, because through the perspective of an eternal life coming at you in the form of going to heaven, no amount of suffering in this world is anything.
I personally find this kind of rhetoric to be abhorrent, but you get the idea, Jesus didn't 'fear' or 'doubt' or 'be angry'. And if you cite the passage, "God why hath thou forsaken me?" I would like to point out that each book's retelling of the story has him saying something different, so that doesn't count.
So a lot of people are talking about one of the more common sense facts about the(As far as I'm concerned) fictional telling of Jesus Christ's life and death.
Presuming for a moment that this story is true, and that everyone here is right, that JEsus did indeed have to die in order for our sins to be forgiven, I must point out that this would make God a wholly incompetent retard.
The real question is: Why did God need to sacrifice himself to himself(or, depending on your view of how the trinity works, sacrifice his son, to himself) in order to forgive us of all of our sins?
The stupidity and inanity of this plan just outlines one consistent behavioral attribute of Yahweh. He fails at this kind of stuff.
He creates people to love him, then creates a tree that he's fully aware will tempt them, and that they will fall to the temptation. So he casts them out and curses them with original sin. He wipes out the world with a global flood because people are too evil for his liking, he wipes out whole cities because their sexual deviancy has reached a point that he can't stand, he wipes out a tower and changes people's languages because he doesn't want anyone to try and come see him, and now, when everyone is doing as he planned(not liking each other and as a result being even more sinful) he has to send his son(or himself) down and have them brutally murdered on a traditional execution device in order to be able to forgive them.
It's failure after failure after failure after failure and people think this story is in some way...uplifting?
Here's a better idea: Just forgive us.
Some of you might ask, "Yeah but then he'd have to forgive the rapists and the mass murderers and the pedophiles, etc." And my response is: Forgiving these people is far more just than sending them to hell for eternity. Or, depending on your view of hell, obliterating their soul just because they were unconvinced that 2000 years ago some guy performed magic and died, JUST FOR THEM.
While I'm at it let's look at the incompetency of this nonsense of vicarious redemption.
I'll make this quick: Would it be just, if I killed 10 people, for my mother to step forward and say, "Release him, I'll do his time for him."?
No? Then this Jesus nonsense is retarded.
Some have asked me before if I would have stopped the crucifixion if I had existed at that time. My answer is yes. Why would ANYONE want this? Why would ANYONE except this? This barbaric act of blood sacrifice at the hands of roman soldiers and jewish peoples in order to be saved from your own sin? I would reject it outright even if I knew it was true. I'm too good a person to accept such barbaric actions as being just, and then say, "Thank you, for killing him."
And another flaw with this shit is that JEsus didn't suffer what we're all bound to suffer if we reject this 'gift', so how in the hell(no pun intended) is this considered a 'sacrifice'? Suffer in hell for three days, come back and rule the universe alongside daddy? How is that a sacrifice? HOW? Someone answered this once by saying "god gave up his fleshly body for you." To which I ask, "IF he's god, can't he make another?" There are so many internal problems with this story of Jesus and the cross I simply have to ask anyone who believes it to be a good story...have you really even thought about it?
At 3/26/12 12:26 PM, EmmaVolt wrote:
Philosophy, in this subject, is not logic. No one knows what happens after we die. You can debate that all you want, but it won't change my SUBJECTIVE opinion. Same goes for "morality" in which there are no absolutes (allegedly).
No, philosophy isn't logic. Logic is philosophy. Also, kudos on admitting to being close minded on the opinion of the afterlife and morality. Seriously, this is the easiest debate I've ever had with anyone. You've admitted Christianity is useless for discussing morality, you've admitted that you're close minded on the afterlife and morality...really everything past this is just icing on my big old cake of pwnage.
These questions can't be answered, and you're wasting your time.
Sure, as soon as you demonstrate that they can't be answered.
Sure it's logical, but it's useless.And? I don't care. I'm not a psuedo-intellectual. I'm satisfied with what is. Fact is, it's logical.
Basing your beliefs about morality on a tautology that begs the question isn't logical. You're a pseudo-intellectual, though I know pseudo-intellectuals love to think they're smarter than they are. That damned Dunning-Kruger effect.
The thing is, many of the questions you think can't be answered..probably can be answered. Go ahead, give me a shot. Ask me one of your 'unanswerable questions that can only be found out when I'm dead'.Sure, what happens after we die, oh wise one?
Scientific evidence suggests that our bodies decompose and break down into fundamental materials used as nutrients by other animals and the planet in order to continue on the cycle of life. Plants and animals feed on your energy just as you fed on their energy in life. Quite poetic actually.
But you're trying to ask what happens to US after we die. And see, the question is based on a predilection for inquiring about the dualistic nature of our epistemological roots. The fact of the matter is, to presume anything happens to us, or say, our consciousness, after we die in any sort of eternal way is to presuppose dualism itself. Dualism has been abandoned en masse by the professional philosophical community. This is because, primarily, of the mind body problem, that is, the utility of dualism is specifically undermined when trying to explain the machinations of the individual because all things can be explained without the use of a nonphysical substance referred to as the 'mind'.
Without Dualism, there is nothing to suggest anything other than nothingness happens to the individual at death.
So the most reasonable answer to your questions, after the science and philosophy is done? Nothing happens to us. We die. And that's it.
At 3/26/12 08:21 PM, Major-n0ob wrote: Alright, you guys. I have long felt that this thread could use a bit more moral fiber in it because of all the rampant marijuana comments and uneducated atheism discussions and whatnot.
I agree, when you discuss atheism it's very uneducated.
As such, I sought out and found a PERFECT source of information in which you can all engross yourselves in study. This man definitively covers a wide range of topics including,
...Oh good. I can't wait to click on this.
-atheism
Christians commenting on atheism. Woo.
-evolution
A non scientist talking about scientific matters. Woo.
-illegal substances
A conspiracy theorist talking about why things are illegal. Woo.
-and many more!
All just as "woo" as the last.
I shall provide the link below and I strongly encourage you all to look it over. It would do you good.
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/
I clicked on it and saw that he advocates 9/11 is an inside job and that the catholic church supports satan.
I've seen this claptrap before, it's nothing new, and nothing educational.
At 3/26/12 11:01 AM, EmmaVolt wrote:At 3/26/12 10:58 AM, BigLundi wrote: You don't understand philosophy. I'm sorry but I'm not quite sure what I can say to you that wouldn't fly over your head, and as a result you'd baselessly assert that I'm being illogical or whatnot.Oh, I understand that philosophy will always be subjective,
Further demonstrating you know nothing of the subject. Bravo.
So logic is subjective is it? Jesus...
and that there can never be a goal when questions can always be asked and never answered.
And if they can be answered then gues what? The question's been answered and the question is now irrelevant. However an answer must be able to stand on its own merits, it must not be subject to a reductio ad absurdum, it must not be subject to scrutinized observations of logical fallacies...which is why your answers...are not answers.
"Good is good" is logical, but wanting for someone who will never be satisfied by simply existing.
Sure it's logical, but it's useless. All you did is make morality a tautology. I would think you would want to actually figure out why things are good instead of making good a useless tautology. Guess you christians just don't give a shit huh?
The fact of the matter is, if you admit that morality is a tautology in your worldview, then your worldview is useless for discussing morality.Absolutely. My world view IS actually useless when discussing "philosophy" because I don't ask questions that can't be answered until we die.
The thing is, many of the questions you think can't be answered..probably can be answered. Go ahead, give me a shot. Ask me one of your 'unanswerable questions that can only be found out when I'm dead'.
At 3/26/12 10:54 AM, EmmaVolt wrote:At 3/26/12 10:47 AM, BigLundi wrote: God's nature is god's nature means the same thing asYep. And no "why" needs to be asked with a remote sense of "objectivity".
Goodness is goodness.
Good is good, because that's what we understand it to be. I don't see the problem.
You don't see the problem in defining goodness as being goodness.
You don't understand philosophy. I'm sorry but I'm not quite sure what I can say to you that wouldn't fly over your head, and as a result you'd baselessly assert that I'm being illogical or whatnot.
The fact of the matter is, if you admit that morality is a tautology in your worldview, then your worldview is useless for discussing morality.
At 3/26/12 10:00 AM, EmmaVolt wrote:
Or, maybe you can't understand how ludicrous your responses are, as they don't even begin to respond to mine. God is "moral", because "moral" as we understand it to be is what God is. Simple enough?
Congratulations, you've rendered the relationship between god and morality to be nothing more than a meaningless tautology.
God's nature is that of goodness. Goodness is god's nature.
Therefore. God's nature is god's nature means the same thing as
Goodness is goodness.
And a useless tautology is a useless tautology.
At 3/26/12 12:39 AM, Jin wrote:At 3/25/12 08:21 PM, BigLundi wrote: You can't have your cakeDon't you feel you're wasting time on an idiot?
I do actually. I'm going to stop responding to her on this subject because every time I provide an argument her response is, "Nuh uh."
At 3/25/12 07:58 PM, EmmaVolt wrote:At 3/25/12 07:40 PM, BigLundi wrote:It's reliable for me. Fair enough?At 3/25/12 06:42 PM, EmmaVolt wrote: And, still reliable :).Not really : /
No. Purely subjective metaphysics based on preconceived notions about the reality of an ontological entity that can be logically dismantled through the usage of dilemmas and epistemic attacks is not reliable for you, it just shows you don't know what you're talking about.
No, I do not agree that something can be moral for God and not humans, because morality in the sense you are using it only applies to humans. God is above our laws (although, he put himself under it through Christ). However, the laws given to us reflect who He is.
I'll keep it there so we don't go off track again.
If the laws given to us reflect who he is(a terminology you rejected my usage of) then it follows that if something is moral for us to do, it is moral for him to do, and if something is immoral for us to do, it's immoral for him to do. So if it's not morally ok for us to do something...it's not morally ok for him to do something. And if you think he is 'above' our laws, which are bestowed upon us by him, then he is not morality, but transcendent of it. And if he's transcendent of it, then he is not morality itself, which leads us back to the original Euthyphro Dilemma.
You've screwed yourself.
You can't have your cake
At 3/25/12 06:42 PM, EmmaVolt wrote: And, still reliable :).
Not really : /
Yes, a lion killing a lion is not murder. (Obviously?)
No not obviously. But whatever.
True. However, it is within God's right to "kill" me.
So you concede that yes, something can be moral for god and not moral for a human...why did you deny that that was your position in the first place?
Then logically God isn't the standard for morality. Moving on.Um, no. Not logically at all.
Yes logically. If something is immoral for us, and moral for god, then god is not the standard for what is moral, but there is another standard by which god appeals to in order to justify his actions above our own.
You just did.
No I didn't.
You haven't debunked anything. You just keep saying something along the lines of "God isn't morality because God doesn't obey morality." When I am saying that God is morality, and morality is of God.
When I quote you I don't take out any of your responses, and when I look back I see that you actually haven't responded to this particular point at all, you've just complained that my addressing of this point isn't representative of your answer, so I ask you, what IS your answer, if not the one I addressed?
You love the word "logical" don't you? Shame you don't know the meaning, else you would have also included the responses I gave.
Again, I haven't taken any of your responses out of any single time I've ever quoted you. And looking back, I see no response you've given beyond being unhappy with the responses I had predicted a logically consistent christian would give.
Yeah, and it's all subjectivity my friend. The entire field is an assortment of various ages of people discussing the abstract and unfalsifiable in a range of sophisticated ways.
Sorry, but you don't know what philosophy is.
It's all subjectivity? No. I'm afraid not. There are epistemically more valid positions within philosophy to hold, not just empirically but logically and utilitarianistically. For you to say "It's all subjectivity" is to demonstrate you're trying to comment on something you know nothing about.
And, what (or who) would be the objective? It's actually hilarious that many philosophers do not believe in absolutes, yet believe in objectivity.
It's hilarious that you're saying without absolutes, there is no objectivity. Clearly you're completely uneducated as to what existentialism and actualism are.
Why not is not an answer, by definition.Ohhhhhhh, touche?.
Indeed.
At 3/25/12 05:49 PM, EmmaVolt wrote:
True. My perceptions are often unconventional. You're not going to find most of my rebuttals in books - and it will require actual thought to debate something so simple (yet, complex somehow).
It doesn't really require a whole lot of debate, because you're not aware that your ideas are actually fairly conventional...you just don't know it because you haven't read the relevant literature. You're like someone examining finches and going, "Hmm, I think I've figured something out...I'll call it natural selection." and thinking they've discovered something new. God being love goes back as far as the very first christian philosophers, and God being equated with morality has been around for as long as St. Thomas Aquinas. Your position isn't unconventional...it's fairly standard.
No, I'm not saying that murder is okay when God does it because murder is literally defined by human-human relation. It is not logical to use the word to describe an action of God. We were given that law because murder is not of love.
Murder is literally defined...by human-human relation...so when a lion kills another lion, that's not murder.
Fine. we'll simplify it for you. Is it ok for me to kill you? No? Is it ok for God to kill you? Yes?
Then logically God isn't the standard for morality. Moving on.
Then why are you separating them?
I'm not.
Actually, in order to remain logically consistent with your answer, this actually is the only answer you're allowed to give, if you want to make god still in any way relevant to morality.Could you rephrase this? I am aware that my answer was the only logical one ...
In order to keep god in any way relevant to morality, you are required to give the answer I debunked. Do you have a different answer? Because if so I'd love to hear it.
No, I gave a response which you jumped on by answering your own questions on my behalf.
My bad for presuming you'd remain logically consistent with your responses and responding to the logically consistent responses I predicted you'd give? Should I have presumed you...wouldn't be logically consistent?
I am not a "theistic philosopher". And, I'm not sure how one philosopher could be more credible than another.
You're philosophizing on theological matters as a theist. So...ok? And how can a philosopher be more credible than another? Well, by writing books on the matters at hand, being judged by their peers as being worthy of credibility, obtaining PhD's, teaching classes, producing papers in the professional literature...
Justification is subjective. Whether I live your way or not is irrelevant unless there is a law that bounds us both.
No it's not. Justification is an epistemic position that can be objectively verified. And you say you've taken philosophy courses?
Sometimes, the wisest answer to "why" is to ask "why not". Asking me why, why, why will not go anywhere. I've answered your "how's". But, the "why" is up to you.
Why not is not an answer, by definition. You haven't answered my hows sufficiently, in fact, I've debunked your hows, and you refuse to even say 'why'. Sorry, but in philosophy, simply making a statement of opinion, and declaring it as fact, is nothing short of laughable...and that's all you did.
At 3/25/12 04:38 PM, EmmaVolt wrote: Oh, I can't wait :). I've taken philosophy courses as well.
Considering your response, I doubt it had anything to do with this subject.
The problem here is not any fallacy, but a problem with the definition. God is over all life and has the power to give and take away. It is His "right" to end one's life. Murder is only possible by those under God's law (Jesus could have murdered, but didn't because God is just).
Ah, so you're making the excuse that murder is ok when God does it, but not ok when humans do it. Logically this means that God is not actually the standard for morality, so you've already conceded your position. Good job.
With this, I am truly sorry to say (because I love arguing), the rest of this segment of your post is not logically valid for me to refute.
Actually it is, because I went over your response in the post...not sure if you just ignored it or not, but hey, can't expect you to read the whole thing when you start of presuppositionally declaring with hubris that it's in some way an absolute fact that god is absolutely required for any morality.
You're going about this incorrectly. Morality and God's are not separate. Morality literally is God's nature.
I don't think you know what it means in philosophy for morality to be reflective of god's nature. It's the same thing as saying god's nature is morality.
1. Is honesty right?Yes. I do not understand the discrepancies you are suggesting. Right is defined by God. It's like you are trying to define God by something higher.
2. Is honesty right, because god's nature is honest?
Why is honesty morally better than dishonesty? "Well because honesty reflects God's nature whereas dishonesty doesn't." Right, but why is god's nature one of honesty and not dishonesty? "I didn't answer this going back to morality. I simply never answered why. It is reality. Asking why constantly eventually results in an "it just is". It's not circular reasoning (well, your example was, but it was a poor reflection of my argument).
Actually, in order to remain logically consistent with your answer, this actually is the only answer you're allowed to give, if you want to make god still in any way relevant to morality.
Also, ethics are morality.Ethics is applied morality and varies because it is dependent upon what can and can't be justified. Morality is absolute and will be right regardless of majority opinion.
___
Please don't put words in my mouth. I am not the typical "religious freak who doesn't think critically". I think you tried to ensnare me in a trap you heard in a freshmen philosophy course; which is why it just doesn't work. Maybe it would be clearer if YOU actually read the Bible.
I didn't try to ensnare you into a trap, you sprung your own trap by giving the typical apologetic response to the Euthyphro dilemma and I outlined the basic problems with this typical response. The fact is, Divine Command Theory, that is, that morality only exists through the medium of God, has been abandoned by the vast majority of theistic philosophers for a long time. It's an untenable position. And to assert that without a god, we are destined for moral nihilism(that there are no morals at all) is unjustified. So far all you've done is baselessly assert that go is required for morality, without at all explaining...WHY. Especially since I already demonstrated why this idea is fundamentally flawed.
At 3/25/12 04:29 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote:At 3/25/12 04:07 PM, BigLundi wrote:At 3/25/12 03:58 PM, EmmaVolt wrote:1. Is what is moral, moral because god commands it?How would a non-Abrahamic believer, such as a Pantheist or Deist, answer this?
2. Is what is moral, moral, and god is simply pointing it out?
Neither, because this dilemma wasn't posed for them. However a pantheist or Deist would say that God has nothing to do with morality, since he's impersonal. They might also, depending on the individual, conclude that there is no such thing as morality(adopting moral nihilism).
At 3/25/12 04:28 PM, crazyScott wrote:At 3/25/12 02:41 PM, BigLundi wrote:You're arguing from a pure subjectivist viewpoint. I submit your position is in error.I'm not sure if I understand you completely. Let me use a different example.
The thing is, while it's true values are necessarily subjective, the moral ought and conclusions we derive from them can be determined down to a science. Cannibals, for instance, value their continued survival. But we can scientifically determine that they have far less harmful ways of going about their continued survival that they don't go about doing, that doesn't infringe on their base value of survival and life.
Let's say there's a religious group that sacrifices puppies, kittens, and babies daily in a fire. They do this because it brings happiness to the entire group and pleases their gods. Sacrificing these lives is actually counter-productive towards a healthy society (more deaths than births), but they believe that it is for the best. They are just as moral as the typical Canadian, right?
Something I would ask is whether or not these hypothetical religious people who regularly sacrifice puppies and kittens and babies in a fire in any way value human life. IF they do, then their actions are objectively immoral nd don't logically follow from their base values.
The current understanding of morality is that it's neither purely objective, nor purely subjective...there's a mix between the two. Have you read "The Moral Landscape"? Or anything by Shelley Kagan?
At 3/25/12 04:12 PM, EmmaVolt wrote:At 3/25/12 04:07 PM, BigLundi wrote: 1. Is what is moral, moral because god commands it?3. God is love. (So, also morality).
2. Is what is moral, moral, and god is simply pointing it out?
Go ahead and answer, this'll be fun.
Morality without an absolute is not morality, it's ethics.
Thanks for answering that way. Allowing me to further demonstrate the futility of your position.
2 problems with that.
Firstly, Is murder wrong? Well duh, murder's wrong. For the purposes of this post, we'll define murder as "Intentionally terminating the life of another human being without consent." Consent, btw, can include having given up their right to life, say by attacking you, or having already murdered someone else. Well why is it wrong? Well as you say, "It's wrong because murder does not reflect the eternal unchanging nature of...god...uh oh...see now we have a problem. Anyone who's read the bible understands that God's nature is, most certainly that of allowing murder in many many cases. He commanded it on a regular basis and even accepts human sacrifice. So clearly that...can't be the reason. What CAN be the case, if we want to be consistant with your explanation of morality and god, is we can say that clearly murder, or rather, the intentional termination of human life without consent, does in fact reflect God's nature. Remember my post about how Logic works? IF you don't, look it up real quick, then come back, becasue I'm gonna do a little syllogism to illustrate my point.
1. Actions consistent with god's nature are moral, while actions inconsistant with god's nature are immoral.
2. God's actions are always consistent with God's nature.
3. (from 1 and 2) God's actions are always moral.
4. God performs the act of intentionally terminating the lives of human beings without their consent.
Conclusion: From 3 and 4, it is then moral to intentionally terminate the life of a human being without their consent.
Now, while most of us look at that and see the flaw, a christian might be tempted to make the argument, "Morality is such that intentionally terminating the life of a human being without their consent is moral when performed by god, but immoral when performed by us."...For...whatever bullshit reason.
And you know what That's fine, that's a perfectly legitimate way...to cop out. But it's not without its consequences. See, it then follows from THAT argument that neither God's actions, nor god's nature are TRULY the standard for what is objectively moral. See, if intentionally terminating the life of a human being without their consent is morally wrong, and clearly it is, then...why...is it moraly wrong, if it's not morally wrong for GOD to do so?
The SECOND problem with your response to the Euthyphro Dilemma is that saying Morality is reflected by God's nature...doesn't...answer...the question. It just puts the question in seperate terms. It just makes the dilemma more interesting. Does God's nature, for instance, include honesty? Then we simply re word the question.
1. Is honesty right?
2. Is honesty right, because god's nature is honest?
To say that God's nature is honesty just because honesty is morally better than dishonesty certainly doesn't answer the question, and any 4 year old could destroy that answer just by having the capacity to ask, "Why?"
Why is honesty morally better than dishonesty? "Well because honesty reflects God's nature whereas dishonesty doesn't." Right, but why is god's nature one of honesty and not dishonesty? "Well because honesty is morally better than dishonesty." And why is honesty morally better than dishonesty? "Because honesty reflects God's nature whereas dishonesty does not."
Circular reasoning...is circular. Get out of the merry go round, view morality not as simply a question of God, but a question of why.
Also, ethics are morality. To say morality without an absolute is ethics is the same as saying evolution without an absolute is just allelic frequency change over time. Taking out the absolute and calling it the same thing with different terms doesn't change what it is.
At 3/25/12 03:58 PM, EmmaVolt wrote:
Because without God, there is no morality and anything goes. What I said is my stance in a completely secular opinion.
You're wrong. There is morality without god, and the existence of morality actually delineates the relevancy of God.
1. Is what is moral, moral because god commands it?
2. Is what is moral, moral, and god is simply pointing it out?
Go ahead and answer, this'll be fun.
At 3/25/12 03:38 PM, EmmaVolt wrote: If a member of your family has just pulled a knife out of the drawer, is crying and laughing maniacally, and keeps collapsing to the ground for no apparent reason, what would be your reaction. How would you handle this situation?
I approach them, with caution, and ask them what's going on. If they react violently, I restrain and disarm them, and then keep them restrained until they're ready to be cooperative, and are willing to answer my questions about why they're acting so abnormally.
At 3/25/12 03:33 PM, Ilssm wrote:Based on what?Well it's just... I don't know.
You believe what makes sense to you, I'll believe what makes sense to me. I do applaud you for being mature about this though.
Well then my only question is why you end your own investigation of your own world view when you come to the conclusion of, "...Well I don't know." but you feel it should be questioned of the atheistic worldview about morals even if their response is, "I don't know."
You APPEAR, from what I've seen, to be inconsistent in your investigation. You'll ask questions of others and expect answers wherein you don't ask questions of yourself because you don't have answers...So if you don't have answers...shouldn't you figure the answers out?
At 3/25/12 03:26 PM, Ilssm wrote:Makes sense, I suppose. Although I think there is more than the world then meets the eye.At 3/25/12 03:10 PM, BigLundi wrote:
Based on what?
At 3/25/12 02:22 PM, Ilssm wrote: Me, I like to be a good person, I try to give everyone a chance and treat them equal. I get a good feeling from helping others, as I assume most people do. Why I get this feeling? I do not know. Why do I try do be a good person? I don't know, I just do. My one and true honest question is, why? Why does the average person usually feel good after doing something good and feel bad if they do something bad? What IS good and bad? Does it have to do with what we were taught from the beginning, what we truly believe?
I would say we've evolved to have feelings and understandings that lead to us necessarily coming up with values.
Values themselves are an inevitable consequence of anything being valuable. You're asking why we value things...but...there are plenty of reasons, as I went over in my post. Familial(your family directly affect you, therefore you have a direct interest in valuing them, their lives, and treating them in a way that is conducive to them treating you positively.
Why do you like being treated positively? Because that's how we've evolved.
If someone in their lifetime who believes once they die, it's game over, why should they be moral?
...Because we have a life now. And that life is kind of important if it's the only one we're going to have. It's in your best interests to act moral so that your life becomes preferable, pleasurable, happy. And again, why do you want life to be pleasurable or happy? Because you've evolved that way.
Why, just so they can be remembered as a good or decent person?
Do you think the people that invented the cure for polio did it because, "Gee I want to be remembered for this"? And if they presumed that they wouldn't be remembered...do you honestly think they would say, "Well then what's the point? Screw it. Let the children die."?
Memories fade. Because they want to treat people the same way they want to be treated, why? What is the point of trying to do your best? Why do we get good feelings from helping others?
What is the point of wanting to be treated well? Again, you've evolved that way. Chemicals involved in your brain give you euphoric effects when you do things that are conducive to your own happiness and pleasure ,giving you these feelings.
At this point you're not asking about morality, you're asking 'why are we the way we are?'. Which is solved in the field of biology as well as existentialism.
I guess my point is, why as humans have we developed these moral codes that we are supposed to uphold when some of us believe won't matter after we cease to exist? Whenever I ask someone these questions, they always seem to come back to the same answer-
' We just do, I don't know. '
I didn't come back with that answer...and I'm fairly certain most philosophically educated atheists won't either. So there you go.
At 3/25/12 02:18 PM, EmmaVolt wrote: Objective morality could only come from a Higher Power.
Without a Higher Power, there is no point to morality.
I put a link to my first post on this issue as to why you're fundamentally wrong.
Select between 5 monster racers, upgrade your monster skill and win the competition!
4.18 / 5.00 3,534 Views
Build most powerful forces, unleash hordes of monster and control your soldiers!
3.80 / 5.00 4,200 Views
© Copyright 1995-2014 Newgrounds, Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use
newgrounds.com — Your #1 online entertainment & artist community! All your base are belong to us.
