32 Forum Posts by "OlenWhitaker"
I only have an older laptop that maxes out at 800x600.
At 3/25/03 12:12 PM, Veggiemeal wrote: MURDERER!MURDERER!MURDERER!MURDERER!MURDERER!MURDERER!MURDERER!MURDERER!MUR DERER!MURDERER!MURDERER!MURDERER!MURDERER!MURDERER!MURDERER!MURDERER!MURDER ER!MURDERER!MURDERER!MURDERER!MUR DERER!MURDERER!MURDERER!MURDERER!MURDERER!MURDERER!MURDERER!MURDERER!MURDER ER!MURDERER!MURDERER!MURDERER!MUR DERER!MURDERER!MURDERER!MURDERER!MURDERER!MURDERER!MURDERER!MURDERER!MURDER ER!MURDERER!MURDERER!MURDERER!MURDERER!MURDERER!MURDERER!MURDERER!MURDERER! MURDERER!MURDERER!MURDERER!MURDERER!MURDERER!MURDERER!MURDERER!MURDERER!MUR DERER!MURDERER!MURDERER!
Wow, what a compelling argument. I'm convinced.</sarcasm>
I repeat my challenge. Intellectually answer my previous post, if you can. If you can't, well, I guess you can go on spewing random, emotional outbursts 'til you're blue in the face.
Or am I just too "companced" to understand your subtleties?
I think the effect you noted is caused by the exponential increase in the amount of information that is available to us in the world today. So much is being thrown at us that we almost have to use allegory and other associative methods to keep track of it all.
I also think you may be reading too much into it. I don't think it is going to, as you said, destroy the democratic state. It's an effect, not a cause, I say.
Cow's have souls, but you are just to selfish and companced to see that.
What does "companced" mean? I looked it up in the dictionary and it wasn't there.
Go to the barn and have sex with your relatives, stupid hillybilly!
This doesn't even count as an ad hominem argument, it's just an outright insult. If you have to resort to this sort of thing to make your alleged point, isn't that a sign you're grasping at straws? Oh, and I'd like to hear you answer my previous post near the middle of page two.
I'll say it again, I don't care what you eat, but I do object to being called a murderer.
I think that if you create and environment of open communication where asking questions is encouraged, your children will come to you when the time is right and just ask it straight. If that doesn't happen, somewhere aroung twelve is probably about right. Of course, it depends on the child, but it shouldn't be later than fourteen and probably not earlier than ten.
My parents never had "the talk" with me. I just heard about it on my own and around eleven I found a book my parents had bought about how to talk to your kids about sex. I just read the book myself and spared them the hassle. ;)
I agree with Jazz_mazter, you'll win no converts by blocking traffic. It sends the message that you are the problem, not the war you're protesting against.
If I told you I was going to go on a mass murder spree and kill hundreds of people and you were the only one who could stop me, wouldn't you? Even if it meant you had to kill me? I would hope so. I would if I was in that situation.
Well, if you would, then by your logic you should kill me and anyone else who refuses to eat vegetarian. If you consider that killing an animal for food is no different from killing a negro because they're black, then what's the difference? I have killed and will continue to kill animals for food and clothing. The police will not, the animals cannot stop me. You could though, but only by killing me. If you have the courage of your convitions, shouldn't you take up arms in the name of your animal brothers? If I'm a mass murderer, stop me before I have dinner again. Or should you, perhaps, examine those convictions to see how much sense they really make.
I don't care what you eat. Meat? Vegetables? Shit? Doesn't matter to me. I don't like being told I'm a murderer though.
From a more scientific direction, why do we have canine teeth? They are only used in nature for ripping meat. Why is our digestive system so short? While it is proportionally slightly longer than the average carnivore, it is much shorter than the average herbivore. This indicates, as does our dentition, that humans are by nature omnivores, meant for a balanced diet of plants and meat.
Oh, and the argument that eating vegetarian is healthier doesn't hold water. It is healthier than guzzling red meat by the truckload, but a balanced diet that includes small amounts of red meat, larger amounts of leaner meats like chicken, and especially fish, mixed with plenty of fruits and vegetables is healthier than just fruits and vegetables alone. The key is balance. Both extremes are harmful, it's best to stick to the middle.
Now, if you'll excuse me, my fish dinner is ready.
Zapman wrote:
HA Cananda helping the US! How can they help us. they have almost no army.
Canada may not have a numerically large military, but it is well equipped and trained, and if their performance in Afghanistan is any measure, they have the best snipers in the world. Your comment is exactly the type of ignorant, ethnocentric rambling that foments anti-Americanism.
I don't mean to be insulting or up in anyone's face, but don't you think this whole "secret club" stuff is a little juvenile? I mean really, didn't we all get our fill of this kind of thing in junior high?
Let me clarify my "religion has no place in schools" comment. I meant that in terms of schools that teach that a particular religion is right and all others are wrong. I didn't mean this to extend to scrapping comparative religion classes in schools as long as they are unbiased. Sorry, I didn't make that clear.
I only have one thing to add.
Just because you don't know why a think is or should be so, doesn't mean it's not. If I drop a rock off a cliff, and it falls to the bottom, I don't have to know why gravity works to make the assumption that if I jump off, I will follow the same course as the rock.
Don't get me wrong, you make good points, I just don't think they collectively point to anything in particular.
On another matter: I, too, went to a religious school for nine hellish years. Looking back now, I can see where the methods they used were textbook non-violent brainwashing techniques. I'm pretty much recovered now, some seven years after I walked out one day and refused to go back. I was one of the strong ones, or maybe just lucky; a lot of my classmates committed suicide. It was bad. I still have a hard time talking about those times.
I feel very strongly that religion has no place in schools.
You've all raised some interesting points. I will try to address some of them as best I can.
Raptorman astutely opined:
You said that no part of infinity could be isolated due to the mathematical impossibility of it. The weakness lies in the mathematics, not in the reality.
This is actually a really good point. In order for the point to hold, it must be allowed that our current understanding of mathematics is adequate to describe the universe. I'll admit the possibility that the mathematical principles involved are in error. I hold that they are accurate in this case, but I admit the chance of error.
Cableshaft astutely opined:
Your argument is circular. You are proving that an objective reality exists by using the definitions and laws and theories that assume that an objective reality exists in order to have any function.
How so? True, you must accept existence itself (among other things) as axiomatic, but where does it require the acceptance of objective reality as axiomatic? You'll have to be more specific for me to give an answer.
Taxman2A astutely opined:
Have you ever read Thomas Aquinas- Summa Theologica?
Yes, in fact, this whole argument is simply an attempt to seal some of the holes in Aquinas' Prime Mover theory (that's why it's more complex, it takes the original argument and assumes certain attacks, and then attempts to counter them.)
Good thread.
Thanks.
theshrike astutely opined:
-=<Schroedinger's Cat theory>=-
My point is precisely that whatever created the universe must transcend the laws of our universe including quantum mechanics and would therefore be immune to the "observation causes change" maxim.
Let us imagine time is infinite. If the above statement is true, then you cannot measure time, let alone experience any part of it separate from the rest.
That makes my point. My observation tells me that time can be measured (relatively speaking) and experienced in parts, separate from the rest, therefore I assume that time is NOT infinite.
I cannot prove I exist.
Taxman2A did a good job putting forward the argument (from Descartes) that I would use here. I have nothing to add except that, you have nothing to lose by accepting your own existence as axiomatic because if you don't exist, it doesn't matter what you think (or think you think.)
Oh, and I'll avoid the overused, "Descaretes goes into a bar," joke. ;)
But, you can also not prove that you are finite until, alas, you are nomore.
If I were infinite, I would have already existed for an infinite time and therefore would have had infinite chances to discover my own (infinite) nature. Therefore, however small the chances of this discovery would be, if they are greater than zero (which logically they would be) then I would already have discovered myself to be infinite and therefore would not erroneously think that I was finite.
And who is to say that the universe is finite? If it is, then it is not neccessarily taken from the whole of infinity, but rather is an inextractable part of infinity.
This would require a fundamental retooling of our concepts of mathematics. As I stated in the above response to Raptorman's post, my argument accepts mathematics as we know them to be axiomatic. If they aren't, then the argument falls apart, as do nearly all known laws of nature. If you accept mathematical laws as we know them to be correct, then my point holds.
To take your Pi example, if you take 3 from Pi, you have .1415926535...etc. Both are still finite numbers. My point is that if you took 3 from infinity, there would still be just as much left in infinity as before. This would be mathematically impossible. That is, provided you accept our current understanding of mathematics, which, I admit, could be flawed.
Also, Taxman2A made another good point about the law of entropy. It also makes a very strong case for the universe as being finite.
Oh, and as for the spontaneous creation of subatomic particles in quantum physics: that isn't truly from nothing, there is a corresponding loss of mass and/or energy from somewhere else in the universe in accordance with the law of conservation of mass/energy. But, that's a different thread. ;)
I'm thinking of a number between 41 & 43...
Is it an integer?
Taxman2A astutely opined:
-=<lots of stuff>=-
All excellent points, man. I can't find anything you said that I disagree with, and that's unusual for me. ;)
Great points all around. Good food for thought is hard to come by. Thanks.
With all the raw power and human greed floating around, it's just a matter of time before it all goes up in flames. Ten years? Ten-thousand years? It's gonna happen someday. When it does, all we can hope is that, if anyone survives, those that do will learn from our mistakes.
I also agree with you when you said that if you try to solve all the problems, you'll go insane. The best you can hope for in your own life is to do more good than harm, help those you can, and let the rest go. One thing I am sure of is that no one can be held responsible for what was beyond their power to fix.
That's what I meant about the seeming contradiction. What I'm saying, though, is that this entity exists in a different way from us. My description of this entity or force stated that it was able to bring about change in the universe, without being changed by the universe. It wouldn't follow the physical laws that govern our universe and therefore could exist without taking up space or having mass. I know that I seem to be reaching, but, something had to set the universe in motion, and this is the only plausible scenario that I could think of.
Do you have a better idea?
At 3/13/03 10:37 PM, NoNameProphet wrote: Heh. You aren't that old yourself, so I'd avoid acting all high and mighty. You aren't so all-knowing either, because apparently you can't provide me much insight or information. You just say to keep looking.
I heard that Plato once said, "I am the wisest man in Athens because I know that I don't know. I am only ignorant once. Everyone else is ignorant twice for they think they know, but still they do not."
I wasn't trying to be high and mighty, and you're right, I'm not that much older. Maybe I'm just getting a laugh remembering myself at sixteen. ;)
No hard feelings over our little discussion alright?
'Course not, man! That's what this forum is here for. :)
Although yeah,I don't think you'll ever figure one out.
I doubt that as well.
Hanging out with friends in church wouldn't be too stimulating ;)
Yeah, it never did much for me either.
It's just unfortunate that religion causes the problems it does =/. Everyone is so greedy and stupid. <sigh>
Now there's something we can definitely agree on.
C ya 'round the forum.
At 3/13/03 10:05 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: humans live and die just like any other organism on the planet.
This may also be true. My point was not and is not to decide if humans have souls or not.
I'm still waiting for an actual criticism of my original post. Surely somebody must disagree with me. ;)
OK, I tried. You say you've given the matter serious consideration; you say with certainty that God has no reason to care what you do. All I said was keep your mind open, and don't assume that you already have all the answers, but, no, you're positive. You're also sixteen years old. You have no experience in the real world and a very limited perspective. It's not your fault, that's what being sixteen is all about. You'll grow out of it someday. Five years? Ten years? Twenty? Trust me, you'll be there. You'll be so full of doubts you won't be sure of anything. Then you'll be ready to begin.
You'll forgive me, I trust, if I find your youthful certainty amusing.
If your actual question was, "Why should God care if I believe in Him?" then you did not make that clear. You said, "I don't know if there's a God or not, and I don't care to find out." You also said, "...knowing if he's there doesn't effect what happens to us anyway." I made my reply based on your 'who cares?' attitude.
As it happens, everything that I said in my last post can be applied to this question as well. You have nothing to lose, and potentially something large to gain by at least making the effort. Maybe you'll search for a while and realize you do believe in God and His importance. Maybe you'll search and come up with nothing.
If you wish to dogmatically reject the very idea that God might be relevant to your life, without even giving the matter serious consideration, then you are just as blind as the religious zealots that you so loudly denounce.
I'll say it again, I'm not trying to get you to believe anything. I'm just pointing out that your, "It doesn't matter; I don't care; Who cares?" attitude is no different from the religious zealot who says, "I don't need science, because I know what's right."
I don't care what you believe, but find a good reason for it. Don't just say, "It doesn't matter," and ignore it altogether. Make a reasonable, open minded inquiry and then decide.
...knowing if he's there doesn't effect what happens to us anyway.
How do you know that. To say that there might be a truth to be found, but you're not interested doesn't make much sense. If, as you suggested, God exists, and life is a test, maybe there is a right and wrong way to take the test and maybe the stakes are quite high. I'm not telling you what to believe, just that sticking your head in the sand and saying you don't care is a risky proposition at best.
Consider Pascal's wager. The mathematician and philosopher Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) suggested looking at the question of seeking truth or not as an excercise in the mathematics of gambling.
For these purposes, I am using the word truth instead of God as Pascal did, because, unlike Pascal, I'm not trying to convice you to belive in God, just to seek truth in general and come to your own conclusion.
Imagine it as a game with two outcomes and two possible bets. This gives four possible outcomes:
1. Truth does not exist and you bet that truth does not exist. You gain little, if anything, by being right. At most, you gain some temporary, Earthly pleasure, which is itself of debateable value.
2. Truth does not exist and you bet that truth exists. You lose little, if anything, by being wrong. You lose only by this as much as you stand to gain from outcome #1.
3. Truth exists and you bet truth exists. You stand to gain something of infinite value (i.e. eternal life and happiness.) At the least, you will gain whatever personal strength may come from this knowledge.
4. Truth exists and you bet truth does not exist. You stand to lose something of infinite value (i.e. your soul, eternity in Hell.)
As low as you may consider the odds to be, if you accept that there is a greater than zero chance of truth (God) existing, then you shhould live your life as if truth (God) existed. You have one wager (does not exist) with a small gain against a major loss. The other wager (does exist) has a small loss and a major gain.
Again, I'm not telling you to believe in God; I'm telling you that to willfully ignore the question by saying you don't care, is not rational.
The view that people have a soul which is immortal is compatible with my assertion, and is actually by view as well. It could be that these immortal souls are the very transcendent force to which my argument was pointing. It's also possible that the souls are fragments of God, as it were. My intial argument is compatible with both the view that we do and that we don't have souls. When I said that people are finite, I meant finite on this plane, the universe plane. This can be proven mathematically. We may yet be infinite on the higher, God plane, that is just one of the possiblities suggested by my argument.
I know I'm reaching by posting this in a politics forum, but there isn't a forum for religious or philisophical debate so I thought I'd toss it in here. After all, we are one nation UNDER GOD, so if it's about God, it's about politics (thanks, mysecondstar for that one.)
One further note: I'm presenting this argument in the lame-ass, sophomoric point 1, point 2, conclusion style which I deeply despise for its inelegance but I think you'll agree it's better than having a ten-thousand word post, it's long enough already.
I have a line of reasoning which attempts to prove the existence of God if you allow that God is defined only as a force or entity which exists outside the universe, which is able to affect the universe, without being affected by the universe.
I. The qualities of being finite and being infinite are mutually exclusive.
From the definition of infinity
II. There cannot exist anything that is not part of infinity.
Also, from the definition of infinity
III. No part of inifinity can be isolated or divided. That is to say, no finite thing can be excised from an infinite thing.
It is mathematically impossible.
IV. I exist.
For this, don't think of me, the person writing this, think of yourself. I can't prove to you that I exist but I believe you can prove to yourself that you exist.
V. I am finite.
If I/you were infinite then I/you would have an infinite amount of time to discover this fact and therefore could not erroneously think otherwise. If you think you're finite, you are. If you think you're infinite, well, you'll have to go a long way to prove that.
VI. I am part of the universe.
By definition of the universe (i.e. all that exists,) this must be so.
VII. The universe is finite.
As I pointed out in point III, nothing finite can be taken independently of an infinite whole, so if I exist, am finite, and am part of the universe, then the universe must be finite.
VIII. All finite things must be caused (set into motion)
This comes from the definition of being finite.
IX. A thing cannot cause itself.
This comes from the nature of cause and effect.
X. Something which is greater thant the universe, existing outside the universe, with the power to effect the universe without being effected by the universe must have set the universe in motion.
This is the summation of the argument. If the universe had a beginning, and it could not begin itself, something started it in motion.
I know this seems self-contradictory on the face of it since I'm positing the existence of something that seems to violate the very premises on which the argument is based, but if you look closer, I don't think it really is contradictory. I'm not saying that a particular God is responsible, or what the nature of that God is, or even that it is a being as we know it. Under this argument, it could simply be a force that we don't understand yet.
What is important about this argument is not the God part so much as the fact that, if you accept this argument, then it does show that there must be objectivity in the universe. Whatever this force or being was, it must now have an objective viewpoint towards the universe. Therefore, objective truth exists in the universe. This would be the total refutation of existentialism, and situational ethics.
This argument is far from air-tight, however. It accepts certain things as axiomatic which may not be (e.g. existence itself, mathematical laws, the nature of inifity, cause and effect, etc,.) I'm not posting this to say, "Hey, I'm right and you're wrong," I just want to get feedback and a chance to debate some of the points above.
If you think I'm wrong in my conclusion or any of the premises, feel free to try and refute me.
P.S. My apologies if you think I strayed to far off topic posting this here. I just didn't have a better option.
That's the catch-22 that I'm talking about. If you set traps, that's not fair. If you don't, it's almost impossible to catch.
Oh yeah, and why isn't there a religion and/or philosophy forum. I've got some ideas I'd like to kick around but they'd be out of place in a politics forum, and I certainally won't waste my time submitting them to the general forum.
That's an interesting way of looking at it. I'll have to think about that for a while.
I must also agree that religion and politics should not overlap. While I wouldn't want a prospective President or other leader to give up his or her beliefs, they should not be the basis for policy decisions. If you can't make a good argument for something without bringing God into it, it's probably a bad idea.
For the record, I do believe in God, even though I don't adhere to any organized religion.
This brings up an interesting question, and a difficult one at that. What is the best way to monitor and regulate this sort of activity? Anything I can think of would either be easily side-stepped or too invasive of privacy. I want to see internet (and all) child-porn stamped out, but I can't think how best to go about it. Any ideas?
I lack respect for your spelling, grammar, punctuation, and typing. Does that count?
Most enlisted soldiers are losers anyway.
In many countries today, saying something critical of the government or its military forces can get you killed. The only reason you can say something like that in a public forum without fear is that hundreds of thousands of these "losers" died to protect that freedom.
What about the soldiers who died to liberate Europe from the Nazis, and to protect our homeland from the Japanese in WWII, and to win our nation's independence in the Revolutionary War? If you think any of them is a loser, you are not worthy of the freedom they died to give you. Maybe when you have a few more years behind you, you will come to appreciate your freedom more, and the price that so many have paid for it. Until then, you should keep your absurd generalizations to yourself.
Look at the picture below. Dare you call it the resting place of "losers?"
Sounds like a bad idea to me. Coral reefs are extremely fragile. If the installation was found to be doing damage to the reef, by the time the damage became visible, there would already be enough that it could take a hundred years or more to normalize. Plus, it does set a dangerous precedent. If this structure is built, next thing you know, there'll be similar resort parks trying to go up in every other part of the Earth that's still untouched. Like I said...bad idea.
