3,623 Forum Posts by "Ravariel"
Carrot cake with cream cheese frosting.
Awwww yeah.
At 3/4/11 06:16 PM, Elfer wrote: Kentucky was pretty awesome. Here's a photo of me climbing:
Are you the head or the ass?
At 3/4/11 04:48 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:At 2/25/11 05:16 PM, Ravariel wrote: This should also humble those legislators in Wisconsin who want to destroy the power of unions, the very things that have made this country such a beacon of freedom and democratic power.SO employers not being able to fire their workers for NOT DOING THEIR JOBS = freedom?
So workers not being allowed to work together to improve their conditions, pay and benefits = freedom?
what load of shit
Indeed.
At 3/4/11 03:47 AM, KemCab wrote: Suppose we say that we value human life and state that killing someone is immoral; but killing in self defense is excusable, so that statement of value is contradictory. In this case, then we can split "we value human life" into two statements:
"excusable" and "moral" are two different things, and this argument hinges on the assumption that morality is a discrete, binary factor. If I were to posit that an action can be a mixture of moral and immoral, wouldn't that shift the debate beyond the marginalizing of the import of moral reasoning?
The world is not made up of binary choices, but rather of organic choices that are always a fusion of the cultural (moral/ethical/subjective) and the natural (objective). To claim that an action is either on or the other leads us to the very conflict you seem to be stuck on: that of conflicting value. I would argue that the reasons for an ethical decision aren't subjective at all. In fact, most people will behave in very rational self-interest and we can deduce many of the reasons people act as they do and find the morality that they do. The difference between folk is the weight they give the reasons.
Some will find any harm done to another not worth it morally. That does not mean that they will not see the moral reasons to harm in self-defense or defense of others, rather that they put more stake in the fact that harming others is wrong. Others will easily harm in order to protect themselves or loved ones, but balk at harming to protect a stranger. The only thing about morality that is subjective is the weight given any reason, not the reasons themselves. And when we add that to the postulate that an action can be both moral and immoral at the same time (despite the apparent semantic contradiction), then we can have rational discussion about morality without marginalizing it to simple personal preference.
Shit, if 40% of Americans think Obama wasn't born in America, a verifiable fact, and if people can believe that the moon landing was faked, also verifiable, then the fact that a huge portion of the world all agrees that murder is wrong should tell you something about the import, and the reality of an underlying moral ethic for the human race.
Well, with respect to Wisconsin's public employees, once you factor in the variables of age and education, they actually make almost exactly the same amount as the private sector (4% less, but that's negligible in my book). Public sector employees are, as Smilez' link said, are generally older, more experienced in their field and better educated, to see them compensated commensurately is no surprise. Also, the Wisconsin Unions have attempted to negotiate, basically saying they were willing to grant nearly every concession that the governor has "asked" for, while Walker told the Milwaukee Journal that he "[didn't] have anything to negotiate." The fact that of the top 5 campaign contributors in the last election, 3 were Unions and all heavily gave to democrats - the largest of which was the AFSCME, which is a public sector union - while the other two (Chamber of Commerce and Karl Rove's organization) were private and almost completely Republican, is one that makes the moves by these Republican Governors somewhat hard to take seriously as "budgetary."
Interesting context provided for Wisconsin here if you can see past the leftist tilt.
At 3/3/11 10:31 PM, Korriken wrote: food stamps are for the weak.
I've come to the realization that pride is the most expensive meal of them all. Swallowed mine and got a Bridge card just this month as I'm between jobs.
At 3/3/11 06:10 PM, LordJaric wrote: So what exactly can you have.
I was just wondering the same thing. It seems by that list that the room temperature water is the only thing that's left.
At 3/3/11 02:41 AM, KemCab wrote:At 3/2/11 07:44 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: Atruism, in practice, is often exactly that need to dominate the world with one's ideology, especially when one considers their ideology altruistic.All people strive to shape -- i.e. dominate -- the world; altruism is merely one justification for it.
How very Ayn Rand...
I think a large part of the issue here, much like gums topic about consciousness, is one of definition.
How do we define "right"?
How do we define "natural"?
If we can examine the concepts themselves, instead of their implications, I think we might be better able to find a common ground. We may also find out that the term "natural right" is as oxymoronic as "military intelligence" or "jumbo shrimp".
that was a joke, relax...
If we define a "right" as something that cannot be taken away, then there is no such thing as a "right," because there is nothing one person can have that cannot be removed either by other persons or "natural" events. If we instead say a "right" is something that is merely difficult (either in desire or in exertion) to take away, then we have something that can exist in rational discussion.
For this example, we can use the easy one, Locke's "life, liberty and property." Obviously we, as individuals, and as larger societies, are generally unwilling to part a person from any of these "rights." There is tons of logic behind why, including an obvious evolutionary advantage to altruism and a revulsion of violence. Whether or not a person has an ulterior motive to be altruistic is secondary, as is the Rand version of altruism as a selfish act of ethical masturbation, because that can be explained again through evolution programming us for our own benefit towards altruism (see: orgasms benefiting the sexual reproduction of the species). And if an evolutionary dictum is not what we can call "natural" then I wonder what could be?
Beyond the Locke big three (and I would hesitate to include the third) I would not argue that much else can be considered a "natural" right, though several cultural rights obviously exist. Locke's third right, that to property, is where the cultural issues begin to take over. But the distinction between what is natural and what is cultural is limited at best, especially when it was nature that gave us the ability and desire to form culture. Many folk would suggest that separating the two at all is folly, and merely leads to the definitional problems that have started this whole thread. :)
To get slightly back on point, I saw this today and it blew my mind a little bit.
US media is covering the protests in Egypt and Lybia more than the ones in Wisconsin, in what is a rather ironic reversal of the US media's usual M.O. of ignoring floods and earthquakes in favor of Britney's weave.
What do you think is behind this strangeness?
And now we're having a thunderstorm.
At night.
In February.
...I give up.
Can't afford it without a job to move into, unfortunately. And though I have been looking, there's nothing to be had.
I hit a pothole last night so hard that it tripped my fuel shutoff... y'know, that thing that keeps your car from going all hollywood kablooey when you get in a crash? Yeah...
Have I ever mentioned how much I love winter?
At 2/27/11 08:48 AM, WolvenBear wrote: Well considering I addressed the adulterers aspect above...
Unfortunately, the disconnect between what has historically been done and what the bible claims one should do is the entire point. You cannot get around the fact that the bible instructs people to kill others who have sinned in various ways. Whether or not anyone has ever followed those instructions isn't the point. Well, it is, but not in the sense you're thinking.
And you still haven't answered how the great flood and sodom and gommorah are not violent and hateful passages.
Without even a cursorary glance at scripture, this argument is stupid as the vast majority of Christians are not violent. Beyond that, EVERY quoted scripture that "proves" Christians are violent is from the OLD testiment. No words of Jesus towards violence can be found.
Except those quotes you refuse to acknowledge except as "parable".
You're lying here Rav. Plain and simple.
Relax, bub, I was asking a question because in the versions I looked at didn't have that phrase. Seriously, you need to take a step back and chill the fuck out. (this will be funnily ironic later)
Yet your above scenerio never happened.
Not. The. Point. Sweet beezus, you're dense.
Moving on. The historical record doesn't support this. Considering how straightforward the Bible is, and that it DOES mention banishment, the phrase cut off means to be shunned. (That's also the common modern day use of the phrase, but moving on.) So it may sound like that to you, but you also thought people would be killed for eating shellfish, and not even the most anti-Christian site supports that. Pardon me if your word seems to have a hint of bias.
Again, with using the mistype to ad-hominem your way out of rational discussion. And I like how you say the bible is straightforward. If it were there wouldn;t be hundreds of different sects that all disagree on what it means. But that's immaterial. Fact of the matter is that we do not practice shunning now, even though your HOLY bible says you must. Why not?
Uh, no. The specifics of the offense ARE the point. If you claim that something equals death, and it doesn't, you are wrong. To put this into modern context...
Good fucking christmas. WHICH ACTION IT IS THAT REQUIRES DEATH DOESN'T MATTER AS LONG AS ONE ACTION REQUIRES IT. If you curse your parents, the bible instructs death. If you adulter, death, etc etc. Whether or not shellfish do or do not isn't the fucking point, because OTHERS DO.
At 2/26/11 01:08 PM, SolInvictus wrote: so no one brought up how Wolvenbear misrepresented scripture in order to set off this new line of debate?
i would have expected a few people to be a little more entertained by that.
Which part? There's so much in there to be entertained by that I'm not sure which you're referring to.
At 2/26/11 07:14 AM, WolvenBear wrote:At 2/23/11 03:09 PM, Ravariel wrote: I was talking about the entirety of the rest of the bible.Yes. Paul going blind for attacking Christians was hateful. Um, I mean...
And killing homosexuals and adulterers is not? Killing the entire world except for a few people on a boat is not? Sodom and Gommorah are not?
Since the claim that the Bible is violent is really the claim that Judaism is violent, the question is...was it? Well, no. Judaism was by far less violent than any of the other religions that surrounded it.
Not really, considering the entirety of the discussion has been about how Christians interpret and use the bible, and the apparent contradictions within the Bible itself, not how the Jews have used and interpreted the bible in history. But considering the status of judaism throughout the centuries, their lack of aggression is, in context (a concept that has been completely foreign to you so far), completely rational. They also, probably, understood what leviticus meant.
Leviticus 11. Whoever eats of these or touches them shall be unclean until evening (nowhere in my bible does it claim that eating unclean animals makes you an abomination. An online search of other versins also makes me say huh?). Reading the whole thing instead of a clip helps?
What version (or verse, that'd work too), because I've just gone completely through Leviticus 11 (approximately 12 different versions) and in no place does it say "until evening".
But let's look at the rest. Shunning and banishment are NOT the same thing. It's the equivalent of some sexual practices in America today. If you tell your best friend you pee on your wife, he'll probably think you weird and stay away from you. But you won't be kicked out of your home, lose your job, or be exiled.
Leviticus 20:18
And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people.
Unless you can explain to me that this actually means that people will "think you're weird" and avoid you, then your argument seems and awful lot like a hasty rationalization. Indeed it sounds to me exactly like you would be kicked out of your house, lose your job, and be exiled... if we actually took most of this book as seriously as we take a couple choice passages.
Whoa whoa whoa! No, no, no. You made the assinine claim that the Bible commands the slaughter of those who eat shellfish and wear cotton/polyiester hybrids.
Because the specifics of the offense aren't the point. I love how when you have no place to go, you latch on to one mistype and ride that as though it were the lynchpin of my argument.
Before we move on, we must address the adultery issue. We'll get to Christianity soon enough, but let's look at whether Judaism was "barbaric" in adultery. Turns out...they weren't:
The issue isn't how the book has been enforced historically, it's about the uneven application of the rules therein now. Please stick to the topic at hand.
So, Judaism was far more civilized than the rest of the world. But what about Christianity? There's this little known myth (only billions have access to it), that Jesus demanded that stoning of adulterers stop. Some unknown woman...Christians don't even mention her or anything. Mary Magdalan? It's not like she's a central figure or anything!
He also said that he was not brought to earth to remove the old laws. But you are getting a liiiitle bit closer to one of the real reasons this argument is weak. I'll give you another hint about why in this response... let's see if you catch on.
That you're wrong and you don't know what the hell you're talking about?
No, but cute. You realize that I basically just told you I'm arguing a poor position, and know it, and have given you hints to why that is and you still don't see the actual reason my position is flawed? Sure I misquoted about shellfish and mixed fabrics, but the specifics of which items get death and which do not is not the central argument here. It is the practice of cherry-picking what you will and will not consider important from the book, Leviticus being the easy example.
Biblical scholors don't claim the bible proscribes death for eating shellfish. Your hole is getting awful big there....
Way to conflate two separate arguments into a misstep that's immaterial to either point. How about you go back and re-read that exchange.
Taken as a whole, though, most Protestant groups accept the Christian faith of Roman Catholics and believe that they are saved. Here are some examples of Protestant denominations that do believe Catholics are saved: Methodists, Anglicans, Free Methodists, and Lutherans. There are many more. In fact, I do not know of any Protestant tradition that officially says that Catholics are not saved.
Protestants generally believe that, yes, but some do not. Catholics on the other hand are much more restrictive about who gets to go to heaven and how. They have become more liberal in their interpretations over the years, but the quotes in my source from Vatican 2 and other places are easy to source and read for yourself.
Good counter. Except Jesus didn't hit his followers. So, kinda a bad counter after all....
Hi, my name is Job, and I beg to differ.
Unfortunately for you, R, I AM including historical context. Hitler attacked the Christians and Jews because of who they were. Stalin was open in his hate of belief. As was Mao. As was Pol Pot. Etc. These guys made it clear why they killed Christians. One of these guys proves my case more than you proving every Christian killer in history....
Ah, I see. You're conflating hatred of a belief system as a worldview issue and hatred of a belief system as a competing power issue. The two are different. I doubt you agree, but there it is.
You seem to be missing the point that my use of FDR is a reductio ad absurdum of your position, meaning that I know that the FDR example is flawed, but that it also shows that yours are flawed. I like that you tear into my example completely oblivious that by extension you are destroying your own.
No, there are THREE possibilities. You choose the right God, you choose the WRONG god or NO god. Or there is NO god. Possibilities 2 and 3 have the same outcome. Well, there is a fourth possibility. The God who created stuff and doesn't give a crap. So no answer is wrong or right.
Except Atheists can choose the "right" god (by choosing no god), ergo they have as much chance of getting the "good" outcome as anyone else.
Not many kids murder and torture and kill and rape.
Oh, then it's okay with you that someone who lived a good life but rejects, outright, the Holy Spirit (the one unforgivable sin) is tortured forever? With an attitude like that, you wonder why many think your religion is a pile of douche?
No. No finite crime deserves an infinite punishment.
However, there are many verses in the Bible that suggest that the eternal torment only exists for the worst of the worst. Revelations suggests a second death for most of the evil:
Actually, Revelations also only specifically says that Hell is for the Fallen (Lucifer) and those of the host that followed him. If we want to actually be true to the bible, Hell is nothing more than actual death; the lack of resurrection during the rapture.
At 2/25/11 10:21 PM, Proteas wrote: I still get a chuckle over that old house, though... my dad went insane trying to renovate the bathroom, because none of the walls were square. XD
Heh. My dad is a carpenter and a bit of a perfectionist (not quite OCD, but close) so I have seen him do something very similar, lol.
At 2/25/11 07:11 PM, lapis wrote:At 2/25/11 05:16 PM, Ravariel wrote: Below is a picture of an Egyptian protesterEh, I don't want to say this, but that 'protester' looks like an American (or any other Caucasian) to me. How many ethnic Egyptians do you know that have that shade of brown hair? It might just be an American exchange student (AUC?) who just arrived or stayed during the protests. Just sayin'.
Certainly possible, but he has some specific facial features that suggest that he at least has some middle-eastern or North African heritage. I would not be surprised if he was of mixed ancestry or at least had a student visa or some other connection to America.
I would guess that people in Egypt would only find out about the events in Wisconsin through the sources you suggest, and this may very well be completely staged. I don't suspect this is an issue that many are familiar with in Egypt, but the fact remains that the world is getting smaller and more interconnected. 10-15 years ago noone in Egypt (or the Netherlands for that matter) would even be able to find out what was happening in an individual state in the US, much less interested in doing so. Maybe this is me getting my hopes up, but perhaps this is an indication that the US can now share the load with some more nations around the world with respect to mutual support for workers rights and basic democratic ideals.
But at it's center mine is a message that the Wisconsin legislature (specifically the republicans, though the pussy-ass cowardly democrats aren't much better) is clearly in the wrong here and need to find another way to balance their budget.
Not a lot of talk so far on this board abut the Union struggles in Wisconsin and the domino effect it could have around the country. I saw recently a picture that expanded my own view of the world and realized I had been falling into a rather specific American trope when thinking about world issues. Below is a picture of an Egyptian protester holding a sign in support of the Union battle in Wisconsin.
With all of their own troubles, and internal conflict over the last couple months, that they can, and do, spare the time to show support for a small (though nationally important) struggle of a state congress vs workers surprised me... and moved me. And then I wondered why I was surprised. Don't we, here at home, often show support of people's struggles against oppressive governments? Do we not, even with our own struggles, find the time to speak, and give on issues such as Tibet, Myanmar, Sudan, Egypt, Lybia and anywhere else that has a populus' uprising?
This shows that now, more than ever, the world is internationally aware and involved. No longer is it the "west vs the rest" when it comes to people showing other people support.
This should also humble those legislators in Wisconsin who want to destroy the power of unions, the very things that have made this country such a beacon of freedom and democratic power. Perhaps the unions need some scaling back of their influence. I know in Michigan they have caused some significant trouble (re: UAW and Teachers' Union), but basically dissolving them completely, especially after they have given you every concession you asked for (re: Wisconsin State budget) seems petty and counterproductive. You can imagine that if the Republicans in the Wisconsin State Senate do end up getting the Dems back in-state and to the floor and pass this bill the repercussions will be immense. I suspect a large-scale strike of every union in the state would commence and grind the state to a standstill. When a country like Egypt shows concern for the workers of one of OUR states...? We should take notice, and be humbled by our lack of compassion for the reason and strength of our unions.
At 2/23/11 07:08 AM, WolvenBear wrote: Well, ignoring that there are zero hateful passages surrounding this incident.
I was talking about the entirety of the rest of the bible.
Can we set that up Rav? Sound like a deal? Even if I was guaranteed I'd survive, and was given a million dollars, I'd have to pass.
What about if you were a God? Screw the million dollars, if you're god, then all of that would be peanuts.
Here is one of the problems of the layman critic. The layman critic claims "The Bible demands the murder of people who eat shellfish." Of course it doesn't. The only "penalty" is to be unclean for a day. But it makes the layman feel superior to the believer, even though he is speaking nonsense.
Mmmm, deflection. I am shocked and surprised. Also, where does it say that the "uncleanness" (read: abomination, same descriptor used for another passage a couple phrases before) only lasts for a day? Anyway, what about cursing your parents? (punishment: death) Or having sex during mentruation? (punishment: banishment/shunning) Adultery? (death) Incest? (death)
Feel like actually answering instead of evading?
The funny thing is, there's a very easy answer here that I have yet to see any theist make that would completely shut down this line of argument. I wonder if you're clever and/or ballsy enough to find/claim it.
But whatever. It's not a terribly honest question. "Why should I believe you instead of someone who's never read the bible!?!" OK, go with whatever makes you happy man.
Sooo... biblical scholars and church leaders have never read the bible?
Except this isn't the view of ANY church. No Christian church believes that if you follow Christ and try not to hurt your fellow man that you won't be saved. You seem to not understand the religion.
Bzzt, wrong.
Other groups are more liberal in their take on who gets the prize. Mormons, for instance believe everyone goes to heaven but the level of the rewards you receive are relative to your deeds on earth. Jehova's Witnesses believe that only 144,000 people will go to heaven and rule with God, but the rest will enjoy an Earth that is a new "garden of Eden". Protestants are all over the map.
By this logic, if a mother tells her two sons not to hit each other, and one ignores her, her saying wasn't clear.
Well, if that mother then hits them repeatedly, they may take issue with the whole "no hitting" rule... to extend the ridiculous metaphor.
Well originally, the tact was to argue which was more dangerous in general numbers. That was clearly athiesm.
As long as you attribute individual action to atheism, sure, that works. But then we'd have to include people like FDR killing hundreds of thousands, if not millions for Christianity. However, once we attribute action to the correct inception then it becomes more problematic. And if we go further and look at historical contexts, then your position becomes very, very tenuous.
But the challenge was put forth to argue whether athiesm or religion was a better gamble on the immortal scene. Pascal's Wager is clearly correct on this point. Maybe non-believers find it silly, but the logic is unassailable.
Ha ha ha haa! Really? Really!?
Indeed, the logic is unassailable... you just miss the forest for the trees. Because there are literally an infinite number of possibilities for the "correct" god, including a god that exists and punishes every single belief system, including one that rewards the non-believers, including non-existence, then under Pascal's Wager everyone is equally likely to get "the good ending", ergo no single position is any better than another.
Pascal's wager is a foolish attempt at fear-mongering by people too myopic to contemplate a god that would reward the non-believer and/or punish the believer.
How can a parent love you if they have punishment on the table? Oh, all parents do that? Hmmm...
Bit of a difference between a spanking and eternal torture... just sayin'.
At 2/22/11 03:59 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: And within the united states, time after time, Home schooled students, charter schools, and private schools outperform their public counterparts.
While I agree with you for the most part, let me pick a nit here. In academics, Home Schooling whoops Public Schooling cold (I was mostly homeschooled for 4 years and it was the best decision my parents ever made for my education), however, school is not all about academic learning. A large amount of social learning is also accomplished there that is seldom available in a homeschooled environment. I didn't start homeschooling till 8th grade so most of my social education had already taken place. Group dynamics, interaction, bargaining, and interpersonal relationships with peers are all very much at the forefront of the importance of schools.
As far as private and charter schools go, most private schools only outperform public schools by a slim margin and charter schools are all over the map.
It's unreasonable to expect people to 'respect' a kind of education which they have no say or control over.
I don't know about respect, but certainly the ability to tailor a curriculum based on the interests and abilities of the individual is the most effective way to foster motivation and a positive education, and choice certainly fits into that. However, the amount of choice allowed I believe is something that is negotiable. Most kids, were they given the choice, would skip out on one or more very important subjects due to personal preference, be it math, reading, writing, or history. Personally, most history is dry and boring. Names and dates stick far less well in my head than concepts, puzzles, and the construction of the new (be it through words, music or math). Don't give me specifics, give me generals and let me create specifics. Had I been given the choice, I would have skipped a lot of information that is actually important to understanding the things I am currently interested in. My parents would have had little to no inkling of my current path in order to foster those less desirable educational paths. And my parents were one of the ones greatly invested in my education... something that is a bit of a rarity. I don't know that we would be better off if we let all parents choose every educational path for their children. Certainly many would, but I suspect that a larger number would be worse off.
The question is how we can encourage a greater variety in education while motivating parents to become truly involved, instead of thinking of school as free daycare and nothing more.
At 2/21/11 05:56 PM, BrianEtrius wrote:Too soon?
Never.
I'd like to thank our local weather forecasters for accurately predicting the 2" of snow and 1" of ice...
Wait, no... we got 8" of snow...
damn...
Fuck weathermen... and fuck February. God, I hate this month.
At 2/20/11 12:00 AM, Al6200 wrote: This has some interesting implications. Firstly, there is a recognition that there is no such thing as an object in the world that simply exists. Objects only exist as something recognized, and that recognition of an object exists within a world of significations that is unique to each dasein.
As I started to read this post, I started typing up a rather extended dismissal of the Cartesian/Modernist view of subject/object separation/purification, but thankfully I read the rest before responding. While I like the fact that this Dasein (which is kind of a pun in German, as it could be a contraction of two different pairs of words Das Ein (the one, or the singular) or Da' Sein (the existence)) blends the subject/object argument back together. I have a quick and dirty breakdown of why Modernism and Postmodernism don't work, and my own social philosophy based on Actor-network theory and enactment here. But it's starting to sound a little too philosophically wishy-washy. It sounds to me like the philosophical argument between the morality of a person being 50/50 at birth or tabula-rasa... where they are explicitly different, but effectively identical. This almost sounds like a postmodern deconstruction of an idea that, much like Hot Topic non-conformists, is actually still conforming to the previous paradigm.
Perhaps it is my unfamiliarity with the details of the writings of these authors, but I'm not sure it gives us any ontological answers to the question of consciousness... or any real solution to the chicken-and-egg problem (from cartesian subject/object duality) it seems to want to solve. Perhaps you can explain in more detail?
At 2/19/11 04:54 AM, WolvenBear wrote: So because Jesus gave an allegorical reference to a sword in a single statement in his life, we should ignore that he risked his body to save a whore from stoning, and forbade his followers from injuring people who were there to ive him one of the worst forms of death imaginable?
So, because Jesus "allowed" himself, being god, to "die", which god can't really do (and, if he was actually divine, he would actually know this) in a way that, to a god, would be in the grand scheme of things, similar to a hangnail, but is horrible to humans, we should ignore all of the blatantly violent and inciteful passages that surround this incident?
The problem here is another one of the fundamental failures of the layman apologist: cherry picking what is allegory and what is actual instruction. Is Leviticus instructional? Or is it allegorical? Should we slaughter those who eat shellfish and wear cotton-poly blends or not? What, exactly, constitutes "murder" according to the second commandment?
When you start to decide what is "real" and what is "parable" and are not a biblical scholar like, say, someone who posts in this very thread (or one of my own friends irl), then why should I take your word on what the bible means? Centuries of scholars and apologists have very different views on the bible than you... why is your take the correct one?
Because not a single person in the world, except for yourself, believes that there is a single Christian church.
No, but everyone who belongs to a church believes there is only one true church (barring Unitarians and maybe some other sects), which for the purposes of this argument is equivalent. Also, this brings up another point: which church's take on the bible is correct? If I get it wrong, I burn in hell. If the Catholics have it right, then the Protestants are doomed and vice-versa. I mean, if the people who follow the damn thing can't even agree on what it means, and have done all of those things that you're trying to explain away in order to give voice their differences, then how am I supposed to take ANY of your explanations as true? Again, you look at it from a singular point that must be correct in order to validate your feelings, and will rationalize away anything that contradicts that point and other takes on your book. I being outside, see your position as just one of hundreds, if not thousands, that all look the same, all look equally bad, and all have the same contradictions... just in different places.
I cut out the random insults attributed to mistaken identity. If you feel like actually addressing the points you glossed over instead of saying nothing but "nuh-uh!" then by all means, do so.
Also, you've segue'd yourself into Pascal's Wager. You might want to re-think that tack... just sayin'.
At 2/18/11 06:41 AM, WolvenBear wrote: Um, Jesus healed the man his follower struck with a sword and told him to drop his arms. Despite the fact that his followers were willing to kill for him, he willingly went to his death.
Reading a "violent passages in Christianity" website isn't helping you here.
And repeating stories about where he was a swell guy doesn't help you either. Fact of the matter remains that BOTH exist in the scripture. If you can't deal with that, or even acknowledge that they exist, then there's a rather large blind spot in your rhetoric that those on the other side will sit in and make you look foolish from for days. Hell, when he was a child, Jesus was kind of a dick. Granted the church kinda excised that bit for PR purposes, but they exist, and considering the history of how the books in the bible actually got there, they look just as holy as the rest of it to an outside. But therein lies the foundational problem here: that without the whole "religion" thing tainting the image of the scripture, it starts to look a whole lot less wholesome than it seems to those viewing from the inside... and you end up with these arguments where apparent contradictions pop up and all of a sudden believers get their hackles up, and sprain hammys sprinting towards justifications and rationalizations.
There is no Christian Church.
Excuse me!? Over one billion people (and that's only one sect) pretty much believe exactly the opposite. Why should I take your opinion over theirs?
Christianity has a ZERO percent chance of inciting violence. Buddhism has a ZERO percent chance of inciting violence.
That's literally one of the most wrong statements I have ever heard in my life. And I argue regularly against antivaxxers, young earth creationists, and moon landing hoaxers.
Yet, that's obviously ridiculous. Obviously he didn't say that all marriage was lovely AND that all marriage was an abomination. He obviously didn't say both that marriage has to be limited to one man and one woman and that it can be open to 50 people at once.
That's an awfully nice straw man you just knocked down. I'm shocked he didn't put up more of a fight.
At 2/16/11 11:18 AM, Camarohusky wrote: One comment stuck out to me in the article "It's a teacher's job ... to give the students the motivation to learn." I wholeheartedly disagree here. The teacher's job is to teach; to give motivated students an avenue through which to learn. It is the parent's job to motivate their students.
One little nit to pick... It is a part of the teacher's job to motivate students... but it is not only the teacher's job to motivate students. A large part of the blame there must also lie with parents and the system.
Do you agree? If so, why do you think students are so unmotivated?
Because we don't engage them. And by that I mean, we have a "standardized" curriculum which ends up fitting everyone equally poorly, we are too fucking afraid to separate children by ability or interests in order to best help them, we have a criminal shortage of teachers, and a "teach to the test" that is the most boring way imaginable to learn new information.
In my chemistry class we built dry ice and water soda bottle bombs: viola, sublimation taught, kids have a blast (pun intended). Magnet schools and gifted and talented programs are not enough... we need to have the balls to send the kids who are interested in cars, hunting and outdoor activities to schools that focus on trade skills and resource management instead of math and literature, and to let the kids who are gifted move at their own pace, and maybe graduate sooner as per their own abilities. We need to remove the stigma from "remedial" courses and things like woodshop and encourage and make attractive these paths for kids, instead of saying they must gain all of this useless knowledge then pass tests so they can go to college to then finally learn what they really want.
Also: raise teacher salaries significantly... it should be a career that is at least as financially attractive as a CPA or basic office job.
So... basically... a complete revamp of the entire system... should be easy enough, no?
At 2/15/11 08:40 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:At 2/15/11 02:52 PM, sharpnova wrote: Humans are biological "software & hardware" in execution.Even if all of that is true (and it very well might be). I can't come up with a reasonable explanation for why, as another user put it so .... offly ...., I am me.
Actually, the biology-as-machine or DNA-as-computer program metaphor is faulty and leads toward just these kind of problems.
The issue here is that the biological brain is several orders of magnitude more powerful and complex than any computer we can currently construct. Add to that the layers of complexity in chemical and biological interactions at every level of the body and the computer or program is still in the pee-wee leagues asking why it can't hit a home run like Barry Bonds (yay for more bad metaphors in a post cautioning about bad metaphors).
That is to say, why does self awareness spawn a level of thought/consciousness/complexity that whatever I am exists. Why doesn't it simply execute its rules, aware of itself as it is and the world around it, without generating *sentience.*
Who says they're different things? And who says that Self-awareness spawns the thought? Perhaps the level of execution our program requires also requires sentience. Why can't it, sans incredulity, simply be a function of an intelligent-enough program?
Is it simply a malfunction? A stray line of code? A state resulting from chaos?
Is the human condition so simply wrapped up as I/O?
I think the problem here is that you don't have a good definition of "consciousness" and it's leading to contradictions and cognitive dissonance that confuse the issue.
The idea of an "I" separate from others, individual, as an entity separate from a body, yet tied to it, is a problem that philosophers have struggles with since there were philosophers. Mind/body dualism is one of the oldest arguments there is.
I don't know. My humanity doesn't want to believe it and so it bothers me. I am not rejecting the idea, but my subconscious wants to. That small disbeliever in me wants to say its not possible. And of course its the hardest thing to explain. What is *me*?
"You" is the unique pattern of thought, decision, responses to stimulus, and overall environment that has resulted in your current state of mind. "You" is not a static thing, bu one that is dynamic and cannot be defined, because by the time it has been defined, it has changed (call it the Ravariel Uncertainty Principle of Mind). You define your current "me" as the same as past "me"s, because there is an organic, analogue progression between them that has not been broken, but the current me is different. Both states, that of same and that of different coexist, and the fact that you can observe, and understand, these similarities and differences, and be confused at the apparent contradiction between them, is the proof that "you" as a sentient being exist.
I've been sick of snow for 10 years.
Line on a new job... full time but pay is shit. Still will make more than my current part-time crud so huzzah for that. Interview/paperwork on Monday, start... hopefully soon after... daddy needs the green.
At 1/27/11 04:34 PM, morefngdbs wrote: Pretty isn't it .
Right up until the moment it slides down inside your shoe.
</notafan>
Have you ever done a google search on someone only to find the newest information you can seem to find is 10 years old?
Dammit, internets, you're supposed to be better than this! You have failed me, google.
At 1/24/11 06:49 PM, SevenSeize wrote: ohhhh it's nothing to do with moderating. I live in a conservative area and I'm not allowed to curse or be tolerant of other religions and/or lifestyle choices.
I know that question was for Rydia, but I had my posts deleted because of real life.
O.O...
-_-...
I wish I could ask you if you were kidding with any seriousness but I know you're not. No politics and all that but it's crap like this that makes me fume about the "conservative" section of the world.
At 1/23/11 12:56 PM, Ravariel wrote:George Bush told global warming to do it!I mean, global warming.Laaaaaaaame. Global warming is such a dick >:(
Global warming deleted my posts.
He's a dick, too.
Speaking of dicks...
