Cantousent

Decidely unfunny. Kind of disgusting more than anything else, you clod. I say "clod" only in the nicest possible way. :Eldar's mischeivous smile icon:

lol This is just terrible, but funny.

No, Gabs, it shows that he lacks judgment. :Eldar's ribbing Hades in a friendly way icon: I think the judging is in opposition to feeling. I was more feeling than judging, but I don't know what the relevance is in either case.

so the universe (or multiverse, if you will) is itself eternal, divine, without limits, self-sustaining? since when did you become a pantheist? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Not only that, but this conclussion is no more scientific than religion. There is no solid, conclusive evidence to suggest the ever looping universe. It's an argument tailored to answer the question of origins where there is, as yet, no answer to be found. The real answer is that scientists continue to seek the answers. Fair enough. The origins aren't "spiritual" by necessity, but they are not established as yet by science. Here's another way of looking at it, this first cause argument, because it is so intuitive, is used a lot. If you want to argue against religion, you come up with arguments that are feasible within the discussion. This sort of speculative argument is really only an answer against religious folks. It certainly isn't rigorous. The correct answer really should be, "we don't know, but we continue to look for an answer that does not rely on divinity." Fair enough. When folks arguing against religion rely on "well, it could be that...." then they are no better than a religious group.

By special, you meant that there were "different" classrooms for me as a child, don't you? :Eldar's grin and wink icon:

I wouldn't lay the troll charge on someone's feet for provocative comments, Random. It's just not sporting considering some of your comments. :Eldar's shaking his head with a wry grin icon:

no NO NO You took Mojo good natured joke thread and turned it into another religious debate. Why?! ahahahaha Why in the name of all that is good, why?!? :Eldar's sobbing inconsolably while gibbering and otherwise acting distraught icon:

My insults are complex minded. It's my argument that are simple minded. Keep it all straight, young man.

Great job, Mojo. Total comedy. I just hope the thread doesn't get gulaged.

A couple of us were extroverts.

Bloodlines is one of the best CRPGs of all time. It was underappreciated, but it was finally the game worthy of Troika's promise. Unfortunately, it came too late to save them. They finally get it right, don't give stupid excuses, have some excellent writing, and then Troika goes out of business? I'm glad some of the talent ended up at Obsidian.

I needed a good laugh. Total comedy.

You know, Di, I'm said to be a hot head these days. Even so, I'd never engage in a true vendetta with you. I'm speaking my mind forcefully but, at the end of the day, I really don't have any animosity for you. I'd explain the whole axe handle issue, but I'd probably just end up fighting with someone or another over it. :Eldar's wolfish grin icon: Having flamed a good number of folks over the past couple of weeks, I think I'll just leave the subject to others for a bit. Going flame on won't help my case anyhow. The real irony is that, on a point for point policy issue, we probably agree more often than not. I just don't like putting down "fundamentalists." You see, I wasn't brought up as Southern Baptist. More literal interpretations of the Bible are not part of my childhood experience, and so I see fundamentalists as a different group. Maybe that's why I sympathize with them. I see them as an out group, most of whom are actually pretty decent folks. Real radicals stand out in our society. We still don't have a hard, fast definition for a "fundamentalist." For the sake of argument, however, I'm willing to accept Random Evil Guy's definition of someone who takes every word in the Bible as true in each specific case.

I'll agree. I think the Creationism issue is a way to lead into more radical measures. If that's Di's suggestion, we have more in common than I hitherto believed. Creationism taught in science class must be defeated. It is an evil measure. ..But I've already said as much.

I think that's a fair assessment, Walsh. My problem isn't that Di, or anyone else for that matter, believes that the Christian right weilds power in the country. ...Or even that fandamentalists, which I consider a specific brand of beasts as outlined by the constraints of this thread, have some power. Where I disagree is that Christian fundamentalists are a powerhouse. Compared to atheists? Sure, Christian fundamentalists have greater power. ...But that doesn't equate to "...an immense amount of power." We must judge the power of any movement on its ability to enact its will. Radical Christian fundamentalism would have to entail something ...er ...radical. That doesn't mean legitimate policy decisions with which I might agree or disagree. Roe v Wade is bad policy in my view because it assumes the Constitution affords protection where it does not. On the other hand, I don't agree in making abortion illegal. I am not radical because I have taken an opposing view on Roe v Wade. That's part of our democracy. Radical, to have any meaning, has to mean truly radical measures. To whit, suggesting that marriage should be confined to hetero-sexual relationships is not radical. For the majority of our history, it would be consderably more radical to suggest otherwise. In this instance, I disagree with the majority again. I believe we should treat same sex marriages as equivalent in all ways, once the couples are married. Radical is outlawing any religion other than Christianity. Radical is ruling that killing non-Christians is not murder. Radical is forcing business to adopt Christianity or pay extra "taxes" to your government. I don't disagree with Di's stance, really. I mostly disagree with the severity of it. ...And, to be honest, what really got my goat was the issue with the axe-handle. It was a stupid and ridiculous statement that would have received vilification if made by a Christian about non-Christians. We should own up that the standard should be the same. What some folks don't realize is that, should they lump us non-fundamentalists with fundamentalists, fundamentalism really will only prosper.

So, you say that Christianity taken to the extreme wields "immense power?" Pardon me, Di, but I think I will re-read your statement. In the meantime, I don't see outright persecution of people in the United States based on "fundamentalist" principles. You don't like isolating specific groups within the whole? I think it's ridiculously stupid to look at the whole and make one overarching generalization. It is simply unacceptable. You had to backpedal a bit, however, and use the same template. "Christianity is Christianity overall, with some segments more... er... enthusiastic than others... [emphasis added]" See, it really is a bit hard to talk about Christianity as one homogenous group, isn't it. It's perfectly fine for you to isolate segments, but not for me? Furthermore, "fundamentalists" have the connotation of radical according to your definition while to others it is merely any Christian who believes every word of the bible should be taken as true in every specific instance. Of course, the problem is that you don't like to talk about specific groups within the whole, which forces you to make statements such as, "[t]hat's simplistic, but you get the gist." Undoubtedly, you will have a simplistic stance when you refuse to allow for "segments" within Christianity. Those "segments" have existed for the entire history of the religion. It is ridiculous to pretend otherwise. For one thing, Christians themselves attack fundamentalists. I, myself, have not taken the same political views as fundamentalists on a wide variety of issues. In fact, in. this. very. thread, I have taken a view opposite of the fundamentalists. I, also, don't believe that we should sacrifice education on sound, scientific principles to religious fervor. Where I disagree is in thinking that we somehow have a government almost under the control of religious fundamentalism. It's rubbish to suggest it. You say Bush wanted Miers because she was a "born-again evangelical!" Did Miers pass through the senate into the Supreme Court? Is Alito a fundamentalist? What exact issues make someone a fundamentalist. Others in this thread are willing to state a definition, but you don't like to own up that they are a different group within the movement. I suppose the idea is that Christians are all on a sliding scale from "Palatable" (meaning they only agree with Di's ideals) and "crazy fundamentalist" (which means they have beliefs Di considers dangerous), How about this, all the world is on a sliding scale, from "Palatable" to "crazy in some way." Yes, we're going to have to identify those segments, if not by their association, then at least by the beliefs that put them on the wrong end of the scale. In the meantime, those crazy fundamentalists haven't yet mandated prayer in school, the abolition of banks, the outright ban of abortion, the requirement of church on Sundays, and a "non-Christian" tax. It's a bunch of smoke and mirrors to suggest, just because the President is what you consider a radical fundamentalist, that the country is somehow under the thumb of a radical fundamentalist movement. "[h]owever, trying to break down Christianity into dozens of tiny segments (i.e. Catholic, Protestant, Baptists, Evangelical, Mormon, Methodist, etc.,etc.,etc.) makes little sense to me, since any and all of these taken to extreme can be 'fundamentalist'." So, we can't even identify what it is that makes a group "extreme?" Come on, this is nothing more than mental gymnastics. We categorize things on a constant basis, but I have to say that the fact that most people in government are Christian somehow equates to Christian fundamentalist rule? A more stupid and worthless argument, I have rarely faced. You say: "When you commented that 'Fundamentalists do not, contrary to popular belief, anecdoatal evidence, and constant claims to the contrary, have a choke-hold on power in this country', you apparently were dissecting Christianity into several small packets; I, on the other hand, am discussing Christianity as a whole." How the hell does one discuss Christianity as a whole without discussing the various differences within the group? "Christians DO have a chokehold on power in this country, and as I previously stated in some detail, the "fundamentalist" faction in particular wields an immense amount of power." Okay, here is where you cite the "fundamentalist" faction as separate. So, is it okay or not that most folks in government are Christian, but the fundamentalists are bad? ...Or should folks not be allowed to vote for Christians? Like it or not, most folks in this country are Christian of some flavor or another, so it makes sense that most folks voted into office are Christian as well. We simply must separate those groups into segments, regardless. You're using smoke and mirrors, Di. Nothing more than smoke and mirrors. One last thing, since you enjoy questioning my ability to communicate. I made this statement:

I don't think Christians are vilified, but I believe fundamentalists have a small voice. What is a Christian fundamentalist? As tragic as the murdered atheist is, I fail to see how that proves that the country is run by fundamentalists. However, before we continue down that slippery slope (more of a sheer cliff), I insist that we establish what a "fundamentalist" is. After all, I have had what I would consider true "fundamentalists" call me a satanist based on my Catholicism. That pretty much puts me outside of the fundamentalist camp. Furthermore, Kerry and quite a few of the Democrats in the country are Catholics, and they would probably scratch their heads at the charge of radical "fundamentalism." Really, if you put Catholics and fundamentalists in the same group, you are clearly going to put the control of government in fundamentalist hands. Now, as to the whole "control" issue. When you're hunted down and killed for speaking against Christians and Christianity, I'll give a little more thought to your charge, but I don't see it that way right now. When I spoke concerning the "fundamentalists," I did so as an outsider. I believe the single largest religious group represented in our government is Roman Catholic. A lot of them make just as much fun of fundamentalists as you do. So, I wasn't "whining" about my lot as a Christian. Hell, Catholics certainly aren't under-represented.

Science can never prove that it's good either to save or to strangle your family. Science simply doesn't care. I think that, more than anything, is what fundamentalists fear. That the universe just. does. not. care. So, they hold firmly to an unbending set of beliefs. Still, I have immense respect for folks who can uphold and maintain a "fundamentalist" belief. These are folks who are beset by hostility from virtually every side in our society. Fundamentalists do not, contrary to popular belief, anecdoatal evidence, and constant claims to the contrary, have a choke-hold on power in this country. It sounds good to say they do, and I'm sure someone can come up with a long list of isolated events and/or news items that "proves" religious fundamentalists run the country. Fundamentalists face derision on the news, on the small and silver screens, and in a host of other ways. Folks with an axe to grind, grind, GRIND have a lot to say about all those thousands of people killed in abortion clinic bombings every year as if crazies who bomb abortion clinics are the real measure of fundamentalists everywhere. What's the real issue, though? It's that fundamentalists have a set of beliefs "enlightened" people consider childish and they have the uncanny willingness to actually speak about their beliefs. Someone on this board speculated on beating Christians to death for coming to his door handing out religious tracts. I've had someone shoot at me with the intent to kill me. I think complaining about the fundamentalist handing out bibles at the University is rather petty by comparison. ...And it's not like I'm part of a group favored by religious fundamentalist. According to them, you atheists are merely going to hell. Catholics, on the other hand, were spawned there. Speaking for myself, however, I don't fear proof or an uncaring universe. Like a good Catholic, I just feeling guilty for stupid and ridiculous reasons. I guess that's my brand of poison.

I just want to know why there aren't smileys that convey what I'm thinking at the time. Dammit. :Eldar's angry as hell because of the limited, limiting nature of smileys icon:

I bet I can guess the answer the service gave you. hahhahaha Pixies, you're a genius. This thread is total comedy.

The philosophy of cooking: What tastes best with Chicken?

Fair enough. That leaves a lot in philosophy that science simply doesn't anwer.

I got a kick out of the movie link, meta. I also like some of the things from NWN2, but I would still like something even more robust. Still, let's see how this one works.

Is it impossible to have both? Give a moments thought to the dead but support policies that provide for veterans?

Don't be silly, Paladin, science arises out of philosophy. Philosophy is only an outlook. The important thing is that you don't mix the outlook with the science. It is just as important for people to address philosophy as it is to address science. The oh so logical atheists might think of everything other than science as somehow lesser, but even you live in a world of humanity, like everyone else. You also argue philosophy as much as anyone else. For instance, you think Science should be taught independently of philosophy. Depending on your meaning of the word philosophy, I'll agree. ...But that is a philosophical question in the first place. Science doesn't do anything but exist. Mankind uses science, but whatever it does, it cannot escape its own humanity. You cannot touch science except by that flawed instrument, the mind. You believe science should be independent of philosophy? Why? Why is it necessary for humanity to learn science at all? Why is it necessary for humanity to live and thrive? The urges you might explain away as science, but science assures us those urges are part and parcel of our humanity in the first place. Technically speaking, the search for knowledge is a higher calling. Making life better for the rest of humanity... satisfying the needs of gross ambition... discovering something new and exciting... all of these come from your human part. So, separate science from the sort of speculative endeavors we call philosophy in these parts, but don't put down philosophy.