The Ur-Quan Masters Discussion Forum

The Ur-Quan Masters Re-Release => Starbase Café => Topic started by: Elvish Pillager on July 14, 2007, 11:12:19 pm



Title: stupid argument
Post by: Elvish Pillager on July 14, 2007, 11:12:19 pm
Just as every culture and every person has religious views. (Yes athieism is religion as it serves the same purpose imo.)
I don't have religious views. I'm not religious, I'm not an atheist.

Yes you do. You have an idea of how us humans fit into this universe which is esentially what religion is . But  I don't want to derail this man's thread. We should take it elsewhere if further discussion is warranted..

What makes you think I have an idea of how humans fit into this universe? As far as I can tell, I have got no idea whatsoever how humans fit into the universe, and am not particularly keen on getting such an idea.


Title: Re: stupid argument
Post by: Shiver on July 15, 2007, 12:40:52 am
Firstly, RTyp06 does indeed sound like a fool.

Secondly, we've had a converastion on this before. A person is either athiest, agnostic or religous. Denying that you are all three (which you, Elvish Pillager, have done) is just as idiotic as what he's doing. Rejecting labels will not change the fact that everyone else uses them. I too am a non-believer but the labels people use to categorize faith are still of use to me.


Title: Re: stupid argument
Post by: RTyp06 on July 15, 2007, 01:25:14 am
Quote
What makes you think I have an idea of how humans fit into this universe? As far as I can tell, I have got no idea whatsoever how humans fit into the universe, and am not particularly keen on getting such an idea.

So.. you've never contemplated the meaning of life, why are we here and so on.. ?

The idea is that there are many parallels between music and religion. They've both been around since the dawn of man. They both fulfill humans in some way. For whatever reason music appeals to all of us. Obviously both had to be invented but they both remian very popular. I have yet to meet a person who does not like music of some sort. Likewise we all have a world view and how we fit into it imo. We may not know the answers but that basic need is there. The desire to know is there.



Title: Re: stupid argument
Post by: Shiver on July 15, 2007, 01:50:56 am
So.. you've never contemplated the meaning of life, why are we here and so on.. ?

Pondering over life does not instantly equate to religion. As the topic name says, "stupid argument".


Title: Re: stupid argument
Post by: Neonlare on July 15, 2007, 02:06:20 am
Firstly, RTyp06 does indeed sound like a fool.

Secondly, we've had a converastion on this before. A person is either athiest, agnostic or religous. Denying that you are all three (which you, Elvish Pillager, have done) is just as idiotic as what he's doing. Rejecting labels will not change the fact that everyone else uses them. I too am a non-believer but the labels people use to categorize faith are still of use to me.

I'd say you're missing "Other," someone who acknowledges the belief of an afterlife, etc, but does not worship any religion in order to attain "points for the afterlife." That means not worshiping any Bibles, Scriptures, or any figure heads, but saying that yes, there must be something after death.

Personally, I loathe it when Atheists and Religious people try firing warheads at one another over the internet, as neither can decide whether or not there is something after Death. It feels like the two are just kicking a cow to death, because you can't really say "this is how it is and that's final" because you can't, the "String Theory" relies on an alternate Dimension, which could be just as implausible as the theory of "God." It's something you can't actually prove yet, despite the fact that it supposedly is there and affects the laws of Physics, etc, etc, etc.

Plus you make Pkunks sad.


Title: Re: stupid argument
Post by: Elvish Pillager on July 15, 2007, 02:15:05 am
So.. you've never contemplated the meaning of life
Meaning of life, eh? Words have meanings, because we need a simple symbol - a word - to refer to a much more complicated concept. Simple symbols, complicated meanings. Life is a really complicated concept in the first place, so it doesn't make sense for it to have a meaning.

People who look for the "meaning of life" are looking for a simple answer to the complex world we live in. There isn't one.

why are we here and so on.. ?
I reckon we're here because it was evolutionarily advantageous for our ape ancestors to have a powerful mind capable of arguing on the Internet. I don't believe that counts as religion.


Title: Re: stupid argument
Post by: Shiver on July 15, 2007, 02:17:20 am
I'd say you're missing "Other," someone who acknowledges the belief of an afterlife, etc, but does not worship any religion in order to attain "points for the afterlife." That means not worshiping any Bibles, Scriptures, or any figure heads, but saying that yes, there must be something after death.

That's an agnostic. You're telling me you've never heard the term before?


Title: Re: stupid argument
Post by: Neonlare on July 15, 2007, 02:20:57 am
I'd say you're missing "Other," someone who acknowledges the belief of an afterlife, etc, but does not worship any religion in order to attain "points for the afterlife." That means not worshiping any Bibles, Scriptures, or any figure heads, but saying that yes, there must be something after death.

That's an agnostic. You're telling me you've never heard the term before?

I have, but not usually used in that term, I've usually heard it for someone who basically doesn't know whether or not there is a God, etc. Besides, that wasn't my only point <_<.


Title: Re: stupid argument
Post by: Elvish Pillager on July 15, 2007, 02:22:15 am
That's an agnostic. You're telling me you've never heard the term before?
Agnostics believe that it can't be determined whether there's an afterlife. What Neonlare is describing is a person who believes in an afterlife, but doesn't subscribe to any organized religion. I'd consider that person religious.


Title: Re: stupid argument
Post by: Neonlare on July 15, 2007, 02:23:19 am
That's an agnostic. You're telling me you've never heard the term before?
Agnostics believe that it can't be determined whether there's an afterlife. What Neonlare is describing is a person who believes in an afterlife, but doesn't subscribe to any organized religion. I'd consider that person religious.

Eh, Religion is basically an order that someone follows, what I'm saying is that someone who doesn't follow any particular religion, yet believes in some form of after life, I think the term for it is Gnostic, but I'm not sure.


Title: Re: stupid argument
Post by: Cedric6014 on July 15, 2007, 02:26:37 am
Yeah, I consider myself agnostic. I really don't know if there is an afterlife or not. If there is I hope they have Star Control and Cadbury Black Forest chocolate


Title: Re: stupid argument
Post by: Shiver on July 15, 2007, 02:28:49 am
That's an agnostic. You're telling me you've never heard the term before?
Agnostics believe that it can't be determined whether there's an afterlife. What Neonlare is describing is a person who believes in an afterlife, but doesn't subscribe to any organized religion. I'd consider that person religious.

From the sound of it he's overcomplicating an issue unnecessarily, but if that distinction is important then I suppose "religious, unaligned" can be a better summary of his perspective. I do not wish to pick apart minutiae any further, so I will depart from this topic (if I can help it).


Title: Re: stupid argument
Post by: Elvish Pillager on July 15, 2007, 02:40:18 am
Secondly, we've had a converastion on this before. A person is either athiest, agnostic or religous. Denying that you are all three (which you, Elvish Pillager, have done) is just as idiotic as what he's doing. Rejecting labels will not change the fact that everyone else uses them.
That would be all well and good if the labels applied to me in any way whatsoever. I could honestly say that I am any of the three, but equally, for each of the three, I could honestly deny being such, which I prefer doing - opposing overused labels seems much more right than going along with them. (yeah, I really don't look religious, but that's because I don't show the more religious side of myself online.)


Title: Re: stupid argument
Post by: Resh Aleph on July 15, 2007, 07:21:05 am
You have an idea of how us humans fit into this universe which is esentially what religion is .
You seem to be rather uneducated about this matter. Evolution is definitely not religious: while religion is, of course, a cultural/psychological/artistic phenomenon (which better suits Ilwrath than humans), evolution is a logical, rational, scientifical concept with enough evidence to prove it beyond reasonable doubt.

Although nothing could be claimed to be 100% true (philosophically), "believing" in evolution based on evidence makes much sense; believing in some absolute-power beings that are obsessed with humans, based on some superstitious old fairy tales, is not. Sorry.

Why should I trust old human writings, instead of my senses and simple logic (a.k.a. science)? How do I know that christianity is the true religion? How exactly is the Bible more real than the Koran?

Here's what I think. I think your parents/environment have brainwashed you when you were a child, that this stuff is a fundamental part of life. You were fascinated by the idea, because human psychology loves absolute righteous powers. That's what makes people admire strong fathers and leaders. And so you accepted it as absolute truth.

I also think you will regard everything I just said as nonsense without even considering it. :(


Title: Re: stupid argument
Post by: waywardoctagon on July 15, 2007, 07:43:21 am
So.. you've never contemplated the meaning of life, why are we here and so on.. ?

Well, we're here because Earth can support life, so life--including us--evolved on it.

There was a Calvin and Hobbes strip on this.

Also, the OED disagrees with your definition of religion:
Quote
Religion
1. A state of life bound by religious vows; the condition of belonging to a religious order, esp. in the Roman Catholic Church. ME.
2. A particular monastic or religious order or rule.  Now rare. ME.
3. Belief in or sensing of some superhuman controlling power or powers, entitled to obedience, reverence, and worship, or in a system defining a code of living, esp. as a means to achieve spiritual or material improvement; acceptance of such belief (esp. as represented by an organized Church) as a standard of spiritual and practical life; the expression of this in worship etc.  Also (now rare), action or conduct indicating such belief; in pl., religious rites. ME.
4. A particular system of such belief. ME.
5. Devotion, fidelity; consciousness; pious attachment. L16-L17.
6. The sanction or obligation of an oath etc.  E17-E18.

Why are you trying to muddy our fine language by making up your own definitions for words?  Don't you realize that that diminishes the usefulness of language?


Title: Re: stupid argument
Post by: Deus Siddis on July 15, 2007, 07:00:03 pm
Shiver
Quote
A person is either athiest, agnostic or religous. Denying that you are all three (which you, Elvish Pillager, have done) is just as idiotic as what he's doing.

Only if those three definitions are constant across all dictionaries and definitions and cover every possible situation.

I do not believe in gods because there is no solid definition as to what one actually is. There are so many religions with so many different forms of these things that it is hard to understand why they are considered one type of thing in the first place. Also, with the "supernatural" world having lost ground to the natural one via our more broad theories as to what is or may be possible, I don't know that we could not someday achieve a state like that of an old greek god through technology, or at least come close. So what am I defined as now? Think about it.


RTyp06
Quote
So.. you've never contemplated the meaning of life, why are we here and so on.. ?

Umm, "meaning"? "Why"? Those are only two idiotic assumptions in one post, can you not do better than that? Nothing needs to have a "meaning" given to it by something to exist. We don't need a reason to be here to be here, we just need a how and we do, in fact there are many explanations for how we got here, even though only one is right.


Neonlare
Quote
I'd say you're missing "Other," someone who acknowledges the belief of an afterlife, etc, but does not worship any religion in order to attain "points for the afterlife."

What, why the hell are we bringing an After-life in to this now? That is superfluous. You can be an atheist believing in an after-life, you can be a god-worshipper and believe that you are completely mortal.


Shiver
Quote
Quote from: Neonlare on July 14, 2007, 08:06:20 pm
I'd say you're missing "Other," someone who acknowledges the belief of an afterlife, etc, but does not worship any religion in order to attain "points for the afterlife." That means not worshiping any Bibles, Scriptures, or any figure heads, but saying that yes, there must be something after death.

That's an agnostic. You're telling me you've never heard the term before?

That is not an agnostic. Given that small amount of vague information, you don't know what he is yet.


Elvish Pillager
Quote
Agnostics believe that it can't be determined whether there's an afterlife. What Neonlare is describing is a person who believes in an afterlife, but doesn't subscribe to any organized religion. I'd consider that person religious

Then you would be wrong. He needs to have some belief in a god. And it would have to fall into some definition of a god to be one (not necessarily all those concepts of their gods that people have come up with over the ages). He can believe in an afterlife and fairies and cops that hate donuts but that doesn't necessarily make him less of an atheist, if indeed he is one.


Title: Re: stupid argument
Post by: Sargon on July 15, 2007, 07:06:53 pm
Well I havnt read the whole stuipd thread, but here is my two (flamable) cent worth thoughts.
First of all, calling someone religious or not is trying to make something non discrete, discrete.
Just like music, a person doesnt like the same music his whole life, it changes at any given point of time. By the way, I had a long period of time in which I didnt like to listen to any music at all, in fact I hated music. That was after I listened to allot of music, so yes, there are people who dosn't like music, at least for a part of their life.
So labeling people is some what a false approximation, since people are dynamic creatures and they change at any given point in time. People have many thoughts, some time contradicting, some time not clear. Especially when the thoughts are relating to things you can't proove mathematically.
I think there is one way to proove there is no god, if the human race goes extinct it pretty much prooves there is no god, because god promised to man they will not go extinct.
I also think that the human race will go extinct one day, because it is very propabble, another ice age may cause the human go extinct, maybe a nuclear war. But I am not sure, perhaps the humans will develope such an advanced technoligy that will allow them to survive for a very long period of time, though humans are very self destructive, so you cannot tell.


Title: Re: stupid argument
Post by: Elvish Pillager on July 15, 2007, 09:26:11 pm
Well, as to music, I've always liked music, and I like playing music a lot more than I like listening to it.

I guess I'd like being a god a lot more than I'd like worshipping one. ;D


Title: Re: stupid argument
Post by: Neonlare on July 15, 2007, 10:43:24 pm
Well, as to music, I've always liked music, and I like playing music a lot more than I like listening to it.

I guess I'd like being a god a lot more than I'd like worshipping one. ;D

Lol, that does border Meglomania though? :P. Anyhow, Religion can play a helpful part, even if you don't agree with it. The idea that you are humbled to "some bloke on a cloud" (an outdated view in my opinion) and such can prevent people becoming vain and such, and then again it doesn't. A fair few tyrants have claimed they've had links with "God" and such.

Anyhow, I personally think that this topic is going to start a fair few flames, the clash between Religious and Atheistic views are always going to resort in a fire of some kind, unless both parties try to remain neutral and open at all times. Chances of this happening are as remote as being picked up by a space ship in space, also Trillian's phone number on Earth.


Title: Re: stupid topic
Post by: Deus Siddis on July 16, 2007, 03:55:26 am
Elvish Pillager
Quote
I guess I'd like being a god a lot more than I'd like worshipping one.

I have to say, you have fine taste on this issue. I do believe I could come over and become a Theist if I got the godly powers. I believe in my own existence and worship myself, so I am most of the way there already. 8)

Neonlare
Quote
Chances of this happening are as remote as being picked up by a space ship in space

! ! ! KAAAAAAAAHN ! ! !


Title: Re: stupid argument
Post by: Resh Aleph on July 16, 2007, 06:50:34 am
I didn't respond to anything said in the thread in my first reply, so I'll do that now.


About labels: I really hate them. All of them. People shouldn't be classified. I even find nationalities a problematic concept.


So.. you've never contemplated the meaning of life, why are we here and so on.. ?
I don't even know what "the meaning of life" refers to. If it's the reason for life (why we're here), that would be evolution. If it's the purpose of life, that would be to make sure one's genes survive. Of course, humans are smart enough to make their own purposes and even defy the natural one (some actually battle it (http://www.vhemt.org/)).

I don't see any remaining unanswered questions.


Quote from: RTyp06
The idea is that there are many parallels between music and religion.
...
You're saying religion is an invention? Then you aren't even religious! Now I'm just confused. :'(

Anyway, you made some good points there. People don't need religion, but it can sure satisfy some of their psychological needs. And yes, religion is much like music: they're both ancient forms of art which are very addicting/pleasing to the human psyche.


Title: Re: stupid argument
Post by: Neonlare on July 16, 2007, 03:38:06 pm


I don't even know what "the meaning of life" refers to. If it's the reason for life (why we're here), that would be evolution. If it's the purpose of life, that would be to make sure one's genes survive. Of course, humans are smart enough to make their own purposes and even defy the natural one (some actually battle it (http://www.vhemt.org/)).

I'm sorry, but that website reminded me of the scene in "Life of Brian" where the Kamikaze Foot-Soldiers commit seppeku in order to finish their mission :P.


Title: Re: stupid argument
Post by: RTyp06 on July 16, 2007, 11:31:52 pm
Ok I've read through this thread and you guys are right that we are not all "religious" per se. God, ritual etc. I'm speaking in a broader sense.

That said, I don't think it is coincidence that every culture that has ever existed has an historical religious element to them. Just as every culture that has ever existed has a historical musical element.

Perhaps music is simply an extension of language of which our brains are wired for. Likewise I believe we are wired for exploration, discovery and explanation of the universe around us. Thus, I believe we all harbor a world view due to this Insatiable curiosity which is also heavily influenced by personality, personal experience and/or culture.


Title: Re: stupid argument
Post by: Nutty Buddy on July 17, 2007, 04:36:27 am
I do not believe in gods because there is no solid definition as to what one actually is. There are so many religions with so many different forms of these things that it is hard to understand why they are considered one type of thing in the first place. Also, with the "supernatural" world having lost ground to the natural one via our more broad theories as to what is or may be possible, I don't know that we could not someday achieve a state like that of an old greek god through technology, or at least come close. So what am I defined as now? Think about it.

Deus_Siddis: A god is defined as a creator of the universe. That definition is consistent.  With that settled, lets move on to your next quote...

Umm, "meaning"? "Why"? Those are only two idiotic assumptions in one post, can you not do better than that? Nothing needs to have a "meaning" given to it by something to exist. We don't need a reason to be here to be here, we just need a how and we do, in fact there are many explanations for how we got here, even though only one is right.

Deus_Siddis: In trying to explain the "How", as in how we got here. Usually we're talking about how we got on earth or the universe came to be. You're right, there are many explanations, some say god put us here or a different god with a different set of rules, some say we fell to earth on a comet, some say we walked out of the ocean, some say it all started with a big bang and then we evolved. Only one answer could possibly be right. But if you believe any one answer you hear to be right, then you might as well go ahead and add God to your list of beliefs.

P.S. I feel stupid for even replying to these quotes...









Title: Re: stupid argument
Post by: waywardoctagon on July 17, 2007, 05:47:27 am
Deus_Siddis: A god is defined as a creator of the universe. That definition is consistent.  With that settled, lets move on to your next quote...

That doesn't work.  What about pantheons where there are lots of deities that didn't create the universe, but are nevertheless considered gods or goddesses and worshipped as such?  (Although there may be one or more actual creators.)

Quote
Only one answer could possibly be right. But if you believe any one answer you hear to be right, then you might as well go ahead and add God to your list of beliefs.

Now you're just arguing in bad faith, I think.  Believing there is an explanation for something--even believing that a specific explanation is true--in no way means you have to consider every other possible explanation potentially valid.  I mean, if I say we were all sneezed out of the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure, and put that forth as a "theory", do you think anyone's going to even consider taking it seriously?


Title: Re: stupid argument
Post by: Cedric6014 on July 17, 2007, 07:04:37 am
Off topic but:

Good heavens, consecutive posts by different women. Meep-Eep can you confirm if that has been a first for the UQM forum?


Title: Re: stupid argument
Post by: Resh Aleph on July 17, 2007, 08:37:59 am
Perhaps music is simply an extension of language of which our brains are wired for. Likewise I believe we are wired for exploration, discovery and explanation of the universe around us. Thus, I believe we all harbor a world view due to this Insatiable curiosity which is also heavily influenced by personality, personal experience and/or culture.
Gods are indeed a convenient tool to satisfy curiosity about our own existence. It's the first theory anyone has ever made about this. But mankind has evolved greatly since those ancient times, and today we use logic and evidence to make probable theories, not baseless ones.

What bugs me is that so many people still believe in God wholeheartedly, even though it's the least based of all creation theories. What really bugs me is that they don't just believe there's some creator being (which isn't farfetched per se), but that they have a "religion", a set of superstitions based on some books people wrote. Religion is the greatest scam perpetrated on the public, really.


Title: Re: stupid argument
Post by: Nutty Buddy on July 17, 2007, 09:01:01 am
So the duties are split in pantheons...every god has a responsibility there is at least a creator or many.

Hindu - Brahma
Norse - Odin and his brothers used Ymir's body to create the universe.
Egyptian - Many different stories. But the gods came together to accomplish creation.
Shintoism - Many gods created
Greek - Nyx gave birth to the gods
Vodun - Damballah

Anyway - you get the point. There are also gods that don't create but make law. But I figured if someone didn't know what a god was maybe we should start with the basics.
 
Uhh Yeah...

I was arguing - I was arguing the same thing you just did to me. I was being Sarcastic...
Saying that if you "believe" a theory you might as well believe in god...Well if you can't take a joke...

:P



Title: Re: stupid argument
Post by: waywardoctagon on July 17, 2007, 09:32:59 am
Oh, sorry, didn't realize you were joking there.  And I really wanted to use that pun.  It's a sickness, I swear.  Caught from exposure to Xanth books at an early age.  :'(


Title: Re: stupid argument
Post by: Nutty Buddy on July 17, 2007, 11:46:50 am
Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.   -Albert Einstein



Title: Re: stupid argument
Post by: Neonlare on July 17, 2007, 01:01:46 pm
Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.   -Albert Einstein



Quoted for Truth.


Title: Re: stupid argument
Post by: Lukipela on July 17, 2007, 02:03:43 pm
What bugs me is that so many people still believe in God wholeheartedly, even though it's the least based of all creation theories.

Er.. least based? I assume you mean least based on fact, in which case your argument doesn't make sense to me. The very point of a religious creatin theory is that it is based on faith and belief rather than fact. So you an believe it to be true with all your heart, but you can't prove it or ever be certain from a scientific standpoint. Are there some other creation theories than religious ones and scientific ones that are semi based on fact?

Quote
What really bugs me is that they don't just believe there's some creator being (which isn't farfetched per se), but that they have a "religion", a set of superstitions based on some books people wrote. Religion is the greatest scam perpetrated on the public, really.

How are these two things different anyhow? People who belong to a religion believe in a lot of things not based in fact, but I don't see why being part of Christianity and beleiving in the holy trinity should bug you more than being a lone believer in Remultap the fashionably Excellent Djinn. The only difference is the amount of people, why is that annoying? Or are you simply opposing the existence of organzied religion by colouring people who belong to it as more annoying?


Title: Re: stupid argument
Post by: Death 999 on July 17, 2007, 05:58:34 pm
Religion does not need to be entirely based on faith. The only reason we think that is because all reasons but faith for believing have been pulverized by the tremendous weight of science.


Title: Re: stupid argument
Post by: Lukipela on July 17, 2007, 07:56:59 pm
Religion does not need to be entirely based on faith. The only reason we think that is because all reasons but faith for believing have been pulverized by the tremendous weight of science.

So what else would you base religion on? I was always under the impression that religion is a spiritual thing, a belief in purpose and/or god in some form or another. How would you base a religion on more... earthly things?


Title: Re: stupid argument
Post by: Neonlare on July 17, 2007, 09:20:50 pm
Religion does not need to be entirely based on faith. The only reason we think that is because all reasons but faith for believing have been pulverized by the tremendous weight of science.

So what else would you base religion on? I was always under the impression that religion is a spiritual thing, a belief in purpose and/or god in some form or another. How would you base a religion on more... earthly things?

Scientology perhaps?


Title: Re: stupid argument
Post by: Lukipela on July 17, 2007, 09:42:02 pm
Religion does not need to be entirely based on faith. The only reason we think that is because all reasons but faith for believing have been pulverized by the tremendous weight of science.

So what else would you base religion on? I was always under the impression that religion is a spiritual thing, a belief in purpose and/or god in some form or another. How would you base a religion on more... earthly things?

Scientology perhaps?

Yes, because there is nothing quite as worldly as the parasite souls of dead aliens sucking your life energy away. An organized religion always has a lot of earthly condiments, but their main tenets tend to be spiritual.


Title: Re: stupid argument
Post by: Deus Siddis on July 18, 2007, 04:12:21 am
Nutty Buddy
Quote
Deus_Siddis: A god is defined as a creator of the universe. That definition is consistent.  With that settled, lets move on to your next quote...

Umm, Wrong. Think about the Greek Gods, the world created them, they only created us. Guess they didn't teach you that in sunday school though.

Quote
P.S. I feel stupid for even replying to these quotes...

And you sound so for how you replied to them. . .


Title: Re: stupid argument
Post by: Nutty Buddy on July 18, 2007, 05:10:05 am
My interpretation of Greek mythology says that the gods did not come from the world, but from Chaos (which did have unformed elements of sorts) but then the world was created.

Greek Creation Myths
1)In the beginning there was an empty darkness. The only thing in this void was Nyx, a bird with black wings. With the wind she laid a golden egg and for ages she sat upon this egg. Finally life began to stir in the egg and out of it rose Eros, the god of love. One half of the shell rose into the air and became the sky and the other became the Earth. Eros named the sky Uranus and the Earth he named Gaia. Then Eros made them fall in love.

2)In the beginning, Chaos, an amorphous, gaping void encompassing the entire universe, and surrounded by an unending stream of water ruled by the god Oceanus, was the domain of a goddess named Eurynome, which means "far-ruling" or "wide-wandering".
She was the Goddess of All Things, and desired to make order out of the Chaos. By coupling with a huge and powerful snake, Ophion, or as some legends say, coupling with the North Wind, she gave birth to Eros, god of Love, also known as Protagonus, the "firstborn".
Eurynome separated the sky from the sea by dancing on the waves of Oceanus. In this manner, she created great lands upon which she might wander, a veritable universe, populating it with exotic creatures such as Nymphs, Furies, and Charites as well as with countless beasts and monsters.

3)In the beginning, there was only Chaos and Eros. Gaea, the earth, Erebus, the underworld, and Night emerged from the mixing of these two, and Gaea gave birth to Uranus, the heavens, who then became her mate, and Oceanus, the oceans.

It seems to me that there are a lot of different myths for Greek creation.

Do you have a different story?

Also -Most Sunday Schools, of course, would not teach greek mythology. I take your comment as an attempted stab at my belief system. Do you think you're morally superior because you don't go to church? Do you think that your beliefs are anymore valid than mine? Maybe if  I took the time to GRACE you with the beauty of my beliefs you'd actually be able to answer that. Are you acting like a donkey because I called you on your feigned ignorance of what a god is, or are you really just a donkey?


Title: Re: stupid argument
Post by: waywardoctagon on July 18, 2007, 05:59:52 am
Religion does not need to be entirely based on faith. The only reason we think that is because all reasons but faith for believing have been pulverized by the tremendous weight of science.

So what else would you base religion on? I was always under the impression that religion is a spiritual thing, a belief in purpose and/or god in some form or another. How would you base a religion on more... earthly things?

It can also be an explanation for things you don't understand.  The human mind craves explanations.  Why does the sun go across the sky?  Well, obviously it's because there's someone up there pulling it around.  I mean, you're not necessarily going to arrive at the whole gravity thing right off; that kind of thing tends to take a lot of background work.

ETA:
"A witty saying proves nothing." -- Voltaire


Title: Re: stupid argument
Post by: Shiver on July 18, 2007, 06:13:37 am
Are you acting like a donkey because I called you on your feigned ignorance of what a god is, or are you really just a donkey?

Deus_Siddis is always like that. In another thread he was trying to explain how the US Supreme Court is "the most overpowered branch of government".


Title: Re: stupid argument
Post by: Lukipela on July 18, 2007, 06:27:12 am
It can also be an explanation for things you don't understand. 

And this is in no way based on faith? Detahs point was that religion doesn't need to be entirely based on faith. Faith explains things we don't, and cannot understand.

Quote
The human mind craves explanations.  Why does the sun go across the sky?  Well, obviously it's because there's someone up there pulling it around.  I mean, you're not necessarily going to arrive at the whole gravity thing right off; that kind of thing tends to take a lot of background work.

Again, without concrete scientific data, any such explanation you come up with is based on faith. You can believe it to be true, but yoiu cannot prove it, nor call your belief any more valid than another (although you can of course believe that your belief is more valid). For instance, even if my primordial explanation of the Suns movement had been "The earth slings around it", it'd still have been an item of faith. Equally plausible as "The god of fire rides his chariot around the world.


Title: Re: stupid argument
Post by: Deus Siddis on July 18, 2007, 06:31:06 am
Quote
Do you have a different story?

No, just the part you left out. The Greek Gods of Olympus were not great creators of the universe as you said a god was defined as. And yet they are considered gods and were worshipped as such.

Quote
Also -Most Sunday Schools, of course, would not teach greek mythology. I take your comment as an attempted stab at my belief system. Do you think you're morally superior because you don't go to church?

No, just perhaps intellectually superior through the absence of a religious arrogance that rewrites history and creates definitions solely from its own teachings.

Quote
Do you think that your beliefs are anymore valid than mine?

Depends on the belief I would guess. Your definition of a god seems shaky and narrow, so there I would say less valid.

Quote
Maybe if  I took the time to GRACE you with the beauty of my beliefs you'd actually be able to answer that.

I suppose I am not worthy of such beauty. But even in this state of ignorance you have left me in, I do not doubt this beauty, for such is the case with dreams that they can be purely so, while the things of undisputed reality are victim to natural flaws and forces.

If you did bestow the beauty of your mindset upon me however, I might be able paint a world of even greater majesty. But that wouldn't make it any more real.

Quote
Are you acting like a donkey because I called you on your feigned ignorance of what a god is, or are you really just a donkey?

Well I'm typing, so that would be no small trick for a hooved animal.

But what about you, are you a dog or do you just pretend to be one?


Title: Re: stupid argument
Post by: waywardoctagon on July 18, 2007, 06:38:38 am
And this is in no way based on faith? Detahs point was that religion doesn't need to be entirely based on faith. Faith explains things we don't, and cannot understand.

True.  I was responding more to the spiritual/purpose idea, though.  So the "other reasons for believing" would just be because it's the best explanation someone can come up with, not necessarily entirely because it's a deep spiritual thing.


Title: Re: stupid argument
Post by: Lukipela on July 18, 2007, 06:40:26 am
Deus makes a good point, albeit in a highly amusing fashion. If you feel offended, keep in mind that he only gives as he receives. Ares, Hera and the likes are certainly considered gods, and they didn't create anything (except trouble for Hercules). The same would go for Tor, Tyr and most other Valhallan gods.  Besides, the stories you cite don't really paint anyone as the creator of the universe. there was already Chaos and water, or some such thing where the ur-gods resided. Unless you're making the argument that the gods come from a different universe, and created this and stepped in. 'd say your definition fits monotheistic religions well, but polytheistic much less so.

EDIT: Wayward posted while i was writing. Yes, certainly the idea doesn't have to give something a purpose. The Fire God could just be driving for fun. It would be spiritual in most cases though. Do we know of any old time explanations for things that didn't include a spiritual/supernatural/whatevernotphyscial element?


Title: Re: stupid argument
Post by: Deus Siddis on July 18, 2007, 06:45:56 am
Shiver
Quote
Deus_Siddis is always like that. In another thread he was trying to explain how the US Supreme Court is "the most overpowered branch of government".

Umm, I'm not sure that statement has the devastating, stand-alone effect that you think it does. Maybe you should start supporting your many critisms on this forum with something beyond disbelief or disgust? ;)


Title: Re: stupid argument
Post by: Nutty Buddy on July 18, 2007, 06:55:41 am
What did I leave out besides a big

SUCKA FOOOO

So the duties are split in pantheons...every god has a responsibility there is at least a creator or many.

Hindu - Brahma
Norse - Odin and his brothers used Ymir's body to create the universe.
Egyptian - Many different stories. But the gods came together to accomplish creation.
Shintoism - Many gods created
Greek - Nyx gave birth to the gods
Vodun - Damballah

Anyway - you get the point. There are also gods that don't create but make law. But I figured if someone didn't know what a god was maybe we should start with the basics.


Title: Re: stupid argument
Post by: Shiver on July 18, 2007, 07:00:07 am
words

The stupidity you demonstrated in what I refered to should be obvious to most people. Of course that doesn't include you, else you wouldn't be foolish enough to try and argue that in the first place.


Title: Re: stupid argument
Post by: Deus Siddis on July 18, 2007, 07:03:15 am
Nutty Butter
Quote
Fuck You

I think maybe we should just take things slow. ;)


Title: Re: stupid argument
Post by: waywardoctagon on July 18, 2007, 07:05:13 am
Oooo, ooo!  Can you make it flash on and off, too?  And put sparklies behind it?

I think sparklies would make your argument more convincing.


Title: Re: stupid argument
Post by: Lukipela on July 18, 2007, 07:12:38 am
Oooo, ooo!  Can you make it flash on and off, too?  And put sparklies behind it?

I think sparklies would make your argument more convincing.

Indeed. sparklies always make vulgararity much more convincing. Perhaps a few smilies as well? Or an ASCII goatse? that'd really impress me.

No matter how you want to turn this, you've made two statements that are mutually exclusive.

Quote
A god is defined as a creator of the universe. That definition is consistent.

Quote
So the duties are split in pantheons...every god has a responsibility there is at least a creator or many.

Either your definition is consistent, or it's not. Either every god is a creator of a universe, or he is not. You don't get to say "Well it's always like this except when I decree it not to be" without getting called on it. And when you do, it might be good to admit a mistake rather than resorting to vulgarities.


EDIT: I also love how there is 6+ users online and everyone is viewing this topic. It's almost as fun as Controversial Subject.


Title: Re: stupid argument
Post by: Tiger_salad on July 18, 2007, 07:22:40 am
So what else would you base religion on? I was always under the impression that religion is a spiritual thing, a belief in purpose and/or god in some form or another. How would you base a religion on more... earthly things?

Scientology perhaps?

Few things are as earthly as money!  Which is what the Cult of $cientology is all about!

But generally speaking, the whole purpose of religion is making people feel better, unless you're the 'Foe of the Day' .  Someone you love die? They're "in a better place."   Have things suddenly gone very badly for you? Gawd has a plaaaaan!  Human beings like the idea of some super-being looking out for them, it makes them happy.  As long as they don't go changing laws to fit their own personal morality, I really don't care. 

But then again, the only thing I worship is my parrot.


Title: Re: stupid argument
Post by: Shiver on July 18, 2007, 07:23:37 am
...

Deus's sleazy style of posting warrants hostile behavior. You are right that Nutty Buddy got her facts fixed up, and I'm sure if you had called her on it first she would have responded rationally.


Title: Re: stupid argument
Post by: Deus Siddis on July 18, 2007, 07:25:25 am
Shiver
Quote
http://batmanistardinout.ytmnd.com/

Hey, are you okay with re-gifting? Because if you are then this is for you:

Fuck You


Title: Re: stupid argument
Post by: Lukipela on July 18, 2007, 07:30:29 am
Deus's sleazy style of posting warrants hostile behavior. You are right that Nutty Buddy got her facts fixed up, and I'm sure if you had called her on it first she would have responded rationally.

No it doesn't. This isn't SA Shiver. That someone else behaves in an annoying fashion doesn't give you a carte blanche to do the same thing. You can ignore them, or respond and ignore the annoying parts of their messages. Or you can point out which parts you think are arrgoant and so forth. But if you want to participate in a discussion on the internet about religion of all things, you need to keep cool, and focus on the task at hand.

Looking at the thread, it seems a lot of people are forgettign this. Lets try and behave like fully functioning hominids shall we? Instead of flinging poo, how about we continue with the actual subject instead?

EDIT: Or i guess we could just keep yelling and insulting. So in keeping with the theme... Obviously this thread fails because there are women here, and everyone knows women can't think properly without overheating their poor little brains. This is what has happened here. Step away from the Internets young ladies, and back to the kitchen with you!


Title: Re: stupid argument
Post by: Deus Siddis on July 18, 2007, 07:36:39 am
Shiver
Quote
Poeple. . .I HATE themzors1!11!!!

And the chain-smoker with hemeroids style of your posts apparently warrants further mutilated quotes and the recycled profanity that will ultimately cost a christian the right to get into a "beautiful" place in the end. ;)


Title: Re: stupid argument
Post by: Nutty Buddy on July 18, 2007, 07:39:23 am
Ok, so the simple definition of what a god is doesn't work in all cases - I will admit to that - I was starting monotheistic on the subject (since that encompasses most of the major religion) And I had already ammended myself.  It seems that correcting your mistakes has become unacceptable.

Deus_Siddis claimed to not know what a god was as his reasoning for not believing in one. Which is total crap. And I thought I'd share my knowledge. (which was not complete at the time) Who hasn't been guilty of that? If we knew everything this thread would never have existed.

Neither of us are authorities on the subject and I don't think I should be bashed for holding a stupid argument in the stupid argument room.

As for the obscenity, it was out of place and somewhat childish - However, I did retract the big FUCK YOU and replaced it promptly another something that is much less obscene.

After all this, I must say that I don't think either of us are 100% correct in anything we had to say to each other.

Admission of my own stupidity will not change my opinion that Deus_Siddis is off his rocker.


Title: Re: stupid argument
Post by: Shiver on July 18, 2007, 07:39:48 am
No it doesn't. This isn't SA Shiver. That someone else behaves in an annoying fashion doesn't give you a carte blanche to do the same thing. You can ignore them, or respond and ignore the annoying parts of their messages. Or you can point out which parts you think are arrgoant and so forth. But if you want to participate in a discussion on the internet about religion of all things, you need to keep cool, and focus on the task at hand.

Looking at the thread, it seems a lot of people are forgettign this. Lets try and behave like fully functioning hominids shall we? Instead of flinging poo, how about we continue with the actual subject instead?

You're not a moderator. The ones who are have a very laissez faire attitude towards things, so in essence I can flame someone relentlessly. What exactly gives you the impression that insults on this forum are some sort of un-crossable boundary? I think his arguments are shit, his attitude is arrogant beyond belief and the way he mixes snotty little remarks into nearly every "factual" ::) post he makes is completely under-handed. Of course I'm not going to "play fair" or whatever you're telling me to do.


Title: Re: stupid argument
Post by: Deus Siddis on July 18, 2007, 07:43:50 am
Lukipela
Quote
Looking at the thread, it seems a lot of people are forgettign this. Lets try and behave like fully functioning hominids shall we? Instead of flinging poo, how about we continue with the actual subject instead?

We could, but only if we forget that this subject has already been discussed to death over multiple lifetimes by us and many others across millions of discussion boards across teh internets. And never has anyone actually given an inch in their beliefs. So either way, we are not fully functional. In fact, it might just be our fingers that are functioning.


Title: Re: stupid argument
Post by: Lukipela on July 18, 2007, 07:48:15 am
You're not a moderator.

Nor have I ever claimed to be. I am however the resident Saint ;)

Quote
The ones who are have a very laissez faire attitude towards things, so in essence I can flame someone relentlessly.

Of course you can. And I can flame you on flaming him in infinitum.

Quote
What exactly gives you the impression that insults on this forum are some sort of un-crossable boundary?

Because traditionally, this has been a forum where discussions have been kept on track and on topic. That is conductive to discussion, and helps people both appreciate your points and bring forth their own. There is no point in even trying to discuss an issue, if retards with flame-shovels are just sitting by, waiting to pounce on someone who doesn't behave in accordance with their definition of proper. The quality of discourse has been decreasing in recent times, but that doesn't mean we necessarily have to devolve to caveman style discussions.

Quote
I think his arguments are shit,

Then argument by argument you can point that out, rather than just making blanket statements that help derail threads.

Quote
his attitude is arrogant beyond belief and the way he mixes snotty little remarks into nearly every post he makes is completely under-handed.

In which case you are free to point that out. I've done so myself with RTyp06 in several debates. Again, I don't see how flinging insults around will resolve your troubles, nor enhance the board experience for others.

Quote
Of course I'm not going to "play fair" or whatever you're telling me to do.

Of course not. Instead you are just going to complain and complain and complain and... err.. what's the ultimate goal you're aiming for here? I forget. The utwig voices was it?


Title: Re: stupid argument
Post by: Lukipela on July 18, 2007, 07:51:23 am
We could, but only if we forget that this subject has already been discussed to death over multiple lifetimes by us and many others across millions of discussion boards across teh internets. And never has anyone actually given an inch in their beliefs. So either way, we are not fully functional. In fact, it might just be our fingers that are functioning.

If you don't think the discussion has anything to give you, there is no onus to participate Deus. And discussion doesn't need to be about giving an inch. It can equally well be about learning how other people think, and how they believe. You don't have to change your mind to have a good discussion, you just have to learn new things.


Title: Re: stupid argument
Post by: Deus Siddis on July 18, 2007, 08:07:51 am
Shiver
Quote
I think his arguments are shit, his attitude is arrogant beyond belief and the way he mixes snotty little remarks into nearly every "factual"  post he makes is completely under-handed. Of course I'm not going to "play fair" or whatever you're telling me to do.

Okay Shiver, albeit not to me, you have shared what you really think of me based on what you have seen me post on this forum. So let me be frank in trying to explain some of what you may have missed or misinterpreted.

My arguments might be wrong or just not make sense to you, but if I am being serious then they are well thought out from my perspective. I don't post them unless I believe them, take that for what you will.

The vast majority of those 'snotty little remarks', if you are refering to my attempts at humor at a whole, are not meant to be insulting. Just semi comical (and not to everyone). Often discussions on internet forums are way to serious given how ultimately pointless they are. We are not exactly writing the next chapter in world history here, so what are a few jokes going to harm? Of course, when I feel I have been provoked, I can be genuinely insulting as you can see on this thread, if in a snotty or humorous sort of way (depending on what you want to call it).

Finally, I am not arrogant. I don't really like myself and don't think I would have much to be arrogant about.


Now I think I should be frank in what I think of you, be it correct or false. To put it plainly with a popular american metaphor, I think you're just an ass hole. You jump down people's throats when they haven't done anything to you. Not just with me as I thought originally and not with any predictable provocation. Your critisms and opinions seem biased and you don't offer much to support them, which makes it hard to understand where you are coming from on anything. I am honestly glad that I know you only through this forum and not in real life.

So that is what I think, no jokes, just what I really think. I only say this because you seem to have some sort of vendette against me and were finally frank about your opinions on this subject.


Title: Re: stupid argument
Post by: Deus Siddis on July 18, 2007, 08:15:00 am
Lukipela
Quote
If you don't think the discussion has anything to give you, there is no onus to participate Deus. And discussion doesn't need to be about giving an inch. It can equally well be about learning how other people think, and how they believe. You don't have to change your mind to have a good discussion, you just have to learn new things.

True, but sometimes you actually learn more about what people believe when the discussion's illusion of civility has quickly vaporized. :)

(Not always, just sometimes.)


Title: Re: stupid argument
Post by: Lukipela on July 18, 2007, 08:17:07 am
That's actually one point where you and RTyp06 manage to make the same mistake Deus. From what I've discussed with him, he also simply attempts to make jokes in his posts. Unfortunately, they come out (at least to me) as overbearing and arrogant at times, which makes the discussion that much harder to follow. Humour is a tricky thing on the internet, where we have no intonation, no gestures, nothing but simple text. And when you discuss things that are important to people, they tend to snap more easily, at real and poerceived insults. Of course, it's an everlasting debate wether humour should be marked more clearly, or wether people should just grow thicker skin. But it might be good to keep in mind that sometimes people will ignore your arguments not because of what you say, but because of the way you present it. It's silly, but such is human nature. If you want to make a good point, consider how you phrase it.

RE civility and dissolution.

Not really. When that goes all you see are base instincts. You don't learn how or why or what they believe, simply how they react. And most of us react exactly the same way, it's just what we're wired for.


Title: Re: stupid argument
Post by: Shiver on July 18, 2007, 08:27:16 am
Of course not. Instead you are just going to complain and complain and complain and... err.. what's the ultimate goal you're aiming for here? I forget. The utwig voices was it?

I was sticking up for a newbie with 10 posts, something you should be able to relate to. Both Nutty Buddy and Deus_Siddis did their part to derail the thread, but by my estimation Nutty Buddy isn't one to go around unnerving people all the time. If a month from now she's causing endless havok, you can call me out on being wrong about her.

Quote from: Deus_Siddis
...

I'm wasn't attacking you just for the fun of it as you can see above and I do make "normal" posts most of the time. From prior experience I've decided that expending the effort to write long thought out replies to you is not worth the trouble. I will say that you should be less focused on me and more on why a discussion you were having with someone unfamiliar with you erupted into a flame war.


Title: Re: stupid argument
Post by: Lukipela on July 18, 2007, 08:37:46 am
I was sticking up for a newbie with 10 posts, something you should be able to relate to. Both Nutty Buddy and Deus_Siddis did their part to derail the thread, but by my estimation Nutty Buddy isn't one to go around unnerving people all the time. If a month from now she's causing endless havok, you can call me out on being wrong about her.

As I've been saying, it's not just what you do, it's how you do it. If you had said something along the lines of "Nutty mixed up but don't be such a douche, it happens to the best of us", the thread would have likely taken another turn. Instead you simply posted an ad hominem on Deus, ignoring the argument and focusing on his character. What did you expect him to do?

Being new doesn't mean that you get to ignore logic and flame away. It makes it more understandable, but that's about it. Nor does it mean that you need a knight in shining armour to do so for you.


Title: Re: stupid argument
Post by: Shiver on July 18, 2007, 08:58:43 am
I was sticking up for a newbie with 10 posts, something you should be able to relate to. Both Nutty Buddy and Deus_Siddis did their part to derail the thread, but by my estimation Nutty Buddy isn't one to go around unnerving people all the time. If a month from now she's causing endless havok, you can call me out on being wrong about her.

As I've been saying, it's not just what you do, it's how you do it. If you had said something along the lines of "Nutty mixed up but don't be such a douche, it happens to the best of us", the thread would have likely taken another turn. Instead you simply posted an ad hominem on Deus, ignoring the argument and focusing on his character. What did you expect him to do?

I don't see a problem with him flaming me back, was I complaining about it previously?

Quote
Being new doesn't mean that you get to ignore logic and flame away. It makes it more understandable, but that's about it. Nor does it mean that you need a knight in shining armour to do so for you.

That's swell, but I find your argument that people should never, ever trash talk each other under any circumstance to be uncompelling. Turn into a moderator or make a vastly better argument if you're going to try and impose your standards of conduct upon the rest of us. People get pissed off once in a while Lukipela, it's not realistic to tell us we can't act upon that.


Title: Re: stupid argument
Post by: Lukipela on July 18, 2007, 09:10:04 am
I don't see a problem with him flaming me back, was I complaining about it previously?

You mean except further derailing a thread that was pretty close to total derailment anyway? No, no problem at all, if you prefer complaining about peoples behaviour and flaming them to talking about the actual subject.

Quote
That's swell, but I find your argument that people should never, ever trash talk each other under any circumstance to be uncompelling.

That is too bad, but at least I made an argument.

Quote
Turn into a moderator or make a vastly better argument if you're going to try and impose your standards of conduct upon the rest of us.

I'm not trying to impose any standards on you, nor do I have the ability to do so. I'm simply sharing my opinion on the mattter, which is that pointless flaming does no good, and that cursing and trash-talking is a meaningless waste of time which impedes my enjoyment of these topics. I find it interesting that when I share my opinion, I am backseat moderating or trying to impose myself. However, when you share you're opinion, you are not. Perhaps you should stop imposing your standard of valiant flaming on those of us who prefer other types of discourse?

Quote
People get pissed off once in a while Lukipela, it's not realistic to tell us we can't act upon that.

It is on the internet. There is no reason you have to make a reply immideatly, when you are angry and your judgement is clouded. you can just as well take a break, think about things, and reply later with a cool head. There's no hurry on a meassageboard. that's why I enjoy it.

EDIT: Also, this topic is amazingly well named.


Title: Re: stupid argument
Post by: Shiver on July 18, 2007, 09:19:51 am
I find it interesting that when I share my opinion, I am backseat moderating or trying to impose myself. However, when you share you're opinion, you are not. Perhaps you should stop imposing your standard of valiant flaming on those of us who prefer other types of discourse?

You've made many different arguments as well as characterizations of me with varying amounts of accuracy, but this is completely off base. I'm not telling anyone what they should be doing. Not even Deus_Siddis. In essence, you are doing this with an alarming frequency. Something does not need to be phrased as a direct military order for it to be an attempt at controlling others. At the very least you will probably agree with me that you somewhat of a control freak.


Title: Re: stupid argument
Post by: Lukipela on July 18, 2007, 09:28:38 am
You've made many different arguments as well as characterizations of me with varying amounts of accuracy, but this is completely off base. I'm not telling anyone what they should be doing. Not even Deus_Siddis.

Where in my post am I implying that you are telling anyone what to do? I simply stated that you share your opinions (In this case on Deus) and that this is fine, whereas when i share my opinions (in this case on posting in general), i am trying to impose my preferences on you.

[quote}
In essence, you are doing this with an alarming frequency.
[/quote]

I have been taking the position that flaming and so forth is unnecessary and a waste of time. At no time have I instructed anyone to cease and desist (nor can I really). In fact, the only one I see who takes it this way is you. If you want to be really picky, I did make one suggestion that we try to return to the topic at hand. If that is an alarming amount of telling people what to do to you, then so be it.

Quote
Something does not need to be phrased as a direct military order for it to be an attempt at controlling others.

Indeed. One way of influencing others would be to viciously flame them every time they behave in a fashion you don't approve of.



Title: Re: stupid argument
Post by: Shiver on July 18, 2007, 09:33:30 am
Where in my post am I implying that you are telling anyone what to do?

Right here:

"I find it interesting that when I share my opinion, I am backseat moderating or trying to impose myself. However, when you share you're opinion, you are not. Perhaps you should stop imposing your standard of valiant flaming on those of us who prefer other types of discourse?"

Seems pretty clear cut to me.


Title: Re: stupid argument
Post by: Lukipela on July 18, 2007, 09:38:51 am
Right here:

"I find it interesting that when I share my opinion, I am backseat moderating or trying to impose myself. However, when you share you're opinion, you are not. Perhaps you should stop imposing your standard of valiant flaming on those of us who prefer other types of discourse?"

Seems pretty clear cut to me.

That was a rethorical  reply to:

Quote
Turn into a moderator or make a vastly better argument if you're going to try and impose your standards of conduct upon the rest of us.

If you accuse me of trying to impose a standard you don't like, surely I'm allowed to accuse  you of  imposing a standard I don't like? So either you are telling people what to do (me, by telling me not to impose standards), or I'm not (by telling you not to impose standards). Take your pick.

Also, even if we accept the premise that I was trying to boss you around (which certianly wasn't my intention), alarming tendency = one time?


Title: Re: stupid argument
Post by: Nutty Buddy on July 18, 2007, 09:43:22 am
I am so embarassed - I shouldn't have lost my cool.

He got pissy because I said "I feel stupid for even replying to these quotes..."

I meant no harm to what Deus said.  It was a "stupid" argument, so I felt stupid replying. My only reason really for replying at all was because he said he didn't know what a god was and said that the "how", of how we got here, had been determined. (that's how I interpreted what he was saying at the time, but looking back I'm thinking it could be read differently. I'm still not clear on that point.)

Then I get poo flung at me.
So I fling back. (I'm sorry  to say that my poo flinging didn't meet up to everyones standards.)
Should I have thrown my poo back handed?


Title: Re: stupid argument
Post by: Shiver on July 18, 2007, 09:45:39 am
If you accuse me of trying to impose a standard you don't like, surely I'm allowed to accuse  you of  imposing a standard I don't like? So either you are telling people what to do (me, by telling me not to impose standards), or I'm not (by telling you not to impose standards). Take your pick.

That's right. For the last few posts I have been saying you're far too overbearing. I am telling you to back off, give me a break, etc. You do this to everyone, myself in particular. I find it intrusive and rude, just as you have a problem with my sometimes cruel approach to things. However, I have not insulted you once (or have I?) over the course of the argument we are having. I opt to try not to direct people, but am making an exception for you. I would like to reach a consensus with you on this.

Quote
Should I have thrown my poo back handed?

I don't know. We're all covered in shit. Get a sponge and start scrubbing, I guess.


Title: Re: stupid argument
Post by: Sargon on July 18, 2007, 09:46:52 am
Is this thread still discussing religion?
I also thought of the argument that no one actually knows what is god, so you can't believe in something you don't know what it is. It might be just anything, which means you don't believe in any particular thing.
But then religious people seem to be able to tell me what exactly is their god, well they were telling alot of things about him and I found it hard to argue that they don't know what is god.
The main thing that religion is trying to deal with is explainning the unknown.
Now, I don't believe in god, but I do believe in the unknown.
I believe that there are things in this world that exist in some manner, but the human race will never be able to understand. Many people call it god, but I just say it is futile to try to explain it in any way, because it is beyond our intelligence.
Actually calling it god is giving an explaination in human terms to what cannot be expressed in human terms, and therefore it must be false.
Why do I believe in the unkown? Some because of the second theorm of gedel, and also because of personal experience.
Well, I hope I wont offend anyone with this post.



Title: Re: stupid argument
Post by: Lukipela on July 18, 2007, 09:51:45 am
I am so embarassed - I shouldn't have lost my cool.

Don't worry about it, it happens to the best of us. And Deus can be very annoying, his jokes tend to go a bit astray at times.

Quote
He got pissy because I said "I feel stupid for even replying to these quotes..."

And you got pissy because of the sunday School comment. Misunderstandings can cause a lot of friction, especially when people take things too seriously or personally.

Quote
I meant no harm to what Deus said.  It was a "stupid" argument, so I felt stupid replying. My only reason really for replying at all was because he said he didn't know what a god was and said that the "how", of how we got here, had been determined. (that's how I interpreted what he was saying at the time, but looking back I'm thinking it could be read differently. I'm still not clear on that point.)

I've always felt that people demanding to have proper scientific determinations for gods, emotions and suchlike partly misunderstand the debate. These things lie mostly on an emotional plane, and can be very different for different people. Blindly following a lexicon will only tell you what is generally agreed upon, not what the person you are tlaking to thinks.

Quote
Then I get poo flung at me.
So I fling back. (I'm sorry  to say that my poo flinging didn't meet up to everyones standards.)
Should I have thrown my poo back handed?

I'm not going to get into shoulds here, because then Shiver will be breathing down my neck pretty quick. I would have ignored his comment, and responded to the factual part, or just left his post unanswered. I find it helps to remember that you can take a break from this, and write your reply much later and in a better frame of mind. This also tends to be best for the conversation. On a personal level, I find poo flingning much funnier if it invloves clever witticisms or putdowns rather than just curse words. But we all do what we feel is right, and what we feel fits. And when we step out ofthe line, the moderators burn us. Of course, in between that we bicker quite a bit ;)

That's right. For the last few posts I have been saying you're far too overbearing. I am telling you to back off, give me a break, etc.

So it's alright for you to post criticisms, but when I do it I'm much too overbearing? I'm not trying to diss you in any way, I'm simply trying to understand.

Quote
You do this to everyone, myself in particular. I find it intrusive and rude, just as you have a problem with my sometimes cruel approach to things.

You find what intrusive and rude? That i criticise flaming in a similar way that you criticise Deus brashness and annoying habits?

Quote
However, I have not insulted you once (or have I?) over the course of the argument we are having. I opt to try not to direct people, but am making an exception for you. I would like to reach a consensus with you on this.

Certainly. If you tell me in which way I'm being overbearing that you are not, and I shall certainly endevaour to lessen that behaviour. It has never been my intention to insult you, and if you feel that I have I apologize. I don't enjoy a certain style of posting, just like you. And I speak out against it, just like you.

Quote
Is this thread still discussing religion?
I also thought of the argument that no one actually knows what is god, so you can't believe in something you don't know what it is. It might be just anything, which means you don't believe in any particular thing.
But then religious people seem to be able to tell me what exactly is their god, well they were telling alot of things about him and I found it hard to argue that they don't know what is god.
The main thing that religion is trying to deal with is explainning the unknown.
Now, I don't believe in god, but I do believe in the unknown.
I believe that there are things in this world that exist in some manner, but the human race will never be able to understand. Many people call it god, but I just say it is futile to try to explain it in any way, because it is beyond our intelligence.
Actually calling it god is giving an explaination in human terms to what cannot be expressed in human terms, and therefore it must be false.
Why do I believe in the unkown? Some because of the second theorm of gedel, and also because of personal experience.
Well, I hope I wont offend anyone with this post.

We're partly discussing religion still. You make a good point about the unkknown. God is something that we cannot understand, and people who claim to know him too well always seem a bit suspect to me. Even though we can never hope to understand divinity, in order to comprehend anything and discuss it, we must bring it to our level.

Also, if you believe in the unknown, doesn't that make you believe in god by proxy?


Title: Re: stupid argument
Post by: Shiver on July 18, 2007, 10:13:49 am
So it's alright for you to post criticisms, but when I do it I'm much too overbearing? I'm not trying to diss you in any way, I'm simply trying to understand.

I am breaking away from my natural tendency and trying to squeeze an admission out of you because I've now gotten far too deep into this thread. You could call that overbearing. If you read every other topic on the forum you will note that when we do clash, it's most definitely you critiquing me and maybe I'll taunt you over it or some such. That is me using what you find annoying to respond to what I find annyoing. This can stop quite easily, if you're willing to sometimes restrain yourself from doing that.

Quote from: Lukipela
You find what intrusive and rude? That i criticise flaming in a similar way that you criticise Deus brashness and annoying habits?

I don't appreciate you acting like a parental figure to me, which you do.

Quote
Certianly. you tell me in which way I'm being overbearing that you are not, and I shall certainly endevaour to lessen that behaviour.

Nanny behavior. In a topic I say something, you arrive and correct me like I am a child. I do not do this to anyone much, if at all.


Title: Re: stupid argument
Post by: Lukipela on July 18, 2007, 10:22:04 am
I am breaking away from my natural tendency and trying to squeeze an admission out of you because I've now gotten far too deep into this thread. You could call that overbearing. If you read every other topic on the forum you will note that when we do clash, it's most definitely you critiquing me and maybe I'll taunt you over it or some such. That is me using what you find annoying to respond to what I find annyoing. This can stop quite easily, if you're willing to sometimes restrain yourself from doing that.

Er, I think you may be blowing this just a tad out of proportion. I can't recall us clashing in any topics, other than a very old one about conscription armies (where you were right and I made a mistake as I stated). Out of curiosity, could you link me to some of these clashes? If nothing else, it'd be instructive for me to see what you consider a clash.

Quote
I don't appreciate you acting like a parental figure to me, which you do.

This is getting really weird. However, I will endeavour to not act parentally towards you again. Be sure to call me on it if I do, because I really hadn't noticed this.

Quote
Nanny behavior. In a topic I say something, you arrive and correct me like I am a child. I do not do this to anyone much, if at all.

Isn't that what we do? If someone makes an incorrect/untrue/faulty/stupid statement someone else challenges it? I doubt very many people enjoy getting flamed either, but I suppose that's a very different thing somehow. anyhow, i shall endeavour to not correct you like a child, but rather like an adult. Pointers would be appreciated. perhaps we should also take this to PM's, as it really serves no purpose in the topic...


Title: Re: stupid argument
Post by: Shiver on July 18, 2007, 10:41:19 am
This is getting really weird. However, I will endeavour to not act parentally towards you again. Be sure to call me on it if I do, because I really hadn't noticed this.

...

Isn't that what we do? If someone makes an incorrect/untrue/faulty/stupid statement someone else challenges it? I doubt very many people enjoy getting flamed either, but I suppose that's a very different thing somehow. anyhow, i shall endeavour to not correct you like a child, but rather like an adult. Pointers would be appreciated. perhaps we should also take this to PM's, as it really serves no purpose in the topic...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

*Twitter*

...

...

...

...

...

...

AHAHAHAHAHAHAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAHAHAHAHAHAH

I GOT YOU TO CONCEDE ON SOMETHING, YOU STUBBORN OLD MULE!! Moral victory, MORAL VICTORY!!!







Yeah so I don't really care what you do. If I'm flaming someone for shitting up my beloved Star Control forum, you go right ahead and preach. Don't care, won't  be listening. I just wanted to wrench a concession out of you because you so obviously didn't want to budge. Cheers.

Quote from: Lukipela
Er, I think you may be blowing this just a tad out of proportion. I can't recall us clashing in any topics, other than a very old one about conscription armies (where you were right and I made a mistake as I stated).

Shit, really? I don't even remember that much. To be honest, conscript armies could be pretty awesome if they came from a society that all felt a common bond as well as enough bitterness to collectively go off to war with each other. Post World War I Germany and probably most of today's middle east could spit out some great conscript armies. Cheap troops with a lot of zeal. The western world today just doesn't have the fire in their lungs to pull something like that off with any effect.


Title: Re: stupid argument
Post by: Lukipela on July 18, 2007, 10:49:43 am
AHAHAHAHAHAHAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAHAHAHAHAHAH

I GOT YOU TO CONCEDE ON SOMETHING, YOU STUBBORN OLD MULE!! Moral victory, MORAL VICTORY!!!

So I'm confused. Is it a moral victory because I asked you for advice on something I was unaware of, or because I conceded a point? If the latter, then you really should read the forum more closely (And maybe SCDB as well), that happens quite a bit. If the former, I'm still waiting for advice. We cannot evolve unless we learn.

Quote
Yeah so I don't really care what you do. If I'm flaming someone for shitting up my beloved Star Control forum, you go right ahead and preach. Don't care, won't  be listening. I just wanted to wrench a concession out of you because you so obviously didn't want to budge. Cheers.

Fair enough. If i'm preaching to someone shitting up my beloved forum, you go right ahead and flame. ;) I'll care and will be listening. Also, I think you may still have a tad screwed up preconceptions about me. Not that it matters really. Still, I'll try to not be as patronising as you seem to think I am.

Quote
Shit, really? I don't even remember that much. To be honest, conscript armies could be pretty awesome if they came from a society that all felt a common bond as well as enough bitterness to collectively go off to war with each other. Post World War I Germany and probably most of today's middle east could spit out some great conscript armies. Cheap troops with a lot of zeal. The western world today just doesn't have the fire in their lungs to pull something like that off with any effect.

I remember it because I made quite a huge mistake. I forgot to take into account that not everyone i nthe US can be conscripted the way we do in tiny countries. i was arguing a point about volunteer armies having more of "the wrong sorts of people". It's in one or other old Iraq/Bush thread.


Title: Re: stupid argument
Post by: Amiga_Nut on July 18, 2007, 12:54:34 pm
OMG!  :o You guys made my GF delete her account! I should have warned her to take what people say here with a grain of salt. Please don't flame me. I don't care about it all that much.

I know I don't have the authority to do this, but I'm going to try anyway.


































































}}}========================IRON CURTAIN=========================={{{


Title: Re: stupid argument
Post by: Elvish Pillager on July 18, 2007, 01:04:52 pm
OMG!  :o You guys made my GF delete her account!

LOL

Gee, I go to bed one day and when I get up the next morning, there are THREE NEW PAGES in the "stupid argument" thread? How stupid are you people?! ;D


Title: Re: stupid argument
Post by: Lukipela on July 18, 2007, 01:26:01 pm
OMG!  :o You guys made my GF delete her account!

If she has that thin skin, she might be better off without the internet. This place (despite Shiver and Deus) is amazingly friendly compared to most forums out there.


LOL

Gee, I go to bed one day and when I get up the next morning, there are THREE NEW PAGES in the "stupid argument" thread? How stupid are you people?! ;D

It's a slow day here. Anything to pass the time.


Title: Re: stupid argument
Post by: Big Gay Anus on July 18, 2007, 01:41:03 pm
Maybe it’s not about thin skin… but about no one having enough insight on the subject to spot and properly chastise prejudice.  –Nutty Buddy


Title: Re: stupid argument
Post by: Amiga_Nut on July 18, 2007, 01:42:57 pm
(http://media.expedia.com/media/content/expcorp/graphics/blog/monkey.jpg)


Title: Re: stupid argument
Post by: Elvish Pillager on July 18, 2007, 02:35:05 pm
Wait, I can lock this thread? Cool!

 ::) it deserves it.