This was just pure gold with a hint of tin.
Posted by anti_maven (Member # 9789) on :
Nice one!
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Thank you! I have seen the light! Why, I never thought of it that way before!
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
*giggles evilly at rivka*
You know, I began to think that we are far too sarcastic in my house when my then-two-year-old began using sarcasm to emphasise her points. Correctly.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
C+A+D is hit and miss for me. Sometimes the comic feels like a obvious PA rip-off (and several other web comics), but then sometimes it's got a genius of its own. This particular comic fell flat because of the smarminess of the last panel. It annoys me, and that's speaking as an athiest myself. The little smile on Lucas' face as he triumphs over the religious fools or whatever they're trying to make out the world's religions to be just makes me want to reach out and smack the author.
The best humor is one based on some kind of truth. You can have your characters do all sorts of things that are rediculous, but someone has to be the straight-man. Someone has to react in a way that is believable and appropriate to the situation (see Monty Python's Parrot Sketch for John Cleese doing a classic straight-man routine). The last thing anyone would do when faced with a mob of murderous religious zealots is question their religion's a priori assumptions, and I know of few religious leaders who would personally take part it the breakup of a pseudo religion.
So you've got three things:
Stupid gag involving "video game religion" that wasn't even funny and had me rolling my eyes from the start.
Group of religious leaders who are obviously intolerant (and would therefore be unable to cooperate) out to beat the crap out of Ethan for starting his stupid religion.
Lucas' timely, and unintentionally ironic, Deus Ex Machina.
Putting them all together on the same panel is not funny. The bias of the author shines through in a write yourself in as the hero of the story fanfic kind of way. Lucas sweeps down and saves the day for everyone by pointing out that the whole religion thing is a bunch of crap and those religious dorks know it.
Stupid.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Good thing thats just your opinion and completely unimportant in the grander scheme as Tim still makes money from that comic. As it is pretty obvious other people liked it.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Good thing thats just your opinion and completely unimportant in the grander scheme as Tim still makes money from that comic. As it is pretty obvious other people liked it.
Pretty sure that comic is not the epitome of what the comic is capable of. Also its doubtful long time readers now see that comic as vindication for all their years of readership. It might alienate some of his readers, it might garner him more readership.
I thought a better punchline would have been something like, "Defeat him in his own element! He challenged you all to a round of DDR!"
Just the image of them all bouncing on DDR mats makes me snicker.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
Slowest. Site. Ever.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: ...Tim still makes money from that comic.
So it's funny because it's commercially successful?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Primal Curve:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: ...Tim still makes money from that comic.
So it's funny because it's commercially successful?
Sex sells, DUH! Err..wait...
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
A Mary Sue isn't always a bad thing, but a Mary Sue that's there to show how right you are and how awful others are...yawn.
Posted by Sharpie (Member # 482) on :
quote:Originally posted by Primal Curve:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: ...Tim still makes money from that comic.
So it's funny because it's commercially successful?
Nah. One word: Garfield.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Blayne, stop getting so defensive. You are not Ctrl-Alt-Del, just a reader. It's anyone's right to disagree with you. And every once in a while they'll be right!
-Bok
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
I've found another analogy: Lucas' smile in the last panel annoys me like George Bush's little grins annoy me when he's being grilled.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I've found another analogy: Lucas' smile in the last panel annoys me like George Bush's little grins annoy me when he's being grilled.
Dude, Godwin.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
Every time you mention Godwin's law, a forest fire starts.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
I'm just a co' thread killa!
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
All the comic means to me is that the writer has no idea on any level of what honest religious debate is about. It's not funny, it's just sad. I'm speechless too, but that's largely because when I hear people spouting ignorant lines like that, I just shut my mouth and walk away.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Heh, I laughed more at Blackblade's idea of DDR than I did at what was actually in the comic. I didn't mind the video game religion when it first started, but I think this little mini-arc has already gone too far. Wintereenmas amuses me, this feels like he is harping on it now.
And I know exactly what PC means about Bush's smile, and now that he's brought it up, I'm annoyed by Lucas' smile too.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Maybe if he had some serious orange fret skills he could have done something with it!
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
dude, its a web comic not social commentary your meant not to take it seriously sheesh. MY baptist/christian friend whose studying to be a theologian would undoubtably find it funny and find an argument that Lucas can't turn against him.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
If it's just a webcomic, why are you so upset about it?
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Does anyone else crack up every time they hear Jon Stewart doing his Bush laugh? It's not even that great of an impression, and yet it tickles me so.
Heheheh...
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I do, that and his Cheney impression. Neither are particularly "good" impressions, but they're still hysterical.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Probably because he's super hawt!
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:its a web comic not social commentary your meant not to take it seriously sheesh
I'm trying to think of any definition of social commentary that your link doesn't fit into. Perhaps you could help. How, as you say, is it not social commentary?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Because its a joke on social commentary.
Posted by otterk10 (Member # 10463) on :
I had never heard of the author and therefore completely misinerpreted the comic. I originally thought the look on the clegyman's face was a "wow, this guy's an idiot" look, not a "I have no comeback" look.
However, that's probably just because I'm in high school. While I am becoming more spiritual, 99% of my peers are becoming less spiritual.
My problem is not with athiests. My problem is with my classmates who are not religious because they are too lazy to follow any religions' rules. Unlike true athiests, they have no facts to back up their philosophies. Therefore, when they ask questions like the guy in the comic, I think to myself "wow, what an idiot."
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
"My problem is not with athiests. My problem is with my classmates who are not religious because they are too lazy to follow any religions' rules. Unlike true athiests, they have no facts to back up their philosophies."
How do you know that's why they're not religious? Also, what is a "true atheist"?
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Heh, I laughed more at Blackblade's idea of DDR than I did at what was actually in the comic. I didn't mind the video game religion when it first started, but I think this little mini-arc has already gone too far. Wintereenmas amuses me, this feels like he is harping on it now.
And I know exactly what PC means about Bush's smile, and now that he's brought it up, I'm annoyed by Lucas' smile too.
I agree. A DDR showdown would have been funny.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Because its a joke on social commentary.
Satire is a form of social commentary.
Posted by otterk10 (Member # 10463) on :
quote: "My problem is not with athiests. My problem is with my classmates who are not religious because they are too lazy to follow any religions' rules. Unlike true athiests, they have no facts to back up their philosophies."
How do you know that's why they're not religious? Also, what is a "true atheist"?
How do I know? Here is what a conversation with the type of person I'm talking about might go like.
Joe: You still go to religious school once a week? Me: Yeah, how about you Joe? Joe: I'm atheist. Me: Oh. Do you believe that God never existed, or that God is already dead. Joe: Ummm... I don't really think about those things. I just always thought that religious school is boring.
Meanwhile, while "true atheists" don't believe in God, they still have their own set of beliefs, philosophies, and ideas.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
*inserts definition of agnostic here*
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Because its a joke on social commentary.
Poking fun at the FSM would possibly have been a joke on social commentary, but that's a real stretch of an interpretation of this comic. This comic isn't making fun of any commentary, it's (clumsily) making fun of "reality." That, of course, being social commentary, as Primal Curve pointed out.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
I'm not sure I have a problem with this Joe's response. Lots of things bore the heck out of me, and I generally don't give them any more thought than is absolutely necessary. Am I therefore lazy? Lack of interest and laziness are not synonymous.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nick: *inserts definition of agnostic here*
I'm not sure if a debate on what constitutes atheism or agnosticism would be entirely appropriate or welcome in this thread, but I guess I'll go ahead and put my two cents in.
I am both agnostic and atheist. I am agnostic in the sense that I have no knowledge of the existence of a god. I am atheist in the sense that I believe there is no god.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Meanwhile, while "true atheists" don't believe in God, they still have their own set of beliefs, philosophies, and ideas.
How do you know this Joe does not?
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
In other webcomic news, xkcd was fairly funny today. Not nearly at the level that the best of xkcd reaches, but still mildly amusing. Wednesday's was absolutely hysterical, though.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
I love xkcd.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: I am both agnostic and atheist. I am agnostic in the sense that I have no knowledge of the existence of a god. I am atheist in the sense that I believe there is no god.
You are an atheist because of your belief that God does not exist. If you know that God doesn't exist, how then can you be an agnostic in any sense, since agnostics believe that the existence of God is unknowable?
Blayne, I agree with PC on the comic, it just... wasn't funny. You shouldn't be offended when people don't laugh a the same comics you do. Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Agnostic: Greek for "without knowledge" ("a" meaning "without," "gnosis" meaning "knowledge")
I do not claim to have knowledge of the existence of a god.
Atheist: "without belief" (in a god)
I lack belief in the existence of a god, or I believe there is no god. A belief does not necessarily require knowledge in order to be justified. I base this particular belief on, among other reasons, a lack of evidence FOR the existence of a god.
Therefore, I believe there is no god (atheism), but I lack the knowledge (agnostic) that this belief is true or false.
[ July 07, 2007, 02:35 AM: Message edited by: rollainm ]
Posted by The Flying Dracula Hair (Member # 10155) on :
I always thought of atheism as being absolutely positive there is no God, and agnostic as not being sure. A no room for/room waiting kind of deal.. I'm sure if you play the semantics a certain way you can claim to be both but it seems to me it betrays their purpose to simply convey something in a conversation, or I've been listening to people wrong. I'm definitely an atheist, I really really feel I know there is no Lord above, in my bones, but there's no way I can know that's true as far as evidence goes at this point.
As for the comic, I think it's silly because anyone can win an argument if they write the script, and the reaction to the "finishing blow" struck me as pretty goofy for that reason - but it's a fun lil' web thing that's not out to pick a fight.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
It's certainly no Dinosaur Comic Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
quote:Originally posted by Primal Curve: C+A+D is hit and miss for me. Sometimes the comic feels like a obvious PA rip-off (and several other web comics), but then sometimes it's got a genius of its own.
I agree with this. There are times when I really enjoy it, and other times when I just shrug and move on to the next comic in my list.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Flying Dracula Hair: I always thought of atheism as being absolutely positive there is no God, and agnostic as not being sure. A no room for/room waiting kind of deal.. I'm sure if you play the semantics a certain way you can claim to be both but it seems to me it betrays their purpose to simply convey something in a conversation, or I've been listening to people wrong. I'm definitely an atheist, I really really feel I know there is no Lord above, in my bones, but there's no way I can know that's true as far as evidence goes at this point.
Maybe I'm just playing the semantics, but I always thought atheist and agnostic were saying two different things. Agnostic means you don't know and/or can't know the answer.
One you discover that, you decide where your beliefs are and where the probabilities lay. So, you can be agnostic and christian (I don't know, but I believe it and I'm almost sure) as well as being agnostic and atheist (I don't know, but I'm almost sure).
Make sense?
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
It's amazing how much a thread can deviate on the first page alone...
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I blame the Australians.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
It's not like there was much about the original topic to talk about. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
There is enough that I am going to move this thread into the 2nd page!
Posted by The Flying Dracula Hair (Member # 10155) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by The Flying Dracula Hair: I always thought of atheism as being absolutely positive there is no God, and agnostic as not being sure. A no room for/room waiting kind of deal.. I'm sure if you play the semantics a certain way you can claim to be both but it seems to me it betrays their purpose to simply convey something in a conversation, or I've been listening to people wrong. I'm definitely an atheist, I really really feel I know there is no Lord above, in my bones, but there's no way I can know that's true as far as evidence goes at this point.
Maybe I'm just playing the semantics, but I always thought atheist and agnostic were saying two different things. Agnostic means you don't know and/or can't know the answer.
One you discover that, you decide where your beliefs are and where the probabilities lay. So, you can be agnostic and christian (I don't know, but I believe it and I'm almost sure) as well as being agnostic and atheist (I don't know, but I'm almost sure).
Make sense?
Might as well be me doing it I suppose, guess I'm just promoting my own interpretation. What you say does make sense. 'N hey, you and Mr. Rollainm are all backed up by Wikipedia.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:
quote:Originally posted by The Flying Dracula Hair: I always thought of atheism as being absolutely positive there is no God, and agnostic as not being sure.
Maybe I'm just playing the semantics, but I always thought atheist and agnostic were saying two different things. Agnostic means you don't know and/or can't know the answer.
The distinction between knowledge and belief is important, and it's especially significant in this thread.
As an atheist, I've noticed that there is substantially less conflict between atheists and Jews, when compared to atheists and Christians. The reason for that is pretty simple; Christianity is an inherently evangelistic religion. While evangelism takes on different levels of importance in different Christian sects, the comic that Blayne linked is relevent in situations where conflict occurs as soon as a person mentions that their state of belief does not include God as part of the equation (atheist OR agnostic), because of the whole "word of God"/"spread the word" thing. It comes down to a question of "who started it?"
The definition of the word "atheist" comes up often in these discussions, because (I think) evangelical Christians try to deflect criticism of their evangelism by claiming that those who aren't their brand of christianity are "anti-Christian" as opposed to merely "non-Christian." Just think of how many times Jews have been accused of complicity with the Devil, or being responsible for the death of Jesus (for example). Atheism is easier to target, since we don't believe in God at all, but still evangelicals feel the need to redefine atheism to make it seem like an act of aggression, rather than simply a lack of belief. It isn't enough to accept that atheism is merely a lack of belief in God, we must be redefined as an opposing force, rather than merely an opposing viewpoint. This allows them to frame themselves as victims of that aggression, rather than being the attackers.
As to Blayne's original post, we kind of have a chicken and egg scenario. Did Blayne start the conflict? Or is he merely responding to previously existing conflict? It's naive to operate under the assumption that there are no evangelical atheists. There most certainly are. But evangelical atheism is a response to religious intrusion by evangelists. Atheism by itself has no inherent motivation, because atheism itself is defined by what it isn't.
Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
Good post Glenn.
It seems like in every religion/social group, you have people running the gamut from Fanatical to Easygoing, and all other combinations in between.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by The Flying Dracula Hair: I always thought of atheism as being absolutely positive there is no God, and agnostic as not being sure. A no room for/room waiting kind of deal.. I'm sure if you play the semantics a certain way you can claim to be both but it seems to me it betrays their purpose to simply convey something in a conversation, or I've been listening to people wrong. I'm definitely an atheist, I really really feel I know there is no Lord above, in my bones, but there's no way I can know that's true as far as evidence goes at this point.
Maybe I'm just playing the semantics, but I always thought atheist and agnostic were saying two different things. Agnostic means you don't know and/or can't know the answer.
One you discover that, you decide where your beliefs are and where the probabilities lay. So, you can be agnostic and christian (I don't know, but I believe it and I'm almost sure) as well as being agnostic and atheist (I don't know, but I'm almost sure).
Make sense?
Exactly. Agnosticism and atheism aren't two points on the same scale; they're on two different levels entirely (knowledge and belief).
One might even go so far as to say that we are all agnostic when it comes to the existence of a supernatural being.
Edit: Great post Glenn. I hadn't read the second page yet.
[ July 07, 2007, 08:03 PM: Message edited by: rollainm ]
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:One might even go so far as to say that we are all agnostic when it comes to the existence of a supernatural being.
There's an ironic quality to the fact that people who are not agnostic believe that they have knowledge of the existence of their god.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Me: So what arguement would you use? <font color="blue"> Tyrel: First, I would use the argument of evidence. Is there any evidence for believing in a creator in the first place. I have argued time and again that Occam's Razor does not in any way exclude God from the picture. So, the question is accuracy of belief.
now, assuming that there is a creator at all, which is more logical than not, we must wonder what the criteria should be for determining who/what it is.
I suggest three criteria, which I always suggest;
There are three principles upon which I base belief.
Authority {What attests to it's authority as worthy of belief? Prophesy, Miracles} Compatibility{/validity/is it in line with objective reality so far as can be determined} Integrity {how Trust worthy is the source? If it's a person, this wouldn't be their education (authority), it would be their personality. What makes you believe their telling the truth?}
So I believe that these are the three criteria by which all beliefs should be viewed. These form the basis for acceptance, and the criteria to be scrutinized.
So, as far as authority; Christianity, for example, is based on the authority of the prophets and priests who claimed to have messages from the creator, who has a will and a personality.
Now, is there any way to prove this? No. However, there is good evidence for it {Which I present time and again when I do prophesy bible studies}. First, they did miracles. These, however, we cannot prove, since they are in the past and the records are written, and records are not proof.
Second is Prophesy, which can be proven, but cannot always be seen, because it is a 'Mystery' {Mystery in the Biblical/Theological sense of the word}
Me: one could make the silly arguement that the existence of video games is ample evidence for the Church of Gaming.
Tyrel: Except that video game producers have never claimed that they were inspired by the creator to produce a noble message with power and authority. They are simply making a very complex game. For the Church of Gaming to have anything to stand on in regards to this first criteria, it would need either a substantiated claim to miraculous authority, or an evidenced factor which would be at least reasonably convincing.
So, with Christianity, we see that this criteria is at least satisfactorily met. Not in that it is proven, or even proven necessarily more likely than any and all other religions, but it is at very least reasonable to believe based on the evidenced authority.
Now, the second criteria. Compatibility
Does what Christianity present seem to jive with what we already know/accept to be true given the empirical method of reasoning?
Or does it seem to contradict it.
With gaming, seeing as there is no history of any authority, nor any roots in reasonability, nor any evidence deserving of invested faith whatsoever, I would say that, while it doesn't contradict what we accept to be true necessarily, it does not seem reasonably likely.
Whereas Christianity, having evidenced authority, and falling in line with what is reasonable and empirically acceptable, and perhaps offers a sound explanation for the unknown consisting of a seemingly unending supply of wisdom concerning the 'secret of the way things are' as the Essene Jews would put it.
So, Christianity, offering this, is not necessarily correct, but does seem a reasonable belief, and once again, has EVIDENCED authority upon which to present it's integrity.
Now, for the final criteria
Integrity
Now, it is true that Integrity would seem to rely on authority, but let's assume we cannot possibly be sure of the authority {evidenced or not, it is not proven}
So, how do we determine this?
well, it would consist of nobility. How pious and "right" does the belief present itself with.. For example {and this is not a bash against Islam, but;} Muhammed preached as a prophet, and declared himself ordained as such, but then presented himself to us with such a character as cannot seem to comply with his position. First, he married a very young woman, which was a ritual only of the Pagans,
and second, he promised such things to those who would fight as 72 virgins in heaven.
Let's observe this second for a little longer. why would one, who had passed from the created world, only a shadow of the one to come according to all the abrahamic faiths, have need of 72 virgin women ready for sex? This is not a heavenly gift, but an earthly desire. So, if he has manipulated the people based on using the desire of the flesh, which is {even according to him} passing away, as seems likely, then he has no longer integrity. So, what integrity does Christianity have, or rather, what integrity does the Gospel have? Is anything about it impious, deceptive, false, immoral, evil, despicable, or in any other way void of the stamp of righteousness?
I would say that the Gospel, in fact, presents itself so clearly as the noble truth that it both complies exceedingly with reason and logic, and in turn raises the heart and awakens the spirit to it's voice.
Now, all that being said, nothing has been proven or disproven at all.
however, it should be clear, once one takes the time to honestly weigh it out, that the Gospel seems exceedingly more likely to be true than the Church of Gaming. That is the argument I would make.
~Shalom Elechem </font color>
[ July 08, 2007, 03:51 PM: Message edited by: Blayne Bradley ]
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Grr, wont let me change the font colour to blue, that was the condition inwhich he said I could post his arguement...
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
quote:One might even go so far as to say that we are all agnostic when it comes to the existence of a supernatural being.
There's an ironic quality to the fact that people who are not agnostic believe that they have knowledge of the existence of their god.
Very true. Perhaps a discussion on the definition of knowledge is in order.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
My friend would also like to apologize as being an MSN convo it may have a few grammatical errors and not meticulously composed as he hadnt known originally of my intentions.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
quote:For example {and this is not a bash against Islam, but;} Muhammed preached as a prophet, and declared himself ordained as such, but then presented himself to us with such a character as cannot seem to comply with his position. First, he married a very young woman, which was a ritual only of the Pagans,
and second, he promised such things to those who would fight as 72 virgins in heaven.
His character "cannot seem to comply" with his self-identification as the Prophet only if you accept a Christian definition of prophet. Your friend is saying, in effect, that Mohammed couldn't have been a prophet because I disagree with Islam. That's not a logical argument.
And while we're at it, women, or girls, marrying very young is not exactly unusual throughout history. Christian societies have done it. So... a) he's factually wrong, and b) his argument boils down to "I disagree so he's not the Prophet" again.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Your friend's arguments are otherwise relatively sound. Note, however, that they all depend on the following: the assumption that, because a large number of people believe something for a long time, it is more valid than a newer, less-popular alternative.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:now, assuming that there is a creator at all, which is more logical than not, we must wonder what the criteria should be for determining who/what it is.
Please explain why this is more logical. Thank you. Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Your friend's arguments are otherwise relatively sound. Note, however, that they all depend on the following: the assumption that, because a large number of people believe something for a long time, it is more valid than a newer, less-popular alternative.
So in other words, not very sound at all.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Blayne, what was your purpose in posting this conversation? I'm not saying you shouldn't have. I really enjoy hearing/reading others' perspectives. I'm just curious what your motive was.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Because anything involving religion I ask my friend for his opinion, he's studying Theology and is an exec in the local Christian Fellowship club where I happen to go and sleep during school days and to me his opinion on religious matters holds sway, I'm agnostic myself but my ability to comprehend or facilitate a religious argument is very limited "so when in doubt ask Tyrel".
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
I'd be very interested in hearing his response to Javert's question. If you wouldn't mind asking him.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:now, assuming that there is a creator at all, which is more logical than not, we must wonder what the criteria should be for determining who/what it is.
Please explain why this is more logical. Thank you.
Please say ontological argument! "That than which nothing greater can be conceived" is one of my favorite phrases from philosophy class Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
He'll be over at my house later today.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow:
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:now, assuming that there is a creator at all, which is more logical than not, we must wonder what the criteria should be for determining who/what it is.
Please explain why this is more logical. Thank you.
Please say ontological argument! "That than which nothing greater can be conceived" is one of my favorite phrases from philosophy class
Hehe. That's exactly what I was thinking.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
But holy crap, is it ever a pain to translate from Latin! It's one case where Latin syntax makes something very hard to translate. Of course, then you recognise it and just go with the classic phrasing.
Posted by otterk10 (Member # 10463) on :
quote: Meanwhile, while "true atheists" don't believe in God, they still have their own set of beliefs, philosophies, and ideas. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How do you know this Joe does not?
I think this may be the wrong thread for me to get pissed off at the apathy of other people my age. I'm not talking about religion in particular, but other things, too, like politics.
In the next election, my peers and I will finally be able to vote. However, most people just blindly accept their parents' political views. They do not look into political issues themselves.
While I say Joe is not a "true athiest", I would also say John is not a "true Christian" because he blindly accepts his parents' and clergy's religious views instead of studying Christianity to decide if he truly believes in it.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
This is Tyrel's response;
Ok, So I see Blayne was having his fun. This is a forum I had joined ages ago, but I lost interest. I spend most of my time on Perspectives, moderating a private forum, and occasionally dropping by some Christian fundamentalist Forum, which has a few impressively knowledgeable members.
Well, it seems some of you have either required me to answer further, or have merited, in my opinion, correction concerning my assertions. So, I have here endeavored to post a quick reply for your amusement.
Oh, now, before I forget; in reply to Eaquae Legit . I did not argue any such thing. I based myself on my understanding of the Prophet based on Hadith testimony;
Ibn 'Abbas asked me, "Are you married?" I replied, "No." He said, "Marry, for the best person of this (Muslim) nation (i.e., Muhammad) of all other Muslims, had the largest number of wives." ~ Sahih Bukhari, {Nikaah}; Volume 7, Book 62, Number 7: Narrated Said bin Jubair
Now, for what purpose does one get a wife? Unless Islamic teaching is an odd exception to the rule of the Abrahamic faiths on this matter {Which in all my study, I have not heard} the idea is first to reproduce, second to have love and companionship on this earth and in this life. So, Why would a Prophet, one leading others to look to a world beyond this one, have need of either a multitude of descendants, or need to indulge in the pleasures of companionship? Recall that he is the final Prophet before Ummah, therefore is the one who is representative as a Prophet of God not simply before the Arabs, but before all people. Now, as such, what does his having a great multitude of wives tell us of his character? Same with the '72 virgins'; what does this tell us of his goals? Why does he proclaim such things in order to achieve the holy goal, if it be such, of Jihad?
I am not accusing him of anything necessarily. Perhaps there is a valid explanation for this. My point was to draw an analogy with which Blayne might be able to easily relate and understand. I was attempting not to bring a point of contention concerning Islam to the table, but to get across to Blayne what integrity is. I simply meant to exemplify that Jesus had integrity as a noble man. This is not simply concerning marriage or indulgence, but in every area, he was blameless. He was beyond reproach. I knew Blayne would understand this because of various past conversations.
Also, in reply to TomDavidson : You obviously misunderstood me. I am not asserting that any faith or worldview is more likely to be in line with objective reality based on either the number of adherents {regardless of zeal}, or the antiquity of the belief. Instead, I was, in speaking to Blayne, and Blayne alone, assuming that he understood the weight of the evidence for Christianity.
.... Actually, I think I was pretty clear, upon reflection... I wonder if your false perception was a result of my post, or your bias. In any case, I want to clarify; I meant to assert {and indeed asserted} no such thing.
Now, concerning why I would assert that a God is more logical than not; the ontological argument is great and all, but I don't often argue it. However, I do argue that complexity begs the rational conclusion of design (which of course, in turn, begs the rational conclusion of a 'designer').
To avoid rewriting and re-explaining my position for my friend's online 'entourage', I have attempted to produce a sufficient and comprehensive answer, while practicing the art of laziness with the assistance of the Copy+Paste function, taking from my own personal past posts on Perspectives. I've tried to edit them of mistakes, as the particular posts I found were not very clear, and were written in a rush. However, you can only ask for so much. {I apologize additionally for any mistakes I may be making, grammatical or logical, as I am very tired}.
First up, my reply to somebody asking for any evidence there might be for the existence of a God. I replied other points, but here was my main point {I know it's not initially clear, I apologize, it is in the middle of a post. However, I hope it will become clear once one takes the time to read through it. I apologize if this isn't the case};
as I have argued before, one of the arguments for their being a creator is the nature of the construct of systems and their relation to each other. Meaning that, one system which exists logically combines with other systems that exist to create new systems, or complex models. The Big Bang serves as an example. ----break--- So there are some primary systems in the universe such as the construct of time, and Energy or Matter. These uncreated self-existing systems organized into planetary systems, and galaxies on their own. A fairly miraculous thing in itself. Now, to make it clear, I'm not saying it doesn't make sense for these things to happen on their own separate from a deity, but let me finish my point. So, these systems interacted to create molecular forms. These molecular forms also systematically irrevocably react with each other differently given their nature. So, carbon, chemicals, all of the known world IS, at this point. Then, the forms of bacteria are created.. or rather 'come into being systematically due to the establishment of previous systems. So, they are extant. Then, they, being systems in a sense, systematically bring about more complex systems, which they seem to work in unison and agreement to create. Each one follows complex patterns which are only purposeful on a larger scale, which it cannot itself have "knowledge" of. I will not at this point beg the question of how bacteria evolved a universal sense of understanding cohesive pattern without being sentient. However, we must realize that such 'things' created more complex things. Or logically/systematically were made to bring more complex things into existence. {By 'made' I don't mean created, I mean designed irrevocably by the previous systems}. ------ So, the simple systems are of such a nature that they irrevocably and logically lead to more complex systems. Those systems, in turn, then logically and systematically do the same in turn, creating more complex patterns. Right up until you get to sentient life forms {us}. Some people believe it will continue until we as humans irrevocably create patterns by which a more complex series of beings are created. Most suggest this to be a unifying thing in so much as our race is concerned. However, leaving that out for the time being, I will suggest to you that a few systems, logically and systematically bringing more complex systems into being, is reasonable evidence that the original systems were purposed to do exactly that. So, I am saying, based on an appeal to reason, not logic, that it seems more rational to conclude that there was a designated pattern by which these systems communicated and cohesively created patterned organization, and thus, that it was designed. Now, I know there are some creationists called 'intelligent design'-ers that would have you believe that what they propose is science. It is not science. The best the above can be called is philosophy. That's all I'm presenting you with. Also, forgive my lack of scientific savy-ness and consequential inaccuracies. I am not a scientist.
Also;
-----Quote; Wunderknabe wrote: Tyrel wrote: It is not Occams razor to call it random, it is in fact Occams razor to call it 'GOD'. It is the simplest solution, whether correct or not.
I did read your post. You seem to think you can apply a specific case (something being designed) to the whole universe, but that's fallacious. Evolution works without a designer because things that don't work don't reproduce as often.
----End Quote.
You're mistaken. Evolution is the series of changes that are undergone to 'create' or 'establish' something new. Before Men there were the first Organic Mammals, before these there were chemical reactions, before these there was time and space along with energy. Has space always been there? some would contend that it explodes and retracts, and when it's gravitational pull acts to pressurize it into a small point it then systematically explodes once again. That is the Big Bang. All of this is logical. However, do we know that space and time and energy have always existed? In everything else that we see, in every other system, a previous one created it. Is the same possibly true with the systems of Time, Space, Energy? If not, then we argue that these are exceptions to the observed pattern. If they were the things that began [in unison] this flux, however, of systematic retraction and explosion, then what caused them to do so? This could have been random, but that doesn't make much sense. It could also be that this flux [that of the Big Bang] has always existed and the flux of 'creation' if you will, was never begun, for time, being constant, has always existed. Here the world can be explained naturally, logically and without the need for an initial 'prompting' agent for the flux. If there is no flux then we are left wondering what caused this 'reaction' of the big bang?
What I'm saying is that whether or not there was/is a flux that has always existed as a static and perpetual repeatedly prompted reaction, the fact that systems seem to complement each other in unison creating more complexity systematically, seems to indicate that there was a purposeful
Consider the thought carefully; Why? Why the flux? What Laws or principals govern the basic elements or 'systems'? These Catalystic systems we have set up, is it just a convenient logical design that they should necessarily [logically] create new systems upon which these new systems build with the previous to create new systems again and so on and so forth? The question is; Why does the flux WORK to create other systems at all? Yes I see the logic of how one system created another, but why is there a logical process to it at all? Occams Razor, I suggest, states that the original systems were purposed to create other systems.
As such, it necessarily seems more likely that they were intelligently purposed, if indeed purposed at all. If they were not the result of purpose, then they were the result of random chance. {Not that Evolution is Random, but that logic is a perplexing anomely, a phenomenon for which there is no explanation whatsoever, unless indeed it was designed.
Quick recap;
My argument in brief; this system is so perfect and perfectly complex that I do not believe in 'random' only in 'reaction'. I suggest, however, that the main source of all systems must have 'built' this or these first systems so as to logically and irrevocably result in the subsequent systems. Whether this is consciously 'designed' or not, I leave up to you, and I don't want to argue the whole 'intelligent design' thing really, I just thought I'd point out that my opinion is that Occam's Razor doesn't get rid of God, it actually makes him more feasible than constant flux with no beginning, end, or consciousness with which to reason these reactions out.
One view says 'the world is this way because the world is this way' and the other 'the world is this way logically because it was initialized logically'.
that's pretty much it.
At very least, this seems to make sense to me. Perhaps I am deluded, and perhaps I am mislead. However, I feel I have taken a sufficient chuck of my evening already to write/compile/compose for you this lovely post. If you will all excuse me, good evening. I'm sure Blayne will update me on how you all took my reply.
~Shalom Elechem
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Out of curiosity, why does a self-identified Christian end his posts with (a mis-transliterated) "Shalom Elechem"? That's a greeting, not a farewell.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Tyrel again:
It is not exclusively a greeting. It's generally transliterated 'Shalom aleichem', and is a flexible term, used simply most often for greetings. It is similar to the Arabic equivalent, Assalaam Alaikum, which I'm probably writing wrong as well... Though the thought of writing a Hebrew or Arabic word in English incorrectly still seems somehow comedic to me.
I was not taught the proper transliteration before I began to write it at the end of posts. I became attached to it as a signature.
Now, Shalom means peace. This peace meant to be a peace encompassing all areas of life. Shalom aleichem, puts emphasis on it, so as to mean Peace be upon you and with you, in all that you do, in your comings and goings.
What I mean by it, is simply; I pray in love that you may find the True peace. I try to mean it when I say it. I meant it.
... I can't believe I'm still up.. I'm going to sleep.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Why does he proclaim such things...?
Have you tried asking a Muslim, rather than trying to extrapolate from a Christian worldview?
quote: Also, in reply to TomDavidson : You obviously misunderstood me. I am not asserting that any faith or worldview is more likely to be in line with objective reality based on either the number of adherents {regardless of zeal}, or the antiquity of the belief. Instead, I was, in speaking to Blayne, and Blayne alone, assuming that he understood the weight of the evidence for Christianity.
.... Actually, I think I was pretty clear, upon reflection... I wonder if your false perception was a result of my post, or your bias. In any case, I want to clarify; I meant to assert {and indeed asserted} no such thing.
Here's the thing: the "weight" of evidence for Christianity, in your own words, is that lots of people have believed in it for a while, and you believe the bulk of them to have done good things.
Is that a distortion of what you're saying?
quote:However, leaving that out for the time being, I will suggest to you that a few systems, logically and systematically bringing more complex systems into being, is reasonable evidence that the original systems were purposed to do exactly that.
Why? This is the cornerstone of your argument in this regard, but you provide no rationale. Let's consider this next statement, in which you attempt to elaborate on this assertion.
quote:.{Not that Evolution is Random, but that logic is a perplexing anomely, a phenomenon for which there is no explanation whatsoever, unless indeed it was designed.
I have absolutely no idea what you're attempting to claim, here. You make the argument that Occam's Razor would suggest design -- but the point is that design requires a designer, and the designer is necessarily complex; adding a designer increases the complexity of the theory well beyond that of the "random flux" you dislike.
In other words: you spent quite a lot of time typing up things that are essentially meaningless.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Logic is a construct. There is more than one logic, with different rules. For one of the most major, check out Intuitionist Logic. Logic often seems to work in the real world, but this is a property of its construction, not of mystical reality. Of course, you might not be saying this, but your convoluted grammar makes it seem you are saying that logic is what is intelligently designed.
Also, there's nothing systematic about how more complex systems are brought into being in evolution. It is varied and error prone when it happens, and evolution often leads to less complex systems. The most successful species on this planet are among the more simple.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Btw, I know you've been reading a number of philosophers, but you'll find your writing will improve if you write with modern clarity. When they were writing, their writing was structured to convey things in a style that was clear to their contemporaries (well, some philosophers were just bad writers). Your writing has picked up many habits that are unclear, and you are using constructs that were used to convey specific nuances as if they are the normal way to structure a sentence. Consider focusing on simplicity and concision.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Blayne, did you convey to your friend just who rivka is and why she might just be a better judge of Hebrew usage than a guy who probably took a few years at seminary?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Thanks, but that's ok. He answered the question. *shrug*
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I told him she was my Orthodox Jewish friend from Hatrack.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
quote:Oh, now, before I forget; in reply to Eaquae Legit . I did not argue any such thing. I based myself on my understanding of the Prophet based on Hadith testimony;
Ibn 'Abbas asked me, "Are you married?" I replied, "No." He said, "Marry, for the best person of this (Muslim) nation (i.e., Muhammad) of all other Muslims, had the largest number of wives." ~ Sahih Bukhari, {Nikaah}; Volume 7, Book 62, Number 7: Narrated Said bin Jubair
Now, for what purpose does one get a wife? Unless Islamic teaching is an odd exception to the rule of the Abrahamic faiths on this matter {Which in all my study, I have not heard} the idea is first to reproduce, second to have love and companionship on this earth and in this life. So, Why would a Prophet, one leading others to look to a world beyond this one, have need of either a multitude of descendants, or need to indulge in the pleasures of companionship? Recall that he is the final Prophet before Ummah, therefore is the one who is representative as a Prophet of God not simply before the Arabs, but before all people. Now, as such, what does his having a great multitude of wives tell us of his character? Same with the '72 virgins'; what does this tell us of his goals? Why does he proclaim such things in order to achieve the holy goal, if it be such, of Jihad?
I am not accusing him of anything necessarily. Perhaps there is a valid explanation for this. My point was to draw an analogy with which Blayne might be able to easily relate and understand. I was attempting not to bring a point of contention concerning Islam to the table, but to get across to Blayne what integrity is. I simply meant to exemplify that Jesus had integrity as a noble man. This is not simply concerning marriage or indulgence, but in every area, he was blameless. He was beyond reproach. I knew Blayne would understand this because of various past conversations.
You haven't changed the substance of your argument at all from "I don't like it so it must be false."
There are many, many people out there who think Jesus acted like a tyrant. He cursed a fig tree for not blooming out of season. He went into the temple and made a mess of the legal merchants who were there. He broke the Law on several occasions. To the Christian, this sort of outrageous behaviour is acceptable, because Jesus is the Incarnation. But it only becomes acceptable with that presupposition. Then his actions become more than those of a mad tyrant.
That's what I was hoping to get you to see, about Muhammad. You aren't a Muslim, so many things are incomprehensible to you. His words and actions are unacceptable, because you are approaching them the wrong way. "I disagree, so it's not true." You're begging the question on a grand scale, and it makes for a terrible argument. Those who might have found themselves arguing along with you have found themselves unable to.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
You shouldn't be offended when people don't laugh a the same comics you do. ![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)