|
| Thread: Are the Religions guilty? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Conan
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
posted September 30, 2005 03:35 PM |
|
Edited By: Conan on 30 Sep 2005
|
Quote:
What's wrong with Holland?
Nothing... why? did I mention Holland was wrong for doing what it is doing?
Quote:
Gay marriage is available because Holland has understood what country's like the US are far from understanding, that sex isn't important in marriage. 
Perhaps, and beside the fact that I agree with you here, I've never talked about gay marriages, so I don't understand why you are defending this point
Quote:
As you can see, Holland is not a country who just lets people do their thing, they do have laws attached.
Again, I never said there was a lack of civil laws in Holland, I only said that Canada is not moving in that direction. I never qualified Holland of this or of that - it was merely a clarification.
Your point about it not being bad for health I do not agree with, but to debate that would go far beyond the topic of this thread. Perhaps you'd care to create a new thread to talk about this?
____________
Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward, you will service.... us. - Star Trek TNG
|
|
DragonMaster
Known Hero
Master of Dragons
|
|
posted September 30, 2005 03:40 PM |
|
|
If you would like to discuss this, I don't mind, I was just reacting to your post because in a way it feels degrading to be named every time the discussion goes to drugs or gay marrige (which I am aware of that you didn't mention it) and I feel like it is needed to defend issues
____________
Fire is not a dragons only strength, so don't come to close to it's mouth, when he is not flammable.
|
|
Conan
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted September 30, 2005 03:44 PM |
|
|
I think it's because it's the most popular country in which you can smoke Mary at ease. It's no wonder it comes up anyways and it's nothing to be defending if not attacked.
I can see why you reacted, yet I was carefull to state facts, not feelings/views on that country.
____________
Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward, you will service.... us. - Star Trek TNG
|
|
DragonMaster
Known Hero
Master of Dragons
|
|
posted September 30, 2005 03:48 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I think it's because it's the most popular country in which you can smoke Mary at ease. It's no wonder it comes up anyways and it's nothing to be defending if not attacked.
I can see why you reacted, yet I was carefull to state facts, not feelings/views on that country.
Maybe I'm to protective
Maybe a thread to discuss marijuana would be welcome, I dunno what the people here have to say about it
____________
Fire is not a dragons only strength, so don't come to close to it's mouth, when he is not flammable.
|
|
arachnid
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted October 01, 2005 04:37 AM |
|
|
[quote
Next to that, marijuana is legal as it is not a danger to health (it is to sanity but not to health) and therefore is allowed to be used in the privacy of your own home of coffee-shops with a permit.
As you can see, Holland is not a country who just lets people do their thing, they do have laws attached.
so being insane is not a danger to your health?
I do agree however that holland is a lot more right-winged than its liberal sterotype that is usual painted of it.
|
|
USAtheist
Hired Hero
|
|
posted October 03, 2005 05:42 PM |
|
Edited By: Conan on 18 Oct 2005
|
Quote:
Ok, as a warm-up let me offer a small selection of noted contradictions by you.
“Just a side note here but I am neither a "rationalist"(in the philosophical sense you once ranted about), nor an "objectivist"(in the Ayn Rand sense).”
Lets see how rationalist you really are. Looked up definitions:
 Rationalism - a system of thought that emphasizes the role of reason in obtaining knowledge, in contrast to empiricism, which emphasizes the role of experience, especially sense perception.
Logic - science dealing with the principles of valid reasoning and argument.
Your quote: “Almost the entire scientific methodology is tied up in logic.”, and that’s beside the fact that you call upon logic all of the time.
Do you not even read the very lines you are quoting?! Look above. See the qualifiers for "rationalist"(in parentheses) and "objectivist"? Notice that I have NEVER, EVER denied being a "rationalist in teh sense that YOU are using the term here.
I said(to repeat): "Just a side note here but I am neither a "rationalist"(in the philosophical sense you once ranted about), nor an "objectivist"(in the Ayn Rand sense)"
Pay close attention to the emboldened portions. Philosophical "rationalists" did not use "reason" or logic. They were mytics and spiritualists. I thought you knew this since you went off on someone else(one of the non-skeptic/spiritualists) in another thread for calling you a rationalist but I now see that you probably did not know this fact.
The rationalists of a few millenia ago were very Platonic in a sense but, ironically enough, they were more irrational than Plato and less logical.
In the modern sense of the word, I am certainly an unapologetic rationalist.
I NEVER call myself an "objectivist" because this term is most commonly associated with Ayn Rand's philsophy(re: Atlas Shrugged) and I am no where NEAR being one of them.
I am a materialist. Just use that term adn we will avoid such confusion in the future. Taking already existant terms and trying to redefine them as you have here just leads to the sort of confusion you are under now.
Quote:
Lets see how non-objectivist you really are.
“Ergo, there IS an objective reality.”
“Objects exist and the behaviors of these objects are attributed to immutable physical laws and from these circumstances, we derive facts of existence.”
THAT is not "objectivist". It is materialist. Objectivism is a curious philophy of atheism plus capitalistic ideals plus various Freudian analyutic, pop-psychology bits all mashed together. Objectivism is atheist in the sense of being AGAINST WORSHIP as a matter of principle. THough most also do not even believe God exists, this is a relatively unimportant question for objectivists.
Quote:
And these two are my favs:
“In general, you are correct that not being proven to exist(yet) does not mean that something definately does NOT exist. No one here is arguing otherwise.”
Confronted by:
”Science takes for granted that the supernatural(including gods) does not exist because science is bound by logic and it is logically fallacious to assume the existence of such things. Therefore, until they are shown to exist, the claims for such are FALSE.”
First of all, taking quotes out of context is a no-no. You want me to comb through your posts taking a sentence or two here aned there, devoid of the context in which the statemetns were made to make a case that you have contradicted yourself? I could easily. it is worthless in debate.
AGAIN, in general, not being proven to not exist, in itself does not mean that something defginately does not exist and STILL no one here is arguing otherwise.
Now what of science? Science is necessarily rooted in materialism. It does not work without this axiomatic position assumed. Part of science's(and materialism itself) axiom is that the supernatural is "FALSE". Period. By definition there can be nothing supernatural for science to study. Science is the methodology of examining all that exists, NATURALLY within reality. Anything "unnatural" or "supernatural" is indistinguihsable from the imaginary and science cannot approach such.
Anything found to exist, regardless of what it is, MUST be scientifically examinable and explainable so ANYTHING found to exist must be natural! Even if someone discovered a vampire...scientists would put it in a cage, call it Homo Nocturnus and classify it as a non-reflective, nocturnal, albino, hemoglobin dependent parasite with allergies to garlic and they would go about studying it to understand how it behaves, mechanistically.
Quote:
And another one to confirm that this wasn’t just a slip-up:
”If they are so ridiculous and counrary to every observation we can make then they cannot be true.”
???
How is THAT a contractiction?! You have quoted out of context.
Quote:
Now, on with the debate points: (trying to avoid pointless discussion as much as possible)
Quote:
Canada has recently been moving towards both legalization of marijuana and gay marriage. This is due to rational thought of most modern Canadians leading them to the conclusion that "blue laws"/prohibition and sexual orientation discrimination are immoral.
That would mean “early” Canadians were incapable of rational thinking.
?!? How do you arrive at THAT?!
If Canada is just now starting to do these things (gay marriage recognition and legalization/decriminalization of marijuana on a limited basis) then the only thing this implies is that Canada has not ALWAYS done so. Obviously gay marriange was not recognised for most of Canada's history until just recently and marijuana was pretty much just as illegal in Canada (medicinal or otherwise) as it is in the U.S. until fairly recently.
And a side note to Canadians here who are unware of what their own country has done in the last ten years or so: For a while back in the late 1990s you could sit out in specially designated areas in B.C.(Vancouver? Can't remember exactly) and smoke, buy and sell weed as if you were in Amsterdam. Since then Canada has repeatedly flirted with decriminalization and legalization and they have ALWAYS been ahead of the US for medical marijuana.
Quote:
Also, what to do with all those rational people from history whose rational thinking never helped them realize that sexual discrimination is immoral. Just the opposite, even the greatest rationalist thinkers in history have never gone so far as to even contemplate this issue.
'
I have no idea what you are talking about here. You have made more bald assertions and refuse to tell us WHICH "rationalists" you are talking about or when these alleged rationalists discriminated against different sexes.
Quote:
This rationalisty theory (comng from someone declaring himself “non-rationalist”) has so many loopholes to cover, so i don’t want to start a lengthy debate with you about yet another topic.
I have no idea what a "rationalisty theory" is and do not WANT to know but the old "Your position has a lot of problems but I just don't want to tell you what they are." bit will not convince anyone of anything
Quote:
Then you go on about animals “having moral systems comparative to early humans”, and the difference between the two constituting in the addition of the rationality element to the former, which is as scientific as a wild guess from someone never dealing with social anthropology.
Are you unawarte of the fact that nearly ALL animals have morals to some degree or other? I cannot tell from your above what your contention is?!
Quote:
Quote:
The bottom line is that you cannot cite any single factor(such as religion) as a be-all-and-end-all cause for morality. And people with no religious influence are just as apt to have and develope moral sensibilities as anyone else.
Never denied that. Just said that religious morality is the strongest, socially.
No, that is NOT what you were saying before but in any case the above position is ambiguous and poorly thought out. How do you evaluate the net "strength" of religion's effect on morality, socially? By what criteria do you make this assessment? If your above (bald) assertion were true then wouldn't we expect to see the non-religious having great difficulty with morality? Would they not be represented more strongly in prison populations and such than they are? Here in the U.S. for example, atheists make up between 10% and 15% of the general population but we number only 0.02% of the prison population.(statistics from the U.S. Federal Bureu of Prisons). Europe is hovering somehwere around 55%-60% atheist and they have a mere fraction of the crime rate of the U.S. and atheists are not any better represented in their prisons either.
But you may have some other means of measuring "morality" or measuring religion's influence vs. non-religious factors to arrive at whatever conclusions you have.
I can't wait for you to get around to letting US in on it...
Quote:
Which i supported with examples, just for you to arbitrarily reject them.
Where did I EVER "arbitrarily reject" ANYTHING? Soundly refuting someone's poor arguments is NOT "arbitrary rejection".
Quote:
As I said, quoting it and writing random words beneath it, doesn’t mean you dealt with the argument.
You can pretend you don't hear/read what I am telling you all you want but it is right there in black and white for the world to see. You are being schooled and don't want to admit it is all. >
Quote:
Quote:
Also, look up the definition of "axiom"(not the mathematical one but the philosophical one) and explain to us how ANYONE either lacks an axiomatic position or does NOT "discount all others".
Someone who lacks an axiomatic position is called skeptic or nihilist (that’s why u r not the self-proclaimed skeptic),
What we now call "skepticism" was founded by Hereclitus in 500 B.C. when he concluded that matter was the cause of conciousness and not the other way around. He realized that blows to the head affected thinking while blows to other body parts did not. From this he concluded that humans thought with a piece of meat and NOT a piece of 'magic'. He concluded that death was an eternal sleep without dreams.
Skeptics most certainly DO have axioms. Everyone has them. You could not have ANY intellectual or philosphical positions without an axiomatic base. You are under a common misconception of skepticism that caricatures the position as "doubting everything" and unable to take any position otehr than "maybe" on any question.
Skeptics vary in their specific ideals just as atheists and spiritualists do but most of us modern skeptics are nothing like your imagine us to be. Read some stuff by James Randi(author of The Faith Healers and several other books), Michael Shermer(head of the Skeptic Society and author of Why People Believe Weird Things, Denying History and How We Believe) Isaac Asimov(his non-fiction stuff like X Stands For Unknown was pure skepticism) and Carl Sagan( Author of The Demon Haunted World, Broca's Brain and host and author of Cosmos.
In fact it was Carl Sagan who first came right out and stated that we do NOT live in an "anything is possible" reality because if we DID then we could not know or understand ANYTHING.
Quote:
and someone who doesn’t discount all the other axioms, wouldn’t go on forums ridiculing people for their believes (” If they are so ridiculous and countrary to every observation we can make ”) and persuading them that they’re wrong to believe so.
Go read what you have written to others here. I attack arguments, not people and if I misunderstand someone else's position, I will apologise without hesitation for the misunderstanding whereas you just repeat the same misunderstandings.
Quote:
Quote:
The very nature of axiomatic positions such as materialism and idealism is that we MUST choose ONE and assume it is 100% TRUE in order to get on with the learning/understanding our reality.
Really, we do? Good then, we should urgently implement mass education program to school people who have never heard or thought of either before and indoctrinate one of these two axiomatic positions, if any hope of these people (and kids) of ever learning smth new is to remain.
No one here said anything about starting some massive religious indoctrination of "school people"!?! That is BEYOND hyperbole!
Quote:
” Second, it’s not “logically fallacious” to assume the existence of gods (which logical law does it break?),”
Quote:
It IS logically fallacious because there is nothing to infer the existence of supernatural gods.
Logically fallacious means there has to be some logical inconsistency. There isnt.
There IS logical inconsistency when you say " 'X' exists but 'X' cannot be known to exist because 'X' does not display any of the characteristics of existent things.".
That is like saying "The ball is a sphere but it has no geometric shape.".
Quote:
Second, I said “assume”, not “prove”. In logic likewise:
I’m saying: “It’s not logically falicious to assume that claim p is truth, if we know nothing about p”. i.e. If we know nothing about claim p, p can be either TRUE or FALSE.
Wrong. If we know NOTHING about 'p' then we can say nothing about 'p'. But if someone tells me that 'p' is both 'A' and 'Not A', then I can say that 'P' does not exist adn is nonsense by law of non-contradiction.
Things which have no inherent logical contradictions but still no good evidence in support I just lack belief in or characterise as being to some degree or other, "unlikely". Extraordinary claims which lack extraordinary evidence are impossible until such time as the extraordinary evidence is provided(so far it has not happened in recorded history).
In other words, I hold that it is IMPOSSIBLE that anyone will EVER or CAN ever find any of the "extraordinary evidence" for these various claims, from Psi top auras to gods but I will gladly say that I was wrong if someone ever DOES cough up such evidence.
Quote:
You’re saying: Claim p is “logically fallicious to be TRUE, because you cant infer it’s truthfulness”. i.e. Claim p is FALSE, because you cant prove its TRUE.
Wrong. I have never held any such position. I am saying that claim 'p' is false when claim 'p' is logically contradictory.
Quote:
Quote:
I do NOT, however, say that extraterrestrials themselves are impossible. These are NOT "extraordinary claims".
Yes, we do see extraterrestrials ordinarily when we go to the supermarket and such. (ur quote:”Therefore, until they are shown to exist, the claims for such are FALSE.”)
Extraterrestrials ARE false at this time and it is my conviction that there are no other species in the universe with intelligence and technology comparable to or greater than humanity's but this is not an "extraordinary claim". IF such extraterrestrials existed, there is no way they could have reached US so that we would know about them.
The claim itself is NOT logically contradictory and also NOT "extraordinary" because the claim does not violate any laws of physics or anything. It is, at worst, an unfalsifiable hypothesis.
"God" is different than aliens because not only does God completely lack ANY evidence but his existence would cause the whole of our scientific understanding to have to be thrown out adn on top of THAT, the claim is (usually) logically contradictory.
Quote:
So, the claim that they exist is false, yes?
Yes.
Quote:
But you also just said that they are possible.
I said the claim ITSELF is not IMPOSSIBLE, logically. Aliens existing are not on par with a "round square" or some such nonsense. They are closer to the "giant anaconda" claims. There are physical and biological(re: scientific) reasons that would prohibit them existing HERE(i.e. visiting our planet) but the claim that aliens might exist in some other solar system in some other galaxy is not impossible(I just see no reason to think it is true).
(Various repeated errors have been snipped. I cannot be bothered to keep repeating myself over and over to deal with the same misunderstandings and logical fallacies, over and over.)
Quote:
Quote:
If it exists only through YOUR conscious mind and senses, but not objectively so for everyone else, regardless of what you believe/dream up, then why is there any concurrence of observation and experience? Why do we walk AROUND the same trees even though I do not use YOUR mind or YOUR senses? Why can't you walk THROUGH the brick walls that only exist in MY conscious mind or through MY senses?
For me, you also exist through my senses and consciousness only.
SO you are a solopsist then?!? LOL! Everything is just a figment of YOUR imagination? And here you are having a conversation with an imaginary person?!
Whatever floats your boat, but I will not be entertaining such ideas.
Quote:
If I had both our perspectives that could be a stronger argument that the world is indeed objective, but i don’t.
Your perspecitve is subjective, just as MINE is(to an extent at least) but reality is quite objective. That is why it is persistent across different people's subjective perceptions and experiences.
Of course this will not compell a solopsist but there is NO compelling THAT crowd. They/you LIVE by the unfalsifiable idea.
Quote:
Quote:
If your mind is creating matter then there is no reason why your senses would have developed at all. What need is there for eyes and ears if the things they percieve are being conjured by the mind? Saying that "X exists because I see it." is like saying that "I threw the baseball because he caught it.". Nonsense all around.
My mind isnt certainly creating matter. That’s a typically objectivist assumption to think that the mind creates the world and destroys it, depending on whether one looks at smth or not. My mind simply detects something, which I have no way to know what it really is, only get ideas, which are necessarily subjective. In this sense, I do not claim the objective world doesn’t exist, but the only thing I can be sure of is its subjective reflection in my mind.
But you CAN know things, objectively, about the world...through concurrent observation. When two strangers pass by each other adn each of them duck under a low hanging tree branch it is obviously because that branch exists, regardless of subjective assessmetn of it's appeal. Both strangers may well have different appreciations of the branch or recall different details but the position, shape and basic, fundemental description will match. Same goes for walking around brick walls. People do this because the brick wall exists...objectively. IF you aknowledge this then you are a materialist in idealist clothing.
Quote:
Really saddens me at the end to see that you havent even understood my position. What i’m saying is that nothing is objectively certain. Of course, i’m certain in my own perceptions.
Things ARE objectively certain regardless of whether YOU are aware of these certainties or not. What YOU are actually saying is that perceptions are never certain which is false because you would have to doubt the perceptions which lead you to this conclusion in order to be consistent.
I'm Done here unless you've got something new. Too busy lately to keep going with you.
____________
"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." - Voltaire
|
|
Conan
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted October 03, 2005 07:17 PM |
|
Edited By: Conan on 3 Oct 2005
|
people, let's not get carried away.
I sense this debate is getting heated up, which is good in itself, but to a certain degree.
I will not warn anyone as of yet, but here are some examples on both sides of unacceptible dialog:
- Without these two crucial nut points, ur case looks like a castrated penis, lengthy and cocky, but lost all its sense.
and
- Look above their kiddo [...] You just may have the poorest reading comprehension and debate skills I have ever encountered.
I feel these to example contribute very poorly to this debate, and could be done without. I could of cited many more examples on both sides.
When we discuss in such a manner, it's inevitable the other will react negatively. I can understand why you both see things in a different light, and confrontation is good. Qualifying the other as kiddo or qualifying the other's arguments as cocky and devoid of sense is not.
Simply put, let's keep this civilized. I know you both are, so please act like it. Let's prevent worse from happening and let's keep this on a nicer tone.
Thank you.
____________
Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward, you will service.... us. - Star Trek TNG
|
|
USAtheist
Hired Hero
|
|
posted October 04, 2005 12:17 AM |
|
|
I apologise Conan but When someone lets loose a torrent of personal attacks and insults at me, I think I am entitled to call them on whatever shortcomings they display.
But I will reel it in and/or ignore him in the future.
____________
"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." - Voltaire
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted October 06, 2005 02:33 AM |
|
Edited By: Conan on 18 Oct 2005
|
Be as angry as you can be, but don’t even think about personal attacks without knowing nothing about me. And there’s been quite a range of them (kiddo, you have the poorest reading comprehension and debate skills, junior, inept, little guy, six year old, poor grasp of logic, poorly educated mess of a child), coming from you. Anyway, you did provide me with some amusement, watching you losing your temper. People usually do that when they don’t know how to respond, so they just repeat the old said stuff deliberately choosing to see past the arguments presented, in ur case strengthened by picking on silly spelling mistakes and quoting books.
It was clear since the beginning that you’re largely unfamiliar with science/physics, but I thought at least you know more about philosophy. That is, until I read the explanations about rationalism, objectivism and skepticism that you just gave. I’m sorry to say i stand corrected here and if I knew better of u i wouldn’t have wasted my time here.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Conan
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted October 06, 2005 03:13 AM |
|
Edited By: Conan on 5 Oct 2005
|
Svarog, this is a formal warning.
The "pills" comment, "pretending to be mature" and "showing smart" comments are out of line.
USAtheist accepted to stop the name-calling, but you did not.
Here is how I do things:
1) nice friendly warning.
2) formal warning.
3) penalty.
Quote:
Messages which contain: racism, sexism, insults and any other illegal abuse of an individual's rights will be removed. Such abuse will NOT BE TOLERATED. [...] Insults are not allowed at Heroes Community. Insult is any remark that undermines the persona of another member. Whether censored or not, posting insults will attract a warning and then a penalty.
____________
Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward, you will service.... us. - Star Trek TNG
|
|
Shiva
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted October 06, 2005 08:18 PM |
|
|
There ya go...it's not the religions that are to blame,
but the people who wrongly interpret them. Its not
atheism that is to blame, but the narrow minded people
who promote it. Its not words that are to blame, but
those who pick at things semantically with out any
regard for who the person is that is saying it. There is
no blame for any religion, political system, or
philosophy,the fault lies with those people who have adopted and corrupted any way of thought to suit their
own ignorant ends.
____________
|
|
Conan
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted October 06, 2005 09:41 PM |
|
Edited By: Conan on 6 Oct 2005
|
Quote:
There is
no blame for any religion, political system, or
philosophy,the fault lies with those people who have adopted and corrupted any way of thought to suit their
own ignorant ends.
Well, I'm sure I could find something to blame on the political system called "tyranny" or "Anarchy" 
You do have a point, but I also think that some political systems are fundamentally flawed and oppresive. I would not go as far as saying the same for a religion though. I agree that one can turn religion into whatever he/she wants to "beleive".
But political systems, unlike religions, have been studied and sometimes named after they existed. That means that while a person was at the head of a government, they did something to create a political system. And if someone was to recreate that system; ie following it's rules, it would be following guidelines layed down before. So in the end, they would not be currupted to suit themselfs, they'd be following party and idiology lines.
____________
Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward, you will service.... us. - Star Trek TNG
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted October 06, 2005 10:09 PM |
|
|
Quote:
.... Its not atheism that is to blame, but the narrow minded people who promote it....
Hmmm...u really think atheists are narrow minded people?
Isn´t that way of thinking also "narrow minded"...
Perhaps you should replace "narrow minded" with "realistic orientated"...at least that would be what i would call myself though...
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
Shiva
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted October 06, 2005 10:43 PM |
|
Edited By: Shiva on 6 Oct 2005
|
Quote:
Hmmm...u really think atheists are narrow minded people?
Isn´t that way of thinking also "narrow minded"...
Perhaps you should replace "narrow minded" with "realistic orientated"...at least that would be what i would call myself though...
Angelito, you see by saying you are realistic oriented makes those who think otherwise as unrealistic..where as I
think what ever you believe in or not is ok, the key is
respect for what others wish to think.
Conan, as far as anarchy being "bad", if people were truly
"good", they could exist without the rule of law because
each person would always act properly without the threat of punishment to deter them. The fact is, we are not,
so a code of law is neccessary to hold people in line.
____________
|
|
Conan
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
posted October 06, 2005 10:48 PM |
|
|
good point about Anarchy Shiva, I never saw it that way before. Know that you mention it, it's true.
So... how about tyranny? Is that not a fundamentally flawed system?
____________
Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward, you will service.... us. - Star Trek TNG
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted October 06, 2005 10:48 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Angelito, you see by saying you are realistic oriented makes those who think otherwise as unrealistic..
True, but that is not meant to be negative (by me). Just the meaning of the word itself. Real and unreal. As long as i can´t see, feel, hear or recognize it in anyway else than with my mind, i call that unrealistic
Quote:
....where as I think what ever you believe in or not is ok, the key is respect for what others wish to think.
That i have to underline. As long as your "believing" doesn´t hurt others rights / feelings, i´m fine with all ways of thinking / living.
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
Shiva
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted October 06, 2005 10:53 PM |
|
|
A really flawed system results from really flawed people.
Tyranny has a really flawed, egomaniac at its head.Since
Democracy was produced by people with higher ideals, it
is the best of systems, and is less flawed than the rest
____________
|
|
Conan
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted October 06, 2005 10:56 PM |
|
|
but would you not say that Tyranny, as a system is flawed no matter who is at it's head? I think in this case we can see that this system is problematic and attracts problematic people, not the other way around.
Although in the past, I agree that Tyranny was made by a Tyrant, a person. In the past, a flawed person created a flawed system, but now that the person is gone and only the system remains, is that system not problematic?
____________
Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward, you will service.... us. - Star Trek TNG
|
|
Shiva
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted October 06, 2005 11:05 PM |
|
Edited By: Shiva on 6 Oct 2005
|
@Angelito, I know that to be "realistic" to most folks
means to accept only what the eyes, ears etc offer to the
mind. I guess I define realistic as being open to even
what I can't see or understand at this moment. I'm sure
our friend USAtheist would fly into that one, but life
is an ever expanding field of actual and potential to me.
So I have an open mind to more than what I see and understand right now.
@Conan, systems are made by people. There would be
no tyranny without a tyrant to create it. An enlightened
leader would never be part of a tyranical system.
____________
|
|
ConanAmra
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted October 07, 2005 07:28 AM |
|
|
Shiva you have really good remarks ,
do you think that religions exists only because some of the people wanted to have power so they started worshipping some god so they have more and more followers who can provide them with goods and money and so ..
I think that must be something on it,many people are only searching in they lifes what are they and where they belong.I think that everyone is trying to gind his own identification,hes finding himself.
So that why are some people joining this religion or this sect or some gang,its because they are only trying to belong somewhere?
|
| |
|
|
